The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

An impeachment inquiry won't make any of this go any faster. All of these folks will still have to be subpoenaed, they'd still refuse, and we'd still wind up with months or years of court cases.

There are two possible objectives the democrats could and should be working towards:

1. Removing Trump from office as soon as possible because he is a walking national security nightmare. 

2. Positioning for maximum impact in the 2020 election. 

It’s pretty clear they aren’t interested in number 1 and that’s probably because of number 2.

Regardless of the objective, they’re not doing the most important thing as well as they could to achieve either at the moment and that is to drive and control the media narrative with the political power given to them in the midterms. 

If the democrats don’t have a centralized war room yet, it’s high time they get one with competing strategies and contingency plans to account for every imaginable Trump/GOP obstruction.  

They need to keep their messaging consistent and simple while breathing life into the Mueller Report every day.  Disregard the bullshit coming from Trump/GOP and keep the heat cranked up to 11.  No more playing defense and reacting to Trump’s daily distractions.  Focusness. 

They also need to challenge the Chuck Todd Media Complex asking the questions like, “Are the democrats overplaying their hand?”  

[retread 2,951]

The lack of continuity in their message is not good. Guys like Nadler and Schiff saying we're getting close to impeachment, and Pelosi and co. saying that we need to get all the facts.

[David Dennison 18,579]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are two possible objectives the democrats could and should be working towards:

1. Removing Trump from office as soon as possible because he is a walking national security nightmare. 

2. Positioning for maximum impact in the 2020 election. 

It’s pretty clear they aren’t interested in number 1 and that’s probably because of number 2.

Regardless of the objective, they’re not doing the most important thing as well as they could to achieve either at the moment and that is to drive and control the media narrative with the political power given to them in the midterms. 

If the democrats don’t have a centralized war room yet, it’s high time they get one with competing strategies and contingency plans to account for every imaginable Trump/GOP obstruction.  

They need to keep their messaging consistent and simple while breathing life into the Mueller Report every day.  Disregard the bullshit coming from Trump/GOP and keep the heat cranked up to 11.  No more playing defense and reacting to Trump’s daily distractions.  Focusness. 

They also need to challenge the Chuck Todd Media Complex asking the questions like, “Are the democrats overplaying their hand?”  

Number 1 is not up to Democrats. They cannot remove him from office.

They are doing all of other things every day. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Number 1 is not up to Democrats. They cannot remove him from office.

They are doing all of other things every day. 

The outrage and realization by the public that we have a lawless con man increases daily.  It's greater than it was a month ago, or even a week ago for that matter. 

Trump can't be neutralized a day too soon, but to the extent that a complicit Senate will not remove, it's worse for Trump and GOP for the inevitable impeachment process to kick into high gear later as opposed to right now.  It's a strange paradox that Trump is shitting everywhere so badly that it makes the Dems look worse for not taking up impeachment now.  But if it's going to happen, it's arguably better for Trump to have that fight now as opposed to formally starting it 6 months from now.

[lemonlime 5,503]

This truly is both sides.  Both sides are letting trump take daily shits on the constitution for their perceived political purposes.  Only difference is the GOP is solidifying their racist, moron base, and the dems are letting their base get disheartened by watching their representatives look the other way as the so-called president engages in illegal and possibly treasonous activity.

[David Dennison 18,579]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This truly is both sides.  Both sides are letting trump take daily shits on the constitution for their perceived political purposes.  Only difference is the GOP is solidifying their racist, moron base, and the dems are letting their base get disheartened by watching their representatives look the other way as the so-called president engages in illegal and possibly treasonous activity.

They aren't looking the other way. At all.

[lemonlime 5,503]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't looking the other way. At all.

 They're holding Watergate nostalgia hearings.

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

23 hours ago, TornACL said:

Bankruptcies and settlements and closed businesses happen out of the public view, for the most part.  Equating those actions to stepping down voluntarily from the highest office in the land is absurd.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that Trump, HE HIMSELF, is involved in all that shit. Trump didn't fight for Trump University. Like the steaks, like the airline, he's a grifter that just slaps his name on something and then lets some other crony run the business. And so when it craters or otherwise is a complete piece of shit, he has plausible deniability. I put someone on that project, he was a complete disaster, I had to fire him.

Will he make public statements defending his bullshit con jobs? Of course, when he's asked about it. But only because his primary mission in life at every single point is to defend and uplift TRUMP. The brand, the man, the con. You must always keep up the con. He isn't going to have some moment of enlightenment, like a bad guy at the end of a shitty movie, and suddenly realize he's a piece of shit who's always been a piece of shit, and he should resign. That is just fantasy talk.

 

 

This is TRUMP and his brand to a T. 

 

[David Dennison 18,579]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 They're holding Watergate nostalgia hearings.

Because witnesses won't comply with subpoenas. That puts things in court. The same would happen if they re-labeled these hearings impeachment hearings, which is what they are.

