Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Really? He could say he was ordered by the then AG to make a statement and now with a "Just" AG he is free to now move forward.

The lemmings would have eaten that up.


But Alas, Trump finally did it! He let his smart mouth take him out of the fire and right into the frying pan.

Don't get caught up with the syntactics. He did give classified Intel to the Russians. Plain and simple.

So yeah, it's not illegal because he is president. But Pot meet the fucking kettle.

("Really? He could say he was ordered by the then AG to make a statement and now with a "Just" AG he is free to now move forward. ")

So you suggest that Comey would have came forward and say AG Lynch told him to lie, and now that she is gone he is reversing his position and recommends charges be brought? Really?

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by grean

The Post's story, if it weren't true, would be forced to write a retraction. Don't see that yet. That means regardless of the white house claims that state the story, "as reported" ,is false, it in fact is TRUE!

Thank you, Mr Stephanopulos.....uhhhh, Mr Grean.

Well then...that sinks it then, dontcha think, kids? Since that retraction has NOT been written, then it's ALL TRUE. After all, we are talking about that pinnacle of media truth, honor, and righteous, the Light of all Light: The Washington Post....they never print anything that's untrue.

Impeachment proceedings MUST begin immediately. Maybe right after lunch today....hmmm?

The King is Dead. Long Live the King.

However.....should that retraction ever get written...look for it at the bottom of page 27; right next to the ad promoting a treatment for toe fungus.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Note goidolboy doesn't post the actual statutes. Only bullshit generalities that purport to dumsrize the statutes. That's not how criminal prosecutions, or criminal defense works. I've done both.

I assumed that everyone had the ability to google the statutes and gain any relevant information they cared to. You can google can't you?

Can you explain how Hillery removed classified material from a secure .gov location as required by law, to a private unsecured server in her home, that she had not disclosed to the government on accident without intent?

She then went on to forward classified material from her unsecure private server to other people with no security clearance on their unsecured equipment. Who would think giving your house keeper the ability to access classified material is a good idea?

Then while this information was under a Federal subpoena, she deleted tens of thousands of emails and had the server wiped clean to keep them from recovering any information.

And your position is that she is innocent because she was too ignorant to know any better after 30 years in politics, 8 as first lady and 4 as SOS? And all of this after mandatory training on handling classified material.

Your legal defense in court would be that she really is that stupid and incompetent so she is not guilty , but she is running for president?

[rexdutchman]

The General stated today FALSE story , Again the Media can't be trusted

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The General stated today FALSE story , Again the Media can't be trusted

I read that Trump told the Russians how to get two scoops of ice cream instead of one like everyone else as reported in the news.

[grean]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The General stated today FALSE story , Again the Media can't be trusted

Trump, today is defending the fact that he gave info to Russia.

The guy is a complete dumbshit!

The Post would be forced to write a retraction if the story was false. That hasn't happened. Until it does, I don't care what any general says.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

I assumed that everyone had the ability to google the statutes and gain any relevant information they cared to. You can google can't you?

Never hiring a lawyer again! I can just Google the law.

"Your Honor, I don't care what the plantiff''s attorney says, I Googled it so obviously I know more about it than him. Dumbshit wasted money on law school....moran"

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by grean

The Post would be forced to write a retraction if the story was false. That hasn't happened. Until it does, I don't care what any general says.

Why should you care what (both parties have agreed is one of the most honorable, trusted military personnel in U.S. history) National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster would have to say? If Trump lies, then McMaster obviously is guilty (of lying, as well) by association...right? I smell treason. I smell more Watergate.

After all, Bezos has hired NOTHING BUT the finest, most upstanding, honest journalists (void of ANY political agenda what-so-ever) we've seen in modern times, right? None of those writers at WaPo have a political axe to grind....they're all about Truth, Honor and the American Way.

Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, grean. Had this same story played out (with the closet muzzie still in office) Wolf Blitzer would be praising Barry for his understanding of the world we live in today and demand he be awarded a second Nobel Prize...immediately.

