Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
I expect it'll be something along the lines of, "Well, he wasn't President then.".

Just because he did it repeatedly before he was elected, that doesn't mean he'd do it now. All past sins are forgiven once you get past the post. (As long as you're a Republican, of course.

And, as we were told so many times during the campaign, once he was elected he'll act more presidential.

(We can see how well that's worked out. :rolleyes:)

As has been pointed out, he hasn't testified under oath yet.

There's a reason for that. And it isn't because his lawyers expect he'd act presidential. It has a lot more to do with his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth even when it's to his own advantage.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy we're seeing is staggering. Trump actively lies. Says whatever comes out of his ass. He serves up crap sandwiches and then expects others to chow down and say 'yummy'.. He's also offended when he is called on his ****.

Yes, everybody lies. But most people do it reluctantly and rarely. Trump does it eagerly and endlessly. How anyone can support this cretinous creature stuns me.

But TBD does and I am sure will continue to. Trump's total lack of character doesn't bother him one bit. But if a Democrat tells us a falsehood whether incidental or perhaps on purpose, TBD becomes a rabid dog foaming his faux outrage.

But I assure you if Trump ever did shoot someone in downtown Manhattan, he would be arguing that the victim being a New Yorker and a likely liberal certainly had it coming.
 
quadraginta said:
I expect it'll be something along the lines of, "Well, he wasn't President then.".

Just because he did it repeatedly before he was elected, that doesn't mean he'd do it now. All past sins are forgiven once you get past the post. (As long as you're a Republican, of course.

And, as we were told so many times during the campaign, once he was elected he'll act more presidential.

(We can see how well that's worked out. :rolleyes:)

As has been pointed out, he hasn't testified under oath yet.

There's a reason for that. And it isn't because his lawyers expect he'd act presidential. It has a lot more to do with his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth even when it's to his own advantage.
Click to expand...

If the Dems win the house in November, as seems quite likely, then they can force him to front Congress, where he will have to answer their questions under oath. Those asking the questions will hopefully have the Muller Report by then, so they are very likely to already know the answers.

Dolt 45 will then be between a rock and a hard place. If he lies, they've got him dead to rights, if he tells the truth he is highly likely to incriminate himself.

Can he plead the 5th in front of Congress?
 
Trump Tweets

"“Ohr told the FBI it (the Fake Dossier) wasn’t true, it was a lie and the FBI was determined to use it anyway to damage Trump and to perpetrate a fraud on the court to spy on the Trump campaign. This is a fraud on the court. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is in......


"...charge of the FISA court. He should direct the Presiding Judge, Rosemary Collier, to hold a hearing, haul all of these people from the DOJ & FBI in there, & if she finds there were crimes committed, and there were, there should be a criminal referral by her....” @GreggJarrett"
 
acbytesla said:
Clinton lies in a deposition about having a consensual petting session. Definitely wrong. Still it had little to do with anything.
Click to expand...
Let's not minimize what he did with that intern by using such terms. Her role was subservient, both in the work place and the physical act. It was wrong because it was an abuse of power. Not "consensual petting" like a couple of teenagers.
 
Whatever you do, don't stand near the goalposts on the day Trump has to testify under oath.
 
carlitos said:
Let's not minimize what he did with that intern by using such terms. Her role was subservient, both in the work place and the physical act. It was wrong because it was an abuse of power. Not "consensual petting" like a couple of teenagers.
Click to expand...

Let's also not forget that the deposition was in support of a sexual harassment lawsuit. The goal was to demonstrate that Clinton had a habit of pursuing young women that worked in his office, which he absolutely did.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Let's also not forget that the deposition was in support of a sexual harassment lawsuit. The goal was to demonstrate that Clinton had a habit of pursuing young women that worked in his office, which he absolutely did.
Click to expand...

Of course the actual lawsuit was thrown out as the judge found that even given all the claims to Jones it did not rise to the level of a legal action.
 
This is supremely off-topic and I apologize. But:

carlitos said:
Let's not minimize what he did with that intern by using such terms. Her role was subservient, both in the work place and the physical act. It was wrong because it was an abuse of power. Not "consensual petting" like a couple of teenagers.
Click to expand...

Sure, but an abuse of power in a relationship between two adults who are both into it is gross and a bad idea and a thing not to do, IMO mainly because of how easy it is to abuse power in a relationship between two adults where one of them is not actually into it at all but gets roped into it. So, better to take the whole thing off the table than risk nasty, coercive abuse of power.

Relationships between consenting adults with power imbalances are always a cause for raised eyebrows but they are not IMO automatically morally wrong. They just are really ridiculously likely to be. In that particular case it seems to me she was most damaged by being too naive to make an informed decision; she wasn't able to consider how much BS she would get dragged through if anyone found out and compare that downside to how much fun she would have. She seems to have felt like a typical rock n roll groupie about it. But no one ever really makes a media circus over rock stars or actors fooling around with nobodies.

If I'm not clear: I think the relationship was wrong because he took advantage of her naivete; the abuse of power IMO was in overriding her common sense which I'm sure said 'bad idea' with assurances, from a position of authority, that it'd be fine. But I don't think it was coercive other than that, and I can't really get up in arms about it.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Let's not minimize what he did with that intern by using such terms. Her role was subservient, both in the work place and the physical act. It was wrong because it was an abuse of power. Not "consensual petting" like a couple of teenagers.
Click to expand...

Total NONSENSE. By EVERY report Monica Lewinsky pursued Bill Clinton, not the other way around. You pretend that Clinton took advantage of her naivete and innocence and abused his position of authority over her. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think that may be said about Paula Jones IF her story is true. But in no way can that be said about what happened with Lewinsky.
 
acbytesla said:
Total NONSENSE. By EVERY report Monica Lewinsky pursued Bill Clinton, not the other way around. You pretend that Clinton took advantage of her naivete and innocence and abused his position of authority over her. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think that may be said about Paula Jones IF her story is true. But in no way can that be said about what happened with Lewinsky.
Click to expand...
I always thought it strange that she kept the dress, apparently unwashed ... who does that? Maybe if I had just bagged a president I would too.

That said - yep, he should have turned her down. Clinton totally dodged a bullet when the Senate chose not to convict him. It's a two-thirds vote and that's an incredibly high bar. It's why so far I've been lukewarm on impeaching Trump unless there is *overwhelming* evidence of guilt, and even if there is, quite possibly he'd skate.
 
acbytesla said:
Total NONSENSE. By EVERY report Monica Lewinsky pursued Bill Clinton, not the other way around. You pretend that Clinton took advantage of her naivete and innocence and abused his position of authority over her. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

If this same event had happened with Trump, would your perspective be identical or would it be all Trump's fault because he is (insert insult)?
 
Joecool said:
If this same event had happened with Trump, would your perspective be identical or would it be all Trump's fault because he is (insert insult)?
Click to expand...

Quit trying to act like Trump's a victim. Jesus Christ.

Trump has done worse than this by walking in on teenage models changing, and then bragging about it. By trying to move on married women, then bitching about it. By kissing women that have openly said it was unsolicited and unwanted (repeatedly), and several other accusations.

The GOP seems to dismiss that out of hand for no ******* reason at all. Quit nitpicking here. Your cavalier attitude about Trump immediately discredits you in any way from attempting to take a moral high ground. That **** is 6 feet under.
 
plague311 said:
Your cavalier attitude about Trump immediately discredits you in any way from attempting to take a moral high ground. That **** is 6 feet under.
Click to expand...

Wow, your ability to extract all of that information about my attitude amazes me.

I was asking an honest question which you completely diverted from and in a roundabout way, confirmed that if Trump did the same thing as Bill Clinton, it would not be okay because Trump is (insert insult).
 
Joecool said:
Wow, your ability to extract all of that information about my attitude amazes me.

I was asking an honest question which you completely diverted from and in a roundabout way, confirmed that if Trump did the same thing as Bill Clinton, it would not be okay because Trump is (insert insult).
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I pointed out that your question is pathetic baiting designed to do nothing more than imply an actual bias.

You can play it off as whatever ******** you want, people here can choose to buy it or not, especially considering your posting history (which shows a bias).

Trump is worse because he's ******* worse. That doesn't justify Clinton. Clinton was a good President, but a **** person to me. Trump is a **** president and **** person.
 
Joecool said:
Wow, your ability to extract all of that information about my attitude amazes me.

I was asking an honest question which you completely diverted from and in a roundabout way, confirmed that if Trump did the same thing as Bill Clinton, it would not be okay because Trump is (insert insult).
Click to expand...
I'm getting mixed signals here. Are you okay with extracting information from context or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom