• 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: Trump may face ‘real prospect of jail time’

And that is how it is supposed to work here as well...However, at this moment it looks as though we have/had/still have some rouge agents of our government that are trying to overturn the will of our people and unseat a duly elected President...And not just unseat him, but ruin him, his family, and anyone who was behind him in winning the election...It really is sad.

You mean like the republicans investigated the Clinton's for years and impeached him for lying about cheating on his wife?

The government is not overturning the will of the people (especially as more people voted for the other candidate), it is investigating highly credible evidence of the Russian government interfering in the US elections thus circumventing the will of the people by fake news and other illegal tactics. You mean that investigation which has lead to several arrest, prosecutions, imprisonments, etc. etc. etc.?

You know what is really sad? The idiotic "they are trying to ruin him" shtick by the republicans. They had no issue doing it to Obama (holding dozens of votes against Obamacare, spending millions on wild goose chases against Hillary over Benghazi and her email server, holding a full campaign to claim Obama was a foreigner who did not deserve to be president, etc. etc.).

That people who were in Trump's campaign who were untrustworthy and committing crimes is not the fault of the prosecutor. This constant whinefest about the special prosecutor is that which is really sad. The rule of law used to mean something to republicans until Trump came along. It is not sad that people are being investigation, it is sad that Trump aligned him with people who broke the law, who messed with the election, who held numerous meetings with Russians and then lied about them.

This is an investigation, pure and simple. It only ruins people who did something wrong and Trump has been balancing on the border between what was barely legal and illegal and as a candidate he has been doing the same. Sadly he hired people for his campaign with the same ambivalent attitude to staying on the right side of the law. His lawyer was caught committing crimes, his campaign chief was caught committing crimes, his general who was one of the "Lock her up" chant masters lied to the FBI and is standing trial, etc. etc. etc.

If you surround yourself with shady characters and you are yourself a bit on the shady side, then you will get investigated if it is found that Russia interfered with the US election and the government investigates this. And also, ruin him? That still needs to be seen because his reputation is already that of a cheat, thief and crook to begin with and that was all before this election got started.

And as he was already a confidence trickster/crooked businessman, it is also logical that the US government is being vigilant about possible self enrichment and pay for play things.
 
Ok. So you openly admit that you have no evidence.


That response makes no rational sense as a reply to the post you reproduced from me you pretended to be replying to since post referred to - 42 - had the verifiable evidence for my statement about Trump and the Russians.
 
That response makes no rational sense as a reply to the post you reproduced from me you pretended to be replying to since post referred to - 42 - had the verifiable evidence for my statement about Trump and the Russians.

Accusations are not evidence.

So you openly admit that you have no evidence.
 
see post 252 and this time really try to both read it and comprehend it.

Indirect reference. Referring to a post that refers to a post is going to be ignored.

You have openly admitted you have no evidence. Accusations are not evidence.
 
Indirect reference. Referring to a post that refers to a post is going to be ignored.

You have openly admitted you have no evidence. Accusations are not evidence.

That post makes no sense on any rational level since my post 42 had the evidence requested.
 
Accusations are not evidence.
So you openly admit that you have no evidence.

That post makes no sense on any rational level since my post 42 had the evidence requested.
 
Accusations are not evidence.
So you openly admit that you have no evidence.

see post 42 for the evidence that my statement was factually correct.

Why do you keep saying the same thing that you have been corrected on time after time after time after time after time after time?
 
Back
Top Bottom