[TexTushHog]

The Orange Haired Baboon himself basically admitted it. It was on Twitter. It must be true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/?icid=hjx004

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Never hiring a lawyer again! I can just Google the law.

"Your Honor, I don't care what the plantiff''s attorney says, I Googled it so obviously I know more about it than him. Dumbshit wasted money on law school....moran"

LMAO, I didn't realize commenting on a post on a Hooker board required me to hire a attorney to explain the law to you. But coming from someone who suggests that Comey could come out and reverse his position by claiming AG Lynch told him to lie to congress I really can't say I'm surprised.



("Originally Posted by grean
Really? He could say he was ordered by the then AG to make a statement and now with a "Just" AG he is free to now move forward")

[futbolhead]

Die Hard Republicans: why are we still talking about Hillary? She may/may not be guilty of a crime. If she is, sue... if not, don't sue, nobody really cares.

Reagan didn't constantly bring up Carter. Bush41 didn't whine about Reagan, Clinton didn't whine about Bush41, etc.. Trump is a different cat, he acts like an 8yr old. Watch interviews of him when he was in his 40's, he was sharp, insightful and articulate. Compare that to his present demeanor and he is none of that. Let's face it, we have a president now who is losing a battle with age and his mind is mostly gone now.

[rexdutchman]

That's funny as shit the POST forced to write a retraction if the story was false. ( they were just misunderstood!)

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

LMAO, I didn't realize commenting on a post on a Hooker board required me to hire a attorney to explain the law to you. But coming from someone who suggests that Comey could come out and reverse his position by claiming AG Lynch told him to lie to congress I really can't say I'm surprised.



("Originally Posted by grean
Really? He could say he was ordered by the then AG to make a statement and now with a "Just" AG he is free to now move forward")

Didn't suggest that he would need to lie. If there was proof that Clinton broke any of the laws you listed, aND he was ordered by Lynch to squelch the charges instead, and this would assume she had some power to silence him, I said that he could now come foward.

I was merely posing a possible explanation to entertain your ridiculous notion that she had broken any of those laws, but some how completely avoided any and all prosecution. I completely agree my explanation is ridiculous as your claim. It would have to be to make any sense.

The truth is simply that no charges were brought because no one could find sufficient evidence that she did break the law.

[grean]

Originally Posted by grean

Didn't suggest that he would need to lie. If there was proof that Clinton broke any of the laws you listed, aND he was ordered by Lynch to squelch the charges instead, and this would assume she had some power to silence him, I said that he could now come foward.

I was merely posing a possible explanation to entertain your ridiculous notion that she had broken any of those laws, but some how completely avoided any and all prosecution. I completely agree my explanation is ridiculous as your claim. It would have to be to make any sense.

The truth is simply that no charges were brought because no one could find sufficient evidence that she did break the law.

I may agree that her careless judgement may disqualify her from the presidency.

Donald for sure disqualifies his judgement every day especially yesterday.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Didn't suggest that he would need to lie. If there was proof that Clinton broke any of the laws you listed, aND he was ordered by Lynch to squelch the charges instead, and this would assume she had some power to silence him, I said that he could now come foward.

I was merely posing a possible explanation to entertain your ridiculous notion that she had broken any of those laws, but some how completely avoided any and all prosecution. I completely agree my explanation is ridiculous as your claim. It would have to be to make any sense.

The truth is simply that no charges were brought because no one could find sufficient evidence that she did break the law.

You are entitled to your opinion, however I, and many others disagree.

("The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.")
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hil...broke-the-law/

("An obvious answer lies in the concept of equal justice under the law and that none of us is above the law. But I believe a more important consideration is the fact that more than 64 million voters were willing to have Hillary Clinton as their president anyway. I largely attribute this sad reality to a corrupt and dishonest news media that has become little more than the propaganda machine of the Democratic Party. Not only would prosecuting Clinton serve to re-establish our nation’s concept of justice, it could also serve as an opportunity to prosecute and indict a news media that nearly facilitated a criminal becoming our nation’s next president.")
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/25...r-her-e-mails/