• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff announces the scope of his investigations

Upon what authority, if not the mechanisms of equal justice under the law, should he be removed? I understand that many conservatives and liberals alike tend to feel entitled to their torch and pitchfork "justice" but that is a form of corruption in itself. That demand for instant gratification is also a contradiction to justice.

Yes, we firmly believe that Trump is dirty as the day is long but it's not as simple as stamping our feet until he's removed. The process is being hampered by a percentage of Americans who would tolerate ANY amount of ethical divergence from him and have spent much energy excusing and enabling him. The Republican congress, for instance, has run shameless interference for two years.

It's better that this thing is done slow but done right. Trump should have his day in court. The only question is whether this disagreement about whether a president can or should be removed for compromising the very principles upon which justice itself depends will divide us indefinitely. In truth, the only thing that's kept him in office this long is the foot dragging of conservatives who can't deny the obviousness of Trump's reckless disregard for the law but also can't abide having him replaced by even a decent liberal.

It is the political religion of the right that we are up against and that prevents justice being done.

Baloney!

The intent of the Mueller "investigation" was to inhibit the Trump presidency as much as possible while providing a focal point for Democrats and establishment GOP candidates to run against. The "investigation" is pure politics and to use the laws of this nation to effect it is akin to tactics used in banana republics.

If this "investigation" has exposed one thing it's the shallowness and lack of real conviction our elected official have. It's showed the majority of national politicians to be "style over substance" and that they are willing to go to any length to preserve their positions...even if those lengths mean abusing the laws of this country.

Thje Democrats and NeverTrumpers have done EXACTLY to Trump what they told us all Republicans would do to Obama. The difference is that Republicans never went after Obama like this.
 
Baloney!

The intent of the Mueller "investigation" was to inhibit the Trump presidency as much as possible while providing a focal point for Democrats and establishment GOP candidates to run against. The "investigation" is pure politics and to use the laws of this nation to effect it is akin to tactics used in banana republics.

If this "investigation" has exposed one thing it's the shallowness and lack of real conviction our elected official have. It's showed the majority of national politicians to be "style over substance" and that they are willing to go to any length to preserve their positions...even if those lengths mean abusing the laws of this country.

Thje Democrats and NeverTrumpers have done EXACTLY to Trump what they told us all Republicans would do to Obama. The difference is that Republicans never went after Obama like this.

No, it is not. You are deep into conspiracy nuttery with that claim

Funny how you cry about innocence until proven guilty while you convict a republican prosecutor who was appointed by a republican AAG, who was appointed by a republican president

It just goes to show how unprincipled your arguments are. So unprincipled that even you cannot adhere to them when inconvenient.
 
The real question here is why do you continually block out the fact there have been multiple crimes committed by multiple people inside the Trump campaign? Would you have been so blind if it was Barack Obama whose campaign manager and others in his campaign had admitted to crimes and been sentenced for those crimes? Would you somehow justify that in the same way you're trying to justify the the illegal actions committed by these men?

Let's start with George Papadopoulos who admitted that he discussed his Russia contacts with top campaign officials, including a possible meeting between candidate Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. That alone is COLLUSION and CONSPIRACY!

Then there's the Paul Manafort indictment. The FBI exposed a web of illicit business dealings between the former campaign chairman and pro-Russian Ukrainian officials that stretched back years. Mueller also indicted Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime business partner. Manafort was eventually convicted on eight counts of tax and bank fraud, and later pleaded guilty to committing a conspiracy against the United States and a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Then there's Michael Flynn whose guilty plea that he lied to federal investigators about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition about sanctions President Obama had just imposed on Russia for its interference in the 2016 elections and entered a plea deal with Mueller. Michael Flynn would have had many more indictments if he hadn't pleaded guilty and cooperating with Mueller.

There's so much evidence of collusion with Russia. Now there's even more coming out about Trump and his buddies Mohammed bin Salman and David Pecker that's going to sting really bad and Mueller's investigation has nothing to do with this new one by the SDNY.

Why do you shield a traitor? Why do you defend what is possibly the greatest threat and danger to this country since our country began? WHY?

Ok:
1. Papadapoulous-- he was not convicted for talking to the professor or relating to the campaign that which the professor claimed to have. He was convicted for lying to the FBI about his discussions with those Russians.
Furthermore, Mueller agreed that the campaign was not interested in that which PapaD said he had. Kind of tough to have a conspiracy without conspirators.
And of course, PapaD was not convicted for his role in a conspiracy.

2. Manafort-- his convictions have nothing to do with his role in any conspiracy between Trump & Co. and Russia. Nor was he indicted for such conspiracy.

3. Flynn-- ditto as above.
 
Ok:
1. Papadapoulous-- he was not convicted for talking to the professor or relating to the campaign that which the professor claimed to have. He was convicted for lying to the FBI about his discussions with those Russians.
Furthermore, Mueller agreed that the campaign was not interested in that which PapaD said he had. Kind of tough to have a conspiracy without conspirators.
And of course, PapaD was not convicted for his role in a conspiracy.

2. Manafort-- his convictions have nothing to do with his role in any conspiracy between Trump & Co. and Russia. Nor was he indicted for such conspiracy.

3. Flynn-- ditto as above.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that crimes should not be prosecuted if they do not involve working with the russians to interfere with our elections?
 
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that crimes should not be prosecuted if they do not involve working with the russians to interfere with our elections?

I am pointing out that the claims being made that there is "so much evidence" of collusion, is not supported by the facts.
 
I am pointing out that the claims being made that there is "so much evidence" of collusion, is not supported by the facts.


The legal issues of the team Trump picked and whether Trump colluded with them will play out. The problem with Trump aside from collusion is that he placed criminals in high level government positions. Not being able to connect Trump legally to his team is only a hopeful dream of his supporters, when in reality he is already guilty of terrible hiring practices and the management of his team.

A prophetic quote from a man who gave himself an A+ for his leadership:

"If you say who gets fired it always has to be the top, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top, and the President is the leader, and he has to get everybody in the room and he's got to lead".

Trump likes to coin himself as a great businessman, so here is a comparison with a businessman consequence:
If a CEO had this many managers that he or she hired involved in illegal activities, then I believe the board of directors would be removing that CEO to save the company.
The U.S. citizen is the board of directors and it's time for this incompetent manager to be removed.
 
Ok:
1. Papadapoulous-- he was not convicted for talking to the professor or relating to the campaign that which the professor claimed to have. He was convicted for lying to the FBI about his discussions with those Russians.
Furthermore, Mueller agreed that the campaign was not interested in that which PapaD said he had. Kind of tough to have a conspiracy without conspirators.
And of course, PapaD was not convicted for his role in a conspiracy.

2. Manafort-- his convictions have nothing to do with his role in any conspiracy between Trump & Co. and Russia. Nor was he indicted for such conspiracy.

3. Flynn-- ditto as above.

my-reaction-as-i-finished-my-last-exam-122934-2.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom