Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Trump real estate project in Russia

Chomsky · Dec 6, 2018

Exactice said:
HMMM! Interesting take! Another point of expansion of my thoughts. ABSOLUTELY FAIR Statement.

With that.. kowtows to Putin.... matter of reception of optics... surely has that view at some points...

He made a dumbass comment about the intelligence community. Specific to the summit he did correct himself. HE is a dumbass with diarrhea mouth though (NOT a defense) But to say is disavowed.....Im sure he has faith in it..... just shoots of at the mouth.

Changed the GOP platform this is a good one.... Trump WAS a Democrat for a long time and then became a Republican. He is NOT a Jim Jordan or a Rand Paul for sure. he is NOT a Hard-line Pence conservative thats for sure. I am NOT quite sure where I stand on this one just yet..... But an agreeable point!

ZTE is a weird one.... I do need to do my research deeper I know this was a highly contentious point the reversal of the ban. Im going to make an uneducated statement and do a little google. BUT I wonder if it was one of those risk vs rewards situation I.E. lesser of 2 evils. as I understand if we collapsed ZTE, it would had major economic repercussions? Kinda like the Saudi prince situation... right now.... What are we to do. Condemn Saudi Arabia for killing their own citizen... and take the chance of whatever happens in the middle east. or Suck it up and move on? Anyway I thought during that period this was the China Trade showdown as well at it was intended to have some goodwill for MORE negotiations (which of course failed) But the table is still open.

Anyways. AGAIN I cannot disagree with your feelings or sentiments, BUT I can accept them respect them and Understand where YOU are coming from.

With that. while I am ONLY one.... Trump voter... I hope you have a little insight to what I am and a person like me is thinking. NOT completely bias or a TRUMP drum beater... but trying to see the policies he wanted to put in place?

Thanks for the post and your take, Exactice.

Exactice · Dec 6, 2018

iguanaman said:
You do know the Justice Dept. is following guidelines that say that a sitting President may not be indicted. Are you of the notion that this means a President can't break the law? No one is above the law and it simply means the President must be removed from office before he is charged. Trump has broken the law multiple times and when I say he must be impeached it is so he may be prosecuted for his crimes. I also explained why those FBI agents were forced out and no bias or malfeasance of duty was ever proved for any of them. They were forced out to discredit the investigation and to protect Trump and his cabal. Nothing more.
Sooner or later you will need to ask yourself....do I like Trump so much that I don't care if he is a criminal intent on taking over the Justice Dept. to prosecute his enemies, or do I value our system of govt. and the pursuit of truth by the rule of law more? It really is that simple.

[/B]
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25384412/president-trump-roger-stone-tweet-obstruction-of-justice/

Fair point, No sitting President can be indicted. Fine..... now Here is the thing, Charges or concerns MUST be big enough to impeach. Currently context and interpretation are the only RIGHT Now that says impeach. BUT not actual filings YET, WE KNOW nothing of what Mueller is intending YET. I will say it again. I WILL accept any findings. I WANT the TRUTH I WANT JUSTICE. IF Trump is GUILTY then he SHOULD be impeached and the tried for Crimes.

BUT to say he needs to be IMPEACHED and he is guilty before Mueller even publishes his findings? That is dealing in an absolutely that I cannot agree with. I DO NOT know all the facts. Do you KNOW for a fact that Mueller will recommend impeachment because X crime was Committed? Do you know this factually? You do NOT. That is why its all currently Opinions.

As I stated above that I will accept if Mueller does implicate the President. WILL YOU accept if Mueller FINDS NO Crimes? Yes or NO.

Finally CONDUCT. THE OPR and Sessions FIRED Strozk. All those involved through the "Office of Professional Responsibilities" Indicated WITHIN the FBI that these actions taking by those FIRED warranted firing. IT was not to discredit the investigation they DID this themselves. The President did NOT fire any of them.... OPR and Sessions did.

No Bias or Malfeasance, My "Opinion" is their conduct was not conducive of a fair minded investigation.

Do I have to list the talking points to edify my opinion? As utimately, Comey Fired, McCabe, Fired, Strozk Demoted then Fired. Ohr fired, Page demoted and then quit. If none of the fires were warranted, they could file EPLI suites against the FBI an wrongful terminations suits...oh McCabe did and then withdrew.....OPR deemed their conduct in becoming and warranted their removal.

Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Trump real estate project in Russia

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Exactice

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency