Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[Emjay]

You know, if you tell the truth perjury *can't* be a trap.

And no Emjay. History will show the Special Counsel was appointed in May '17. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

I agree with you that Mueller was appointed in '17. The FBI started this investigation sooner though, and does inform the current investigation, not so? The FISA application was granted in October 2016. These two things can all be true at the same time.

 

[Unhappy438]

I don't care what you you think. And why don't you address the article I posted instead of attacking me?

Lol attacking you? Where did i attack you? Im attacking your opinions sure but i certainly haven't been personal, in fact if anything your post was more personal. Anyhow, i did address the article.

When a Democratic President is sitting, and a Federal investigation is initiated on such a person with zero basis, the perpetrators should be fired,

What else would you have happen? If any FBI official behaved in an improper manner then they should be dealt with. Can you explain what else you want here?

and then we can all agree to let the investigation to carry on for years and years, and use the investigation to fling mud.

You must be new to politics, investigations take time and the other side will always use it as ammunition. If you want to get to the bottom of things there is not much way around it. Just remember though, Republicans were for this investigation and the majority continue to be for it.

You see, you are so intent on trying to discredit me, that you can't even take a little dive into what I posted. If it does not even disquiet you a little, then we are done here.

You can be a little disappointed in your corner.

You take things far too personally, i did in fact dive into what you posted and countered each point, you have yet to come out with a counter point. Specifically regarding the precedent of lengthy investigations.

 

[greg0205]

I agree with you that Mueller was appointed in '17. The FBI started this investigation sooner though, and does inform the current investigation, not so? The FISA application was granted in October 2016. These two things can all be true at the same time.

Remember that one time I said: "History will show the Special Counsel was appointed in May '17. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is."?

Good times.

Also, the FISA warrant was granted against Carter Page, but don't let the details get in the way of your narrative.

 

[Unhappy438]

Also, if you are looking for people who are undermining the constitution, you should look no further than people who want to increase gun control.

"Gun control" is such a wide range of topics thus your statement could either be true or flat out untrue but im leaning to mostly untrue.

 

[Emjay]

Lol attacking you? Where did i attack you? Im attacking your opinions sure but i certainly haven't been personal, in fact if anything your post was more personal. Anyhow, i did address the article.

What else would you have happen? If any FBI official behaved in an improper manner then they should be dealt with. Can you explain what else you want here?

You must be new to politics, investigations take time and the other side will always use it as ammunition. If you want to get to the bottom of things there is not much way around it. Just remember though, Republicans were for this investigation and the majority continue to be for it.

You take things far too personally, i did in fact dive into what you posted and countered each point, you have yet to come out with a counter point. Specifically regarding the precedent of lengthy investigations.

It's ok carry on with counter intelligence operation on a President when there is zero basis for such an investigation?

And Trump should now be absolved from all wrong doing because the bad apples from his campaign have been fired?

The consensus in MSM is that Mueller is wrapping up. Don't you want this report out ASAP so the Democrats can impeach Trump?

 

[Unhappy438]

It's ok carry on with counter intelligence operation on a President when there is zero basis for such an investigation?

You keep mixing up investigations, so could you be more specific when making claims like this?

And Trump should now be absolved from all wrong doing because the bad apples from his campaign have been fired?

Nah he should be fired if we are making comparisons to the FBI and Comey.

The consensus in MSM is that Mueller is wrapping up. Don't you want this report out ASAP so the Democrats can impeach Trump?

Nah i just want it to come out because im interested in knowing the truth, if that's ever attainable im not sure but i will wait for the report to come out before forming my opinions.

 

[konfab]

"Gun control" is such a wide range of topics thus your statement could either be true or flat out untrue but im leaning to mostly untrue.

Read what I said carefully.

I said increase gun control. Right now, I think with the existing laws on gun control, a lot of good could be done.
This business of banning "assault" (or if you know anything about guns, semi-automatic rifles), is simply stupid.

 

[cerebus]

The consensus in MSM is that Mueller is wrapping up. Don't you want this report out ASAP so the Democrats can impeach Trump?

I'm curious how many FBI investigations into the US president you've overseen? You seem uniquely qualified to give a timeline for when it should end.

 

[greg0205]

It's ok carry on with counter intelligence operation on a President when there is zero basis for such an investigation?

And Trump should now be absolved from all wrong doing because the bad apples from his campaign have been fired?

The consensus in MSM is that Mueller is wrapping up. Don't you want this report out ASAP so the Democrats can impeach Trump?

Zero? Really?

"When I decided [to fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." - Donald J Trump

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” - Donald J Trump

Trump revealed intelligence secrets to Russians in Oval Office

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to Russia’s foreign minister about a planned Islamic State operation, two U.S. officials said on Monday, plunging the White House into another controversy just months into Trump’s short tenure in office.

The intelligence, shared at a meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, was supplied by a U.S. ally in the fight against the militant group, both officials with knowledge of the situation said.

 

[Unhappy438]

Read what I said carefully.

I said increase gun control. Right now, I think with the existing laws on gun control, a lot of good could be done.

Yes but "increasing control control" isn't specific either. Is banning bump stocks increasing gun control and unconstitutional? If they have existing laws on gun control why aren't those laws considered unconstitutional?

This business of banning "assault" (or if you know anything about guns, semi-automatic rifles), is simply stupid.

Stupid or unconstitutional because those are two different arguments?

 

[Techne]

I'm curious how many FBI investigations into the US president you've overseen? You seem uniquely qualified to give a timeline for when it should end.

I would think that if there was something to use to impeach orange bobble head it would have been leaked ASAP. Back for another fishing trip they went... maybe they will catch something.

 

[cerebus]

I would think that if there was something to use to impeach orange bobble head it would have been leaked ASAP. Back for another fishing trip they went... maybe they will catch something.

Mueller's mandate isn't to impeach Trump despite how it's being painted, it's to investigate thoroughly the links between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign. I can't predict if it will result in more impeachable evidence against Trump, but there are so many revelations that directly implicate him, it's hard to see how it won't.

 

[konfab]

Yes but "increasing control control" isn't specific either. Is banning bump stocks increasing gun control and unconstitutional? If they have existing laws on gun control why aren't those laws considered unconstitutional?

1) Automatic weapons are already banned. Having something that turns a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapons is, banned already.
2) Because the 2nd amendment, like all rights, is subject to a law of general application when it conflicts with other rights. This is why something like gun control exists.

Stupid or unconstitutional because those are two different arguments?

It is both.
It is stupid because the vast majority of gun crime in the US is committed with handguns.
It is unconstitutional because a federal ban is not needed. The state legislature already provides a means for restricting ownership of these guns.

 

[Unhappy438]

1) Automatic weapons are already banned. Having something that turns a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapons is, banned already.
2) Because the 2nd amendment, like all rights, is subject to a law of general application when it conflicts with other rights. This is why something like gun control exists.

Not entirely though but you see why generalised comments are meaningless? "Increasing gun control" isn't unconstitutional in this sense of the manner.

It is both.
It is stupid because the vast majority of gun crime in the US is committed with handguns.
It is unconstitutional because a federal ban is not needed. The state legislature already provides a means for restricting ownership of these guns.

So i wont go down the rabbit hole of if its stupid or not but what i will say is, restrictions on semi autos is not unconstitutional and need doesn't dictate that. So yeah, you could put forth an argument that's its unnecessary but that's about the only argument you could put forth.

 

[Emjay]

Mueller's mandate isn't to impeach Trump despite how it's being painted, it's to investigate thoroughly the links between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign. I can't predict if it will result in more impeachable evidence against Trump, but there are so many revelations that directly implicate him, it's hard to see how it won't.

I'm curious how many FBI investigations into the US president or impeachments you've overseen? You seem uniquely qualified to say this.

 

[Techne]

Mueller's mandate isn't to impeach Trump despite how it's being painted, it's to investigate thoroughly the links between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign. I can't predict if it will result in more impeachable evidence against Trump, but there are so many revelations that directly implicate him, it's hard to see how it won't.

If there was impeachable information I think it would have somehow, magically, come to light already. I would love to see the Demtards try and impeach Orange McSmallfingers. Can't wait.

 

[cerebus]

If there was impeachable information I think it would have somehow, magically, come to light already. I would love to see the Demtards try and impeach Orange McSmallfingers. Can't wait.

How much has leaked out of Mueller's investigation so far? I can't think of anything, but he's managed to get "192 criminal charges, 36 indictments or guilty pleas, and 4 prison sentences."

 

[Emjay]

How much has leaked out of Mueller's investigation so far? I can't think of anything, but he's managed to get "192 criminal charges, 36 indictments or guilty pleas, and 4 prison sentences."

Very solid strawman you have there.

And, from May 2018:

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/...investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause

 

[Techne]

How much has leaked out of Mueller's investigation so far? I can't think of anything, but he's managed to get "192 criminal charges, 36 indictments or guilty pleas, and 4 prison sentences."

Leak worthy? None.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Mueller's mandate isn't to impeach Trump despite how it's being painted, it's to investigate thoroughly the links between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign. I can't predict if it will result in more impeachable evidence against Trump, but there are so many revelations that directly implicate him, it's hard to see how it won't.

Not 100% correct... It was set up to investigate Russian interference in the election. Nothing more.

The Trump campaign is a secondary actor in that event that was discovered through the course of the investigation. Republicans created this special council in complete ignorance of what it would lead to in the future I think.