• Mueller Indicts 13 Russians for Hacking During U.S. Election
    132 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bigstivie;53138231][B]The "Republic of Florida" white-extremist group, the one that taught the Florida shooter who supports Trump is a good example. [/B][/quote] [url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/law-enforcement-reports-no-known-ties-between-nikolas-cruz-and-white-supremacist-group-republic-of-florida.html]No known ties were found[/url], and it was mostly just the media reporting before they had the facts, as per usual. [QUOTE=Bigstivie;53138231] From what I can tell so far, a whole lot of them that don't support him, don't because his daughter and step-son are Jewish. However most of them seem to deal with him simply because they hate the democrats more. Plus you got to remember Charlottesville, he doesn't give a fuck about these groups and that inspires them and makes them want to speak up more. Hell, one of the [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/kkk-leader-david-duke-tweets-thank-god-trump-thats-why-we-love-him-726023"]grand wizards for the kkk[/URL] support him. The paramilitary training? The KKK is [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXIYQxMN9-4"] hiring veterans[/URL] to train other members and stockpile weapons. As for the pro-gun legislation, Trump [URL="https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/"]revoked a gun law[/URL] preventing mentally ill people from purchasing weapons. I don't think the whole pro-gun thing matters so much, as I think they care more that he [I]isn't trying[/I] to pass any gun legislation at the moment than anything.[/QUOTE] You may be getting the groups mixed up here, most of the North American Militia Movement, ie. Oathkeepers, Watchmen, USCrow, ect. Do not really care for him because he isn't doing much when the chances of passing legislation like the SHARE Act was still possible. If you are talking about stuff like the Neo-Fascist third position groups, yeah. They do not like Trump due too jewish folk within his family. Just too give a bit of knowledge. The Militia Movement gets confused quiet a bit with stuff like the Alt-Right and Neo-Confederate groups that exist in the south. Militia Movement tends to have the distinction of being retired/standing military, law enforcement, and emergency services. During the whole CVille affair, they were the "Camouflaged Men" that were standing between the Alt-Right and Leftist groups trying to attack one another before the police arrived. They also had standing orders to remain neutral during those affairs. I know that sounds like a bit of semantics, but the distinction is pretty huge.
I'm so confident nothing will happen I'm willing to TOXX over it. :toxx:If Trump is forcibly removed from office (Has to be impeachment or something, losing the election doesn't count) I, Toybasher shall have my account perma'd until I stream the entirety of Hunt Down The Freeman, including suffering through multiple playthroughs if there are multiple endings.:toxx: [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("If trump is impeached I must stream Hunt Down The Freeman and play through all of the endings if they’re multiple." - Kiwi))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Toybasher;53138259]I'm so confident nothing will happen I'm willing to TOXX over it. :toxx:If Trump is forcibly removed from office (Has to be impeachment or something, losing the election doesn't count) I, Toybasher shall have my account perma'd until I stream the entirety of Hunt Down The Freeman, including suffering through multiple playthroughs if there are multiple endings.:toxx:[/QUOTE] You're aware your escape clause does not have to be honored, right?
[QUOTE=Toybasher;53138259]I'm so confident nothing will happen I'm willing to TOXX over it. :toxx:If Trump is forcibly removed from office (Has to be impeachment or something, losing the election doesn't count) I, Toybasher shall have my account perma'd until I stream the entirety of Hunt Down The Freeman, including suffering through multiple playthroughs if there are multiple endings.:toxx:[/QUOTE] Witnessed, though I gotta say the terms are kinda wimpy. Trump not being removed from office isn't the same as "nothing" happening.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;53138259]I'm so confident nothing will happen I'm willing to TOXX over it. :toxx:If Trump is forcibly removed from office (Has to be impeachment or something, losing the election doesn't count) I, Toybasher shall have my account perma'd until I stream the entirety of Hunt Down The Freeman, including suffering through multiple playthroughs if there are multiple endings.:toxx: [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("If trump is impeached I must stream Hunt Down The Freeman and play through all of the endings if they’re multiple." - Kiwi))[/highlight][/QUOTE] This is such a lame Toxx that I wouldn't have bothered branding it.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;53138259]I'm so confident nothing will happen I'm willing to TOXX over it. :toxx:If Trump is forcibly removed from office (Has to be impeachment or something, losing the election doesn't count) I, Toybasher shall have my account perma'd until I stream the entirety of Hunt Down The Freeman, including suffering through multiple playthroughs if there are multiple endings.:toxx: [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("If trump is impeached I must stream Hunt Down The Freeman and play through all of the endings if they’re multiple." - Kiwi))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Booooooring.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;53137187][IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/yj0wbmmcs658hyq/chrome_2018-02-16_21-39-08.png[/IMG] [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964594780088033282[/url] Guys pack up, Trump won.[/QUOTE] Hold up a second, I don't wanna just walk past this. Am I missing something? I think that this could be the first time that Trump publicly admitted that Russia actively tried to interfere with our elections and subvert our democracy. Isn't that, like, huge?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;53138911]Hold up a second, I don't wanna just walk past this. Am I missing something? I think that this could be the first time that Trump publicly admitted that Russia actively tried to interfere with our elections and subvert our democracy. Isn't that, like, huge?[/QUOTE] Yup! Follow along at home, everybody: - Russia did not interfere with the elections, that's fake news, Trump won fair and square without colluding, stop crying you lyin' liberals. - Russia did not interfere with the elections, the intelligence community's unanimous agreement is a deep state conspiracy against Trump. - Papadopolis and Flynn pled guilty to Mueller for lying to the FBI but there was no Russian interference and NO COLLUSION! - Putin says he didn't interfere and I believe him, and there was NO COLLUSION. - Russia started their anti-US campaign (whatever that's supposed to mean) before I announced I was running for President, Mueller says there was no collusion and no evidence the election was tampered with, I win Also, Trump is lying -- he told Russians in 2013 that he was going to run for President. Funny how he told Russians first, months before he announced his intentions to English speakers. Note: Mueller is not exonerating the President or confirming that the Russians had no impact on the election. The 13 Russians and three troll farm business entities Mueller has indicted are being presented as having messed with [I]Trump campaign members who did not know they were being manipulated by Russians,[/I] but that is not the same as flatly declaring that there's no evidence of Trump-Russia. In fact, it's just the opposite, but pinhead is jumping on the superficial facts and smearing them around for his own benefit, as usual. :v:
This doesn’t prove collusion for Trump and most company but it definitely proves that the Russians have been actively working to undermine us, beyond a doubt. There’s bound to be more but Trump yet again escapes anything concrete. I’m sure anyone who might be more deeply involved are starting to sweat though. This is going to be a crazy year.
I feel the decision to use these indictments as 'evidence' that there was no collusion is gonna backfire when the next indictment comes out [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] Like he can either say Mueller is a big fat phony, or accept his findings. Right now he's saying Mueller did a great job finding these bastard Russians, which will make necessary some political gymnastics when Mueller goes back to indicting Trumpists
It's looking like this was planned out so that Trump now can't have Mueller fired without looking unquestionably guilty. "What? We said there was no indication that you personally colluded with Russians, didn't we? Do you have something to hide?"
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;53138961]It's looking like this was planned out so that Trump now can't have Mueller fired without looking unquestionably guilty. "What? We said there was no indication that you personally colluded with Russians, didn't we? Do you have something to hide?"[/QUOTE] Another one is "Why are you firing me now? I just indicted 13 Russian hacker that meddled with the election. You're not trying to protect them, are you?"
I wonder if perhaps this is Mueller priming the public for what he will be doing further down the line. Until now the official word from the white house has been that there was never any interference. But now not only is Mueller indicting Russians for interfering, but he got Trump to admit to his followers that there was interference. So now its a smaller step to say that members of the Trump campaign were working with them, and the general populace who don't pay that much attention and aren't as informed will have to make a smaller stretch to accept it.
Mueller is playing 4D chess while Trump is trying to play tic-tac-toe.
Trump has tweeted about Russia 14 times in the last 24 hours. Not a single one of those tweets has been about how we're going to deal with the actual [B]threat[/B] of Russia's attacks on our sovereignty. Instead, every single one is to, in some way, decry the investigation as a sham or a hoax perpetrated by liberals, the FBI, and the media, and/or to state that there is "NO COLLUSION." The man's more worried about his ego than national security. Even if, in the increasingly unlikely chance that there really [U]was[/U] "no collusion," Trump still needs to be impeached for his high crimes in attempting to obstruct an investigation into the attacks and methods used to assault our democracy, and for his high crime of actively [I]enabling[/I] a hostile foreign nation to undermine our social, economic, and political stability by refusing to enact Congress's near-unanimously supported policies and sanctions for protecting ourselves from this and discouraging further attempts from Russia's agents. Trump represents the greatest internal threat to the safety and stability of our country in modern history, and it's well past time we removed him from office in favor of somebody who will put the welfare of our people over the health of his self-esteem.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53141050]Trump has tweeted about Russia 14 times in the last 24 hours. Not a single one of those tweets has been about how we're going to deal with the actual [B]threat[/B] of Russia's attacks on our sovereignty. Instead, every single one is to, in some way, decry the investigation as a sham or a hoax perpetrated by liberals, the FBI, and the media, and/or to state that there is "NO COLLUSION." The man's more worried about his ego than national security. He needs to be impeached for his high crimes of attempting to obstruct this investigation, and his high crime of actively enabling a hostile foreign nation to undermine our social, economic, and political stability. Trump represents the greatest internal threat to the safety and stability of our country in modern history, and it's well past time we removed him from office.[/QUOTE] Where's the proof he did all this stuff that you say he did? Oh, you mean the [i]obviously biased[/i] investigation RINO Mueller is conducting at the behest of the Deep State (TM) and Crooked Hitlery? Anyone who supports anything to do with Libtards is No True American, praise Jesus. :vs:
I think McConnell should be stripped of his party leadership position in light of these indictments. Really, he should resign, but there's no way Republicans would agree to that. [URL="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference"]McConnell knew about the Russian interference and refused to act[/URL]. He went as far as to deny the legitimacy of the information presented to him. He interfered and stopped adequate preventive actions from being made, and now we're still dealing with these threats without adequate countermeasures. [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-florida-gov-fbi-review-shooting-20180216-story.html"]Republicans are currently calling for FBI Director Wray to resign[/URL] because the threats the school shooter down in Florida made were never relayed to the right people. If a subordinate fucking up is enough justification for Chris Wray's resignation, surely McConnell himself fucking up should be enough justification to kick him from his leadership position?
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53141062]Where's the proof he did all this stuff that you say he did? Oh, you mean the [i]obviously biased[/i] investigation RINO Mueller is conducting at the behest of the Deep State (TM) and Crooked Hitlery? Anyone who supports anything to do with Libtards is No True American, praise Jesus. :vs:[/QUOTE] These idiot communist libtards are just falling for the fake news. Seriously though, I love how trump supports have "stupid communist" in their pamphlet of insults while their holy god is undoubtedly having jerk sessions with russia you gotta hand it to trump, he certainly has done a good job brainwashing a huge group of fucking idiots
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53141050]it's well past time we removed him from office in favor of somebody who will put the welfare of our people over the health of his self-esteem.[/QUOTE] You are setting yourself up for deep fall IF Trump isn't removed from office. Believing he is guilty is not the same as due process in establishing the guilt.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141546]You are setting yourself up for deep fall IF Trump isn't removed from office. Believing he is guilty is not the same as due process in establishing the guilt.[/QUOTE] He is guilty of a number of things already, such as failing to execute his office in performing the sanctions law that he himself signed and now refuses to do. This congress refuses to remove him but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty of acts that easily rise to and well beyond the minimum for impeachment. At the very [I]least[/I] he is in direct violation of the oath he swore at the time he became the President. Whether Congress feels they should impeach has no real relevance to the fact that it is nonetheless an extremely and compellingly impeachable offense. [quote=What are 'impeachable offenses' then?]The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, (4)abuse of authority, (5)bribery, intimidation, (6)misuse of assets, failure to supervise(1), dereliction of duty(2), unbecoming conduct(3), and refusal to obey a lawful order(2). [I]Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.[/I][/quote] 1: He has not ensured that his staff have been given proper security clearances to review the nation's secrets, even despite being in full knowledge that they do not have those security clearances. His only defense so far is 'he didn't know' - which is still a failure to supervise. We can also easily include, here, that he refuses to review his briefings and spends most of his days watching television or golfing as if he were on vacation - I doubt he could argue that he is 'supervising the Government' as he does those things or spends multiple hours watching FOX and live tweeting about what the talking heads say. 2: He has refused to engage the Russia sanctions passed into law by his own hand, which is both abandoning his duty to 'faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States' as well as refusing to obey a lawful order (in this case a law). 3: I can't even count the number of things which could be considered as 'conduct unbecoming' of this President; we'll just assume Congress no longer cares about this provision. 