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Because witnesses won't comply with subpoenas. That puts things in court. The same would happen if they re-labeled these hearings impeachment hearings, which is what they are.

I don't care what they label the hearings, but this isn't okay.  There's all sorts of stuff they could be doing, but aren't.  When members of the administration ignore subpoenas, impeach them.  Barr should be impeached.  I get that he won't be convicted, but he should have been called to account the day after he ignored the subpoena.  Same thing with Mnuchin on the tax returns.  They shouldn't get to run out the clock for months.

Hell, the day after the news story came out that trump told a border official he would pardon him if he broke the law, that official should have been testifying before Congress.  But, instead we don't hear about it again.  

The dems need to stop letting these corrupt fucksticks control the narrative.   There are tons of people who are no longer executive employees who they could have as witnesses.  I think Hugo put a very abbreviated list earlier.  

[David Dennison 18,579]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I don't care what they label the hearings, but this isn't okay.  There's all sorts of stuff they could be doing, but aren't.  When members of the administration ignore subpoenas, impeach them.  Barr should be impeached.  I get that he won't be convicted, but he should have been called to account the day after he ignored the subpoena.  Same thing with Mnuchin on the tax returns.  They shouldn't get to run out the clock for months.

Hell, the day after the news story came out that trump told a border official he would pardon him if he broke the law, that official should have been testifying before Congress.  But, instead we don't hear about it again.  

The dems need to stop letting these corrupt fucksticks control the narrative.   There are tons of people who are no longer executive employees who they could have as witnesses.  I think Hugo put a very abbreviated list earlier.  

When you impeach someone to no end, you look incredibly weak. 

[ndawg 1,242]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

When you impeach someone to no end, you look incredibly weak. 

Yeah, I mean, failing to oust Bill certainly set the Republican party back, didn't it?

[David Dennison 18,579]

5 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Yeah, I mean, failing to oust Bill certainly set the Republican party back, didn't it?

Which is why I think they are going to impeach Donald Trump.

Just not right now.

 

[conVINCEd 21,468]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When you impeach someone to no end, you look incredibly weak. 

They look incredibly weak right now.  If they’re gonna look incredibly weak either way (I don’t agree with this, but I’ll play along) they might as well do the right thing by living up to their sworn oath.

[David Dennison 18,579]

1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:

They look incredibly weak right now.  If they’re gonna look incredibly weak either way (I don’t agree with this, but I’ll play along) they might as well do the right thing by living up to their sworn oath.

Check back in one year.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

7 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

They look incredibly weak right now.  If they’re gonna look incredibly weak either way (I don’t agree with this, but I’ll play along) they might as well do the right thing by living up to their sworn oath.

except that every poll right now has trump getting crushed in 2020.  there is zero chance of removing him before that, short of a bullet to the brain.

regardless of her actual motivation, pelosi can just run out the clock right now, because she's holding the winning hand.

she's gonna come out of this looking patient, smart, and calculated, even if this wasn't her exact plan.

[David Dennison 18,579]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

except that every poll right now has trump getting crushed in 2020.  there is zero chance of removing him before that, short of a bullet to the brain.

regardless of her actual motivation, pelosi can just run out the clock right now, because she's holding the winning hand.

she's gonna come out of this looking patient, smart, and calculated, even if this wasn't her exact plan.

She's indicated time and time again that Donald Trump is going to be impeached. It's just going to be on her timeline and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[GW Hayduke 1,950]

FYI for folks that believe the Dems are keeping trump in office: Removal of a POTUS requires 2/3 of the senate. 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She's indicated time and time again that Donald Trump is going to be impeached. It's just going to be on her timeline and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

not really.  she's said it's still on the table.  she'll never come out and say anything definitively.  the way she's doing it is driving trump nuts and she'll never give that up.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

FYI for folks that believe the Dems are keeping trump in office: Removal of a POTUS requires 2/3 of the senate. 

absolutely zero people here are under the impression there's a chance of actual conviction/removal.

[David Dennison 18,579]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

not really.  she's said it's still on the table.  she'll never come out and say anything definitively.  the way she's doing it is driving trump nuts and she'll never give that up.

That's political speak for it's going to happen.

[GW Hayduke 1,950]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are two possible objectives the democrats could and should be working towards:

1. Removing Trump from office as soon as possible because he is a walking national security nightmare. 

2. Positioning for maximum impact in the 2020 election. 

It’s pretty clear they aren’t interested in number 1 and that’s probably because of number 2.

 

 

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

This truly is both sides.  Both sides are letting trump take daily shits on the constitution for their perceived political purposes.  Only difference is the GOP is solidifying their racist, moron base, and the dems are letting their base get disheartened by watching their representatives look the other way as the so-called president engages in illegal and possibly treasonous activity.

 

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

absolutely zero people here are under the impression there's a chance of actual conviction/removal.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

14 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

absolutely zero people here are under the impression there's a chance of actual conviction/removal.

