The Robert Mueller Investigation

[SizzleChest 8275]

I hear sugar took it up the ass at Casitas.  He gave it up so sweet.

Edited May 21, 2018 by SizzleChest

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And I'm negging him accordingly.  Shit, if for no other reason than he's cluttering threads with 100 posts when 1-2 could do.  Also, he's on his third or fourth username.  Ban the fucking IP.

Seriously, this cat is a fucking beating

[TwiceHorn 31240]

15 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

I hear sugar took it up the ass at Casitas.  He gave it up so sweet.

I heard he likes to shoot dogs.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

sugar,

  If you are going to insist on your posting style, could you at least not add 3 posts every time you have a thought?  You can hit the enter key instead of the posts key and get all your repetition done in the same post.  You are a fucking beating, man.

He posts like women text.

[DDD Dad 14243]

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

He posts like women text.

And he's banned, so there's that.

[Tyler Durden 132]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So now that that's over, what happened today?

Some are people who just want attention.  Others, just nutballs who come in off the street.  This guy put a hex on all Texas sports and proceed to troll the board.

[Buzzrock 14870]

No. He isn’t squeaky clean regardless of the Mueller investigation. He has violated the emoluments clause on numerous occasions and has obstructed Justice about 100 times. He has already committed crimes but people like you continue to give him a pass.

Feel free to find the post where I’ve given him a pass on anything.

I wasn’t asking you, but since you replied, do you consider Hillary squeaky clean?

[Buzzrock 14870]

Did the Hillary investigation end in about 30 indictments?
If Trump skates, it's because ..... Nope. He won't skate.

That’s not what I asked. Can you be consistent? Comey said that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else. That doesn’t seem squeaky clean.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

[hobbes2702 12791]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Feel free to find the post where I’ve given him a pass on anything.

I wasn’t asking you, but since you replied, do you consider Hillary squeaky clean?

 

No I don’t but that’s all speculation. The Donald is absolutely not squeaky clean. It’s not speculation. It’s a fact that he has violated the emoluments clause. Comparing the supposed transgressions of Hillary to Donald simply illustrates how different he is from previous politicians. 

[hobbes2702 12791]

3 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

That’s not what I asked. Can you be consistent? Comey said that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else. That doesn’t seem squeaky clean.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

 

Stop comparing Hillary to Donald. That’s the issue. They are not comparable in criminality or corruption and doing so shows a lack of understanding of how brazen the Donald has been in his crime and corruption.

[Buzzrock 14870]

i can't tell if i beat immamac to it, but either way sugar is gone. what a beating.

Sorry for responding to him just now, didn’t see the ban hammer drop.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

He'll be back.  It's all he has going in his life. 

[Buzzrock 14870]

Stop comparing Hillary to Donald. That’s the issue. They are not comparable in criminality or corruption and doing so shows a lack of understanding of how brazen the Donald has been in his crime and corruption.

I’m just talking about consistency. If Donald is not charged then they are exactly comparable from a criminal standpoint. Lots of smoke, no fire.

If the investigation finds evidence of collusion then I want balls deep justice. If it doesn’t then I want people to accept it (they won’t).

What I’m seeing which is troubling is a lack of critical thought. We’ve reached the point (some time ago) where people hate Trump the person so much that they are actively rooting for things that are objectively bad for the president and the country.

If the investigation doesn’t find anything then I hope he’s voted out for a better candidate (but not for ANY candidate). But I’m not desperately hoping that there was collusion, like many people here seem to be.

[David Dennison 18646]

32 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

That’s not what I asked. Can you be consistent? Comey said that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else. That doesn’t seem squeaky clean.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

 

When did he say that? 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Yeah, I'm not aware of Comey saying anything like that.

[DixonHur 11154]

I think he's confusing Comey with Rush Limbaugh

[Mojo Hand 4580]

9 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I’m just talking about consistency. If Donald is not charged then they are exactly comparable from a criminal standpoint. Lots of smoke, no fire.

If the investigation finds evidence of collusion then I want balls deep justice. If it doesn’t then I want people to accept it (they won’t).

What I’m seeing which is troubling is a lack of critical thought. We’ve reached the point (some time ago) where people hate Trump the person so much that they are actively rooting for things that are objectively bad for the president and the country.

If the investigation doesn’t find anything then I hope he’s voted out for a better candidate (but not for ANY candidate). But I’m not desperately hoping that there was collusion, like many people here seem to be.
 

 

People aren't hoping that Trump colluded.  They think that he colluded and are merely hoping that he doesn't get away with it.  It's your failure to understand the distinction that evidences a lack of critical thinking, not the other way around. 

And we've been through this before.  Everyone here has said they'll accept Mueller's conclusions, even if he finds no evidence that Trump was involved. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13545]

I don't recall Comey saying had it been anyone else they would have been prosecuted.

 

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-james-comey-congress-clinton-email-20160707-story.html[/ur]

 

Comey said investigators found no evidence that Clinton or her aides intended to break the law, even though they mishandled classified information. A misdemeanor statute requires the mishandling to be intentional, Comey said. A law that permits felony prosecution due to gross negligence has been used only once in the 99 years since it was enacted — and that was in a case involving espionage.

[hobbes2702 12791]

57 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I’m just talking about consistency. If Donald is not charged then they are exactly comparable from a criminal standpoint. Lots of smoke, no fire.

If the investigation finds evidence of collusion then I want balls deep justice. If it doesn’t then I want people to accept it (they won’t).

What I’m seeing which is troubling is a lack of critical thought. We’ve reached the point (some time ago) where people hate Trump the person so much that they are actively rooting for things that are objectively bad for the president and the country.

If the investigation doesn’t find anything then I hope he’s voted out for a better candidate (but not for ANY candidate). But I’m not desperately hoping that there was collusion, like many people here seem to be.
 

 

And again you ignore my point. The Mueller investigation is simply one of the issues. He has violated the emoluments clause. Period. End of discussion. He should be removed from office for it. I don’t know if emoluments is criminal in nature, I doubt it, but it certainly makes him different than Hillary and anything but “squeaky clean”.

If Mueller says no crime then so be it. He has more info than I do. I’ll accept that. What I won’t accept are the other things he is doing that he should be impeachable for that morons like you simply ignore with “but Hillary”. The only lack of critical thinking here is coming from you.

Edited May 22, 2018 by hobbes2702

[TwiceHorn 31240]

I'm not sure why the emoluments issue isn't getting more traction.  I guess the cynical and obvious answer is that not many in Congress want their Chuck-Rhoades-Special blind trusts and insider trading deals scrutinized too heavily.

It offends the fuck out of me.

[Texas73 420]

2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

That’s not what I asked. Can you be consistent? Comey said that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else. That doesn’t seem squeaky clean.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

 

Cite where Comey said "that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else". 

[Brisketexan 104537]

I'm not sure why the emoluments issue isn't getting more traction.  I guess the cynical and obvious answer is that not many in Congress want their Chuck-Rhoades-Special blind trusts and insider trading deals scrutinized too heavily.
It offends the fuck out of me.

This is truly the head-scratcher. It’s so glaringly obvious....yet silence. Your hypothesis is at least worth considering.

[troph 24560]

This is truly the head-scratcher. It’s so glaringly obvious....yet silence. Your hypothesis is at least worth considering.

Agreed. I’m shocked it’s not given more credence.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is truly the head-scratcher. It’s so glaringly obvious....yet silence. Your hypothesis is at least worth considering.

And, again, this is an example of how Trumpy takes common-or-garden corruption in the Congress and elsewhere in the government, and turns it up to 11.

 

There are some interesting aspects to "emoluments-compliance," like the fact that Trump-branded anything still permits foreign governments and others to inure benefits to the Trump "organization" even if he isn't in control of it (the ethics counsel suggest that every Trump-anything needs to be re-branded), but his staunch refusal to do anything at all irks the hell out of me.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

I think that politically, his base wouldn't accept that as justification enough to push him out and so they are not willing to touch it......yet. Cause I also think there is something bigger out there that they are all privy to and are waiting for the big package to be laid out for the country to understand. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by SmokeyTheBear

[DixonHur 11154]

29 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

they are...waiting for the big package to be laid out... 

By "they", I assume you mean Pence.

[Tuco 5076]

I’m just talking about consistency. If Donald is not charged then they are exactly comparable from a criminal standpoint. Lots of smoke, no fire.

Sure. If you ignore the seriousness of the suspected crimes, the likelihood they occurred, the fact that only one is currently being investigated, and only one of them currently has any power, they are practically identical. Both sides. Lots of concern.

[Ted Lange 16040]

16 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

That’s not what I asked. Can you be consistent? Comey said that in the Hillary case charges would have been brought against anyone else. That doesn’t seem squeaky clean.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

 

Where did you read that, a Facebook meme?  JFC.

 

WHAT he actually said.

 

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

[yaqdum 182]

15 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

Sure. If you ignore the seriousness of the suspected crimes, the likelihood they occurred, the fact that only one is currently being investigated, and only one of them currently has any power, they are practically identical. Both sides. Lots of concern.

yeah, they are a lot alike kind of like a pimple and a volcano are a lot alike.

[sheeeit 129]

The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

 

[GW Hayduke 1951]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

 

How is your definition of emoluments different then a bribe?

[sheeeit 129]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

How is your definition of emoluments different then a bribe?

