• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Indictments coming...

Page 179 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brandonbull said:
After Mueller's testimony, you are still in your bubble? Even the hardcore Progressheviks are backing away from Mueller and impeachment talks.
Click to expand...

#fuckoffboringandpredictabletroll

No one wants to impeach. Dragging through the news daily that there is a lying criminal sitting in the WH is good enough for real Americans leading up to the elections next year. Everyone knows this...
 
Last edited:
brandonbull said:
After Mueller's testimony, you are still in your bubble? Even the hardcore Progressheviks are backing away from Mueller and impeachment talks.
Click to expand...

Deny, deny, deny. It's perfectly clear that Trump would be under indictment today were he not President. Mueller can't outright say that, given the rules he follows, but it is what it is. We have a criminal in the Oval Office.
 
umbrella39 said:
#fuckoffboringandpredictabletroll

No one wants to impeach. Dragging through the news daily that there is a lying criminal sitting in the WH is good enough for real Americans leading up to the elections next year. Everyone knows this...
Click to expand...

At the risk of feeding a troll he has one point that has a spark of truth to it and that is there are those who will defend those in office from seeking impeachment, them being mature and all and will then bite those who are critical like vipers defending their nests. Hopefully what I consider most likely is wrong and Pelosi will allow an investigation. I also would support not bringing this to the Senate for Mitch to dismiss before it was ever finished. The purpose is to use the recognized powers of the House with impeachment, those Nixon learned about as being very real, to identify and reveal in descending order of importance, even if it's volumes of violations.

Those who support Trump by excusing inaction might as well be one supporting him come the election.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Those who support Trump by excusing inaction might as well be one supporting him come the election.
Click to expand...

What inaction do you speak of? The quixotic act of actually impeaching Trump at a time not of our choosing? We need to control the narrative first which is what hearings are designed to accomplish. It won't actually get him removed from office, anyway, so we might as well do it when we figure it will hurt the GOP the most. Or not do it at all if that's more damaging to them.
 
Jhhnn said:
What inaction do you speak of? The quixotic act of actually impeaching Trump at a time not of our choosing? We need to control the narrative first which is what hearings are designed to accomplish. It won't actually get him removed from office, anyway, so we might as well do it when we figure it will hurt the GOP the most. Or not do it at all if that's more damaging to them.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "our" choosing? There is no "our", "us", or "we". There is Pelosi, period. No matter what she does or doesn't do there will be those who circle the wagon and give "it was the only mature thing to do" no matter what.

What her actual intentions are? I expect she just might allow an investigation when enough people beg her because if there are adverse consequences she can pull "they begged me to do it" but if it works she can thank all the little people and go down in history as THE person who stood up to Trump. She can't help but win if she delays long enough she'll look pretty good and Trump gets a hearing. The problem is that this has nothing to do with "us" and her priorities have always been political. Hopefully, she'll do the right thing, but if she doesn't some will line up accusing others of being bothsiders or wanting to tear the Democrats down for Republicans. You betcha.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
What do you mean "our" choosing? There is no "our", "us", or "we". There is Pelosi, period. No matter what she does or doesn't do there will be those who circle the wagon and give "it was the only mature thing to do" no matter what.

What her actual intentions are? I expect she just might allow an investigation when enough people beg her because if there are adverse consequences she can pull "they begged me to do it" but if it works she can thank all the little people and go down in history as THE person who stood up to Trump. She can't help but win if she delays long enough she'll look pretty good and Trump gets a hearing. The problem is that this has nothing to do with "us" and her priorities have always been political. Hopefully, she'll do the right thing, but if she doesn't some will line up accusing others of being bothsiders or wanting to tear the Democrats down for Republicans. You betcha.
Click to expand...

As a Democrat, I say "we" wrt all the people doing the actual investigating, holding hearings, filing in court & all the rest of it. "We" are also all the people giving them the unqualified non- concern trolling support they need. When & if Pelosi believes she has the support of her caucus to impeach, she will likely do so. It's not something she can dictate. I figure they know more about what they're doing than either one of us. I'll let them go after it w/o any divisive nay-saying, back-biting or second guessing from me. Winning in 2020 is what we need & ragging on the Dem leadership won't advance that one little bit.
 
SlowSpyder said:
The witch hunt continues to unravel. Only a non-thinking NPC fool would have bought into this lie. Lots of them here.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed
Click to expand...

So sayeth Fox News!!!


facedown1.jpg
 
Jhhnn said:
Deny, deny, deny. It's perfectly clear that Trump would be under indictment today were he not President. Mueller can't outright say that, given the rules he follows, but it is what it is. We have a criminal in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
 
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
The only reason he hasn't been indicted/convicted is because he's president.
 
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

I can say he is a criminal because I am not a prosecutor, or judge, or any position of legal authority. Innocent until proven guilty is like freedom of speech. It binds the government not private citizens.

At the same time none of us are calling for his extra-judicial imprisonment, we are calling for a trial.
 
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

Barring death or pardon, I'm sure Trump will see his day in court once he's out of office. He's been doing financial crime his whole adult life. It was always the kind of stuff where he got by or could buy his way out. It's different now.
 
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

he is Individual #1 in an indictment that resulted in his attorney going to prison, not to mention all of the obstruction of justice in plain site for all to see.

he is a criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top