Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[goodolboy]

Comey should have been fired on day one, https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

[wildcat]

If Hillary would have won, he would have.

Wildcat

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Comey should have been fired on day one, https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

Obama should have fired him when Comey threw SOP out the window and began saying anything one way or the other about even the existence of any investigation.

However, he did not because the optics would be horrible. It would be said that he fired comey in an attempt to protect Clinton.

Obama could not. Trump on day one could have and should have fired Comey, and installed someone like Rod Rosenstein who had almost unanimous bipartisan support as director.

Instead.....



Trump ,with his loud mouth, showered Comey with praise after Comey's presser, and even more so after he reopened it a week before the election. Then 4 months later he fired him for the exact reasons he gave him praise for previously. That is what makes it look so bad. Now people think it's because he is trying to hide something.

The day after he meets the Russian Ambassador with ONLY RUSSIAN PRESS IN THE WHITE HOUSE....What The Fuck??No American press, not even Fox are allowed in.

[TexTushHog]

If Trump had fired Comey on day one, and hadn't praised him in the e,ection campaign, and in the lame duck period, it wouldn't have been that controversial. But once he missed that chance, and had his lackeys go out and lie about why he did it, it's all FUBAR. The only way he c;use credibly fire Comey now that he and dozens of his henchmen are in the FBI's crosshairs is to ask for an independent counsel at the same time.

Rexdutchman, as for firing him because his appointees said to, that was a weak story in the first place. Now, it's a proven lie now that we know the AG and Deputy AG was called in by Herr Gropenfurrer and told to gin up a reason to fire him; and because the Orange Haired Baboon himself has said he was going to fire him no matter what the recommendation was. These dumbasses could keep the truth straight, even if they decided to stick to it. There's no way in hell they can manage lies of this complexity.

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by grean

Now people think it's because he is trying to hide something.

Oh, no, no, no.....not people. Only the whiny, hateful left and their self-loathing, incestuous bed-buddies in the media.

Ya know...if you think about it, ya gotta find it somewhat perplexing....

Libturds keep yapping non-stop about how much of a lying, arrogant, stupid idiot Trump is...that his misconduct and incompetence is beyond pale.

So...if ALL of that is true (as the Trump-hating left says it is)...WHY is it the FBI (and any of the other intel agencies in our country) that are chock-full of highly qualified, intelligent, savvy, well-trained professionals...and they cannot come up with ANY of the evidence that is being required to pin even ONE allegation (ie: of collusion...or any other crime) directly on Donnie's flabby little potus chest?

Seriously...think about it. After all, he's clearly no genius...he cannot possibly be a Super Braniac that has every angle of wrong doing covered SO WELL that the very Best of the Best cannot crack his "criminal codes" and find him guilty of what he's allegedly done. Stupid People who are Evil Doers eventually trip themselves up and eventually end up being found guilty of their crimes.

So...which is it? Is Donald Trump the Lex Luther of the Oval Office....? Or is it possible he's never done any of the things (ie: Russia) he's been accused of? It can't be both. So which is it?

[goodolboy]

IMO, Susan Rice is just the tip of the iceberg. With Comey out I will not be surprised if this whole "Russian collusion" narrative comes under a whole new light. Going on two years of surveillance and investigation and we have seen no evidence, just a lot of unnamed sources leaks, speculation and spin. The MSM is literally at war with this president.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

So...if ALL of that is true (as the Trump-hating left says it is)...WHY is it the FBI (and any of the other intel agencies in our country) that are chock-full of highly qualified, intelligent, savvy, well-trained professionals...and they cannot come up with ANY of the evidence that is being required to pin even ONE allegation (ie: of collusion...or any other crime) directly on Donnie's flabby little potus chest?

Its early. When you read FBI investigation reports, 302's, etc., they move very, very slowly. They think of it as being meticulous, but it's a situation encouraged by Federal prosecutors who only want cases that are the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. You get most Assistant USA's in a tough fight with a decent trial lawyer (never mind a really good one), they're like a soft turd in a hard rain. See the recent John Wylie Price case. They got beat like a rented mule.

Second, the bigger the target, the more careful you are before you shoot.
'But it's only been a few mo the since these acts and you have to prove conspiracy through a keyhole. Plus, the line between what counts as an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy versus tacit approval without an overt act can be blurry.

Finally, who says Trump has to have broken the criminal law to have colluded with the Russians. Or to be a morally contemptible asshole. Or to be THE most incompetent President in history. If your bar is set so low as to be "avoided indictment for treason," almost any jackass could be deemed a successful President.

[goodolboy]

("almost any jackass could be deemed a successful President.") As seen for the last 8 years. Curious, do you think the Feds had no case against Hillary and Huma?

[Luke Skywalker]

I think the most likely scenario is for Donald to die of asfixiation. One of these days his foot will get stuck in his mouth...

[Tsmokies]

Twit head is the best president ever!!! For entertainment value lol. He actually believes ALL Americans are stupid and he can get away with anything because he his famous. Making threats to the FBI omg....wtf is next. Oh yea...he is above the law and Clinton is still guilty for emails.

Just remember....it's all faux/fake news and we stupid people don't know any better.
I just hope nobody tapes me when I (don't grab pussy) worship panties on a hott mound

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

("almost any jackass could be deemed a successful President.") As seen for the last 8 years. Curious, do you think the Feds had no case against Hillary and Huma?

I have no idea even what the argument is for a case against Huma. Stupidity in marrying Weiner and not me??!!

As for Hillary, not, not even close. You have to prove that she "knowingly and willfully" "disclosed" classified information to an inappropriate person. No way in hell you can prove that. She hired a computer security gut to secure the server. There is no evidence that it was disclosed to any outside person in any even. And when the machine was sent to the forensics company, her attorney promptly told them to keep the emails on the system, an instruction that the forensics company botched. What on earth would you claim, even in layman's terms, that she did wrong that would amount to intentionally disclosing classified secrets to other people?

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I have no idea even what the argument is for a case against Huma. Stupidity in marrying Weiner and not me??!!

As for Hillary, not, not even close. You have to prove that she "knowingly and willfully" "disclosed" classified information to an inappropriate person. No way in hell you can prove that. She hired a computer security gut to secure the server. There is no evidence that it was disclosed to any outside person in any even. And when the machine was sent to the forensics company, her attorney promptly told them to keep the emails on the system, an instruction that the forensics company botched. What on earth would you claim, even in layman's terms, that she did wrong that would amount to intentionally disclosing classified secrets to other people?

I don't think her maid had classified security clearance. "As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, emails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material."

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton...ied-materials/

[goodolboy]

("I have no idea even what the argument is for a case against Huma. Stupidity in marrying Weiner and not me??!!


In regards to Huma my understanding is she forwarded classified material to her husband Weiner's laptop. Mr Carlos danger does not have a security clearance and his personal laptop is not a secure place for classified material.

" emails found on Weiner’s laptop had been forwarded from Clinton deputy Huma Abedin to Weiner, her husband, not hundreds or thousands as Comey had stated. The FBI said just two of those messages contained classified information."

I am not aware of a "intent" clause" when it comes to mis handling classified material. Regardless of that I believe they had evidence if intent. I thought Gowdy explained it pretty well. https://youtu.be/ChgcYHISvTM

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

I don't think her maid had classified security clearance. "As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, emails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material."

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton...ied-materials/

I don't think printing out is necessarily "disclosure". And how would that government prove beyond a reasonable doubt which ones the maid printed out. There were only a small hand full that were classified at the time that she received them. I think for it to be disclosure, the maid would have to read them.

And the purpose of the statute is to prevent classified documents from falling into the hands of adversarial countries, not to play "gotcha" with public servants doing their work in the most efficient manner. There is not bad intent in having someone print out a document and hand it back to you. That case would be laughed out of court.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

("I have no idea even what the argument is for a case against Huma. Stupidity in marrying Weiner and not me??!!


In regards to Huma my understanding is she forwarded classified material to her husband Weiner's laptop. Mr Carlos danger does not have a security clearance and his personal laptop is not a secure place for classified material.

" emails found on Weiner’s laptop had been forwarded from Clinton deputy Huma Abedin to Weiner, her husband, not hundreds or thousands as Comey had stated. The FBI said just two of those messages contained classified information."

I am not aware of a "intent" clause" when it comes to mis handling classified material. Regardless of that I believe they had evidence if intent. I thought Gowdy explained it pretty well. https://youtu.be/ChgcYHISvTM

Turns out, that allegation is largely untrue as I understand what Comey's correction the other day said. Turns out there were very few emails and none of them were classified, if I understand correctly. And many, many were in there because that's where her personal digital devices were backed up, and not forwarded manually, therefore negating intent.

That's was one of Herr Gropenfhurer's ostensively reasons for firing Comey -- that he overstated what was found in the "October surprise" laptop bullshit announcement and the FBI Had to send a letter last week correcting his sworn testimony.

Finally, again, even if something had been manually forwarded, that's not the purpose of the statute. It's aimed at people giving email to adversaries of our country. In fact, it's far from clear that the statute even covers emails. It was written during World War I and is drafted as if a document has one physical location. Where is a email located? How do you ".remove an email" from its proper storage place?

Finally, even if they had Hillary and Huma dead to rights on some technical screw up on handling sensitive emails, that doesn't amount to a hill of shit compared to working with a hostile government to subvert and attempt to steal a Presidential election, or trying to cover up the same. It's like comparing jay walking to treason.