I suppose I would consider a bribe to be an emolument.  Why?  If it is ever proved that trump took a bribe he will go down.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

 

Ugh.  If it was over market, in exchange for other stuff, that’s just bribery. Emoluments  can also happen without over market pricing. If Trump properties are leased a 100% occupancy all the time now because everyone wants to stay in a trump property because they want the approval that comes  from the president knowing that you are willing to give him money, that ain’t cool either.  That also has the problem of being exactly what is happening. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Ugh.  If it was over market, in exchange for other stuff, that’s just bribery. Emoluments  can also happen without over market pricing. If Trump properties are leased a 100% occupancy all the time now because everyone wants to stay in a trump property because they want the approval that comes  from the president knowing that you are willing to give him money, that ain’t cool either.  That also has the problem of being exactly what is happening. 

my main issue is his repeated visits to trump properties, even if it's paying market rates. he has a choice of camp david or maralago, and he chooses maralago. sure he's comfortable there, but the cost of putting up the press pool, the secret service, etc, is going straight into trump coffers, and i have a major problem with that.

Edited May 22, 2018 by hayden_horn

[GW Hayduke 1951]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I suppose I would consider a bribe to be an emolument.  Why?  If it is ever proved that trump took a bribe he will go down.

Bribery is already something that trump can’t be a part of. It seems by turning the definition of emoluments into bribery, you’ve effectively made the emoluments requirement disappear. Brilliant!

[wildcat09 29213]

Look at shee

14 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

 

This, right here, is proof that he's trolling. You assholes need to stop taking the bait. 

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Bribery is already something that trump can’t be a part of. It seems by turning the definition of emoluments into bribery, you’ve effectively made the emoluments requirement disappear. Brilliant!

This is wrong. The President is subject to bribery laws. 

[atomheartbevo 89395]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is wrong. The President is subject to bribery laws. 

Hmmm..

 

[GW Hayduke 1951]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

This is wrong. The President is subject to bribery laws. 

Yes and yes. It was sarcasm

[GW Hayduke 1951]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Hmmm..

 

Gotta love little flynn

[Jester 382]

20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

 

What if they....and follow me here.... loaned 500mm to a project with the President's name plastered all over it in exchange for... say.... sanctions against a company being removed?

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Little Flynn is the one who flipped right?

[atomheartbevo 89395]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Gotta love little flynn

He’s still the kid on the playground defending his dad after everybody else found out his dad was arrested. 

[Anastasis 23390]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Little Flynn is the one who flipped right?

Little Flynn appears to be, at least based on his twatters, still very firmly in the MAGA camp. 

[Buzzrock 14870]

When did he say that? 

Yeah, I'm not aware of Comey saying anything like that.

Well fuck I went back and looked and I’m wrong. I’m not sure what I conflated. I wasn’t trying to be misleading, and I retract it completely.

[David Dennison 18646]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

Well fuck I went back and looked and I’m wrong. I’m not sure what I conflated. I wasn’t trying to be misleading, and I retract it completely.

 

 

Tip of the cap, sir.

[Buzzrock 14870]

People aren't hoping that Trump colluded.  They think that he colluded and are merely hoping that he doesn't get away with it.  It's your failure to understand the distinction that evidences a lack of critical thinking, not the other way around. 
And we've been through this before.  Everyone here has said they'll accept Mueller's conclusions, even if he finds no evidence that Trump was involved. 

Ok. I’ll keep an eye out for that distinction.

[wildcat09 29213]

I want to go ahead and call my shot now. Mueller will indict some more people but won't indict Trump, because DOJ regs say that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and he will issue a report indicating that Trump knew of the collusion and approved of it. The Republican Congress will do nothing in response, those of us who aren't MAGA dipshits will get angry about that, and Buzzrock and his dipshit MAGA ilk will go "SEE, MUELLER DIDN'T INDICT TRUMP AND YOU DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT!"

Edited May 22, 2018 by wildcat09

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I want to go ahead and call my shot now. Mueller will indict some more people but won't indict Trump, because DOJ regs say that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and he will issue a report indicating that Trump knew of the collusion and approved of it. The Republican Congress will do nothing in response, those of us who aren't MAGA dipshits will get angry about that, and Buzzrock and his dipshit MAGA ilk will go "SEE, MUELLER DIDN'T INDICT TRUMP AND YOU DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT!"

He's going to squeeze Don Jr., Ivanka, and Kushner.

[Anastasis 23390]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I want to go ahead and call my shot now. Mueller will indict some more people but won't indict Trump, because DOJ regs say that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and he will issue a report indicating that Trump knew of the collusion and approved of it. The Republican Congress will do nothing in response, those of us who aren't MAGA dipshits will get angry about that, and Buzzrock and his dipshit MAGA ilk will go "SEE, MUELLER DIDN'T INDICT TRUMP AND YOU DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT!"

I could see this.  But if Mueller's report includes a definitive statement on Trumps involvement in collusion, he gets removed from office.  If Muellers conclusion is not definitive and there is some wiggle in the wording of Mueller's findings, the Senate will not remove him from office.