I mean, someone convinced Donald Trump it was a good idea to run for President.  That’s the real criminal here.   Fuck that guy.  

/sarcasm 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I mean, someone convinced Donald Trump it was a good idea to run for President.  That’s the real criminal here.   Fuck that guy.  

/sarcasm 

Thanks Obama.........

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I mean, someone convinced Donald Trump it was a good idea to run for President.  That’s the real criminal here.   Fuck that guy.  

/sarcasm 

That would be the russians. Back in the 80’s. They were playing the long con and won, for now at least. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,537]

Kinda lost in the Steph interview is Trump specifically disputing McGahn's sworn testimony in the Mueller Report, sticking with his contorted pretzel of an argument that the Mueller Report both clears him and is full of bs.

 

President Trump disputes account of White House counsel's testimony to Mueller https://a.msn.com/r/2/AACSnt2?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[notre dame joe 172]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 2:18 PM, henrygandorf said:

not really.  she's said it's still on the table.  she'll never come out and say anything definitively.  the way she's doing it is driving trump nuts and she'll never give that up.

It's basically required to keep the CNN droolers from doing something rash, such as, most of what they say they want to do.  So even I don't fault Granny Speaker for feeding the loons.

[jimmyjazz 45,503]

24 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It's basically required to keep the CNN droolers from doing something rash, such as, most of what they say they want to do.  So even I don't fault Granny Speaker for feeding the loons.

Outstanding post.  Top notch stuff.  What the fuck are you trying to say?

[DigglerontheHoof 21,017]

26 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It's basically required to keep the CNN droolers from doing something rash, such as, most of what they say they want to do.  So even I don't fault Granny Speaker for feeding the loons.

Every accusation is a confession, from you cunts. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

It's basically required to keep the CNN droolers from doing something rash, such as, most of what they say they want to do.  So even I don't fault Granny Speaker for feeding the loons.

Granny Speaker? You're worse at nickname insults than that fat Cheeto piece of shit you support.

After seeing you post for a while it's not hard to see how Notre Dame hired George O'Leary. 

[Brian Fantana 6,654]

2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Granny Speaker? You're worse at nickname insults than that fat Cheeto piece of shit you support.

After seeing you post for a while it's not hard to see how Notre Dame hired George O'Leary. 

The Catholics are even raping us with their words now.

[David Dennison 18,579]

11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

What does Jared suggest?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,821]

So how does this play out?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445512-senate-gop-pledges-to-quickly-quash-any-trump-impeachment-charges#.XQZAYVXA1VM.twitter

[retread 2,951]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So how does this play out?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445512-senate-gop-pledges-to-quickly-quash-any-trump-impeachment-charges#.XQZAYVXA1VM.twitter

A few pages back, someone posted an article that discussed the possibility of holding impeachment hearings and then passing a Sense of the House vote laying out all of the facts. I believe that would avoid giving the Senate the chance to shoot down an official impeachment.

[notre dame joe 172]

6 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

The Catholics are even raping us with their words now.

https://people.com/celebrity/nancy-pelosi-a-grandma-for-the-sixth-time/

[jimmyjazz 45,503]

53 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

https://people.com/celebrity/nancy-pelosi-a-grandma-for-the-sixth-time/

Zing! 

[retread 2,951]

That got her.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

https://people.com/celebrity/nancy-pelosi-a-grandma-for-the-sixth-time/

That's the same number of bankruptcies the excellent business man Cheeto has declared! What a coincidence.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/

 

Some of them were casinos. How in the hell do you bankrupt a casino? 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Grade of D as in David

[suddenly shaggy 929]

3 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That's the same number of bankruptcies the excellent business man Cheeto has declared! What a coincidence.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/

 

Some of them were casinos. How in the hell do you bankrupt a casino? 

Incompetence + money laundering

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

From his Plaza bankruptcy 

Quote

Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture; he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations

Kind of like his presidency. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

3 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Incompetence + money laundering

Even still an impressive feat. 

 

[notre dame joe 172]

6 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That's the same number of bankruptcies the excellent business man Cheeto has declared! What a coincidence.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/

 

Some of them were casinos. How in the hell do you bankrupt a casino? 

He had a system.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

6 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That's the same number of bankruptcies the excellent business man Cheeto has declared! What a coincidence.

So to be clear, your position is that corporations are people? 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

16 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So to be clear, your position is that corporations are people? 

How the fuck did you infer that from my statement?

 

Are you pro choice since dotard aborted those companies?

Edited June 17, 2019 by Grade of D as in David

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

23 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

He had a system.

If you meant this as a joke, damn good job sir. I actually chuckled at the response. If not I would love to hear more about the system. Was that taught at Trump University?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

So to be clear, your position is that corporations are people? 

bankrupting a casino is far more impressive than anything he could do from a personal financial standpoint.  props for that.

[David Dennison 18,579]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Please shut the fuck up and go away forever.