4: He has continued to routinely staff, stack, and sack those who are meant to check his power as well as abusing his authority to place individuals into key positions in the government to either bolster his power or ensure that the government can not function as it was set up to do. This includes the firing of Comey. We can also include nepotism in here because that's exactly what it is in the majority of cases. Further, we can include any appointments he's made to office positions where the individuals in question do not even begin to meet the qualification standards for said job but were aligned with or in his inner circle. 5: Russia. Private bungalow 'meetings'. Trump Hotels. 6: Mar-a-lago, including requiring his security personnel to purchase their own rooms on the taxpayer's dollar for his own profit. There's many more charges I could write here but to make it short: If Congress wanted to impeach him there's an [I]embarrassment of riches[/I] waiting for them to justify it. That they do not means that they're similarly guilty of abandoning their job as a check on the executive. Finally, just to pre-empt: Impeachment does not [I]require[/I] due process or 'proven crimes' to begin as it is entirely political rather than judicial (e.g. it doesn't require the President to be 'guilty' of the charges levied against him, only that those charges are brought and considered). If a vote to impeach passes then Congress holds a not-quite-a-trial to establish whether or not those offenses occurred and whether they feel, on each individual count, that the offense is 'worthy of impeachment' (again, this is political). In the case of #3 at the very least there's no 'disputation of fact'. If Congress finds that the President having a mostly bald head in the back of his scalp is something that is 'unbecoming of a President of the United States' then it is a [I]valid, impeachable, offense[/I] for which he could be removed from office; there is no 'due process' for that as it is a plain fact.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141546]You are setting yourself up for deep fall IF Trump isn't removed from office. Believing he is guilty is not the same as due process in establishing the guilt.[/QUOTE] That Trump has actively refused to do anything about the Russian attacks on our electoral process is not a matter of subjectivity or conjecture -- it is a verified fact. Even now, Trump is tweeting about how the FBI is wasting its time on this investigation. Given that his role as the commander in chief requires him to defend our nation from attack, he is abjectly failing in one of his most critical and fundamental responsibilities, and should be removed from office for that. Furthermore, Trump has no constitutional authority to refuse to enact the sanctions passed by a 99%+ supermajority of both houses of congress, and then signed into law by Trump himself. He should be removed from office for that. Trump has made repeated efforts to undermine the public faith in our Department of Justice and FBI, to such an extent that he has endangered our national security by releasing a memo that our intelligence community and FBI called fundamentally untrue and dangerous. Again, this is not subjective -- it is a fact. He should be removed from office for that. Trump used his position as president to radically increase his and his family's wealth through official state business being conducted in very large part within his own properties, which increased their rates substantially because of this. Furthermore, his taxation policy was tailor-made to benefit himself and his family, specifically tearing down the agencies responsible for protecting consumers from predatory real estate practices. Again, a matter of fact, not opinion. He should be impeached for that. Trump has, [B]daily,[/B] attempted to use his position as president to bully, harass, and intimidate the free press into withdrawing negative coverage of him. He has installed Fox News as an unofficial state propaganda machine, praising them daily. His assaults on our press corp, and the truth itself, constitutes a high crime of office, and he should be impeached for that. Trump's sexual misconduct is, at best, predatory and shameful. However, his repeated bribes and attempts to silence the women speaking out against him amount to blackmail and extortion. Trump poses a severe national security risk in light of that, and should be removed from office. Trump fired Director James Comey for, in his own words, that "Russia" investigation. He did this after demanding Comey's loyalty and requesting that Comey kill the investigation into him and his associates. That is Obstruction of Justice, and though still being investigated, he should absolutely be impeached for that once charges are recommended. Whether or not Trump and/or his high level campaign staff actually engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia is still under investigation (though looks more likely by the day). If or when charges are recommended to the effect that he did, he should not only be impeached, he should be tried for sedition (if not treason) and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. HOWEVER, while that investigation is ongoing and Trump cannot yet be removed from office or arrested for THAT offense, there are [B]plenty[/B] of other lawful, ethical, and necessary grounds to remove him from office for his myriad of other offenses.
I don't question that he should be impeached IF found guilty of alleged crimes and replaced with Pence. With Comey both democrats and republicans criticised Comey, you are distorting the facts into why he was removed as there are multiple reasons why he should have been removed. You have no real way of knowing why he was removed, you can only speculate. Mueller is a different beast and if HE were fired, I would take to your narrative more, but I cannot as the result of one firing. I also wouldn't call praising FOX an unusual occurrence with a Republican president.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141662]I don't question that he should be impeached IF found guilty of alleged crimes and replaced with Pence. With Comey both democrats and republicans criticised Comey, you are distorting the facts into why he was removed as there are multiple reasons why he should have been removed. You have no real way of knowing why he was removed, you can only speculate. Mueller is a different beast and if HE were fired, I would take to your narrative more, but I cannot as the result of one firing.[/QUOTE] He's already findable of those crimes. We've found him guilty of several right here in this thread. He does not need to be 'found guilty of obstruction of justice' to be impeached. He needs only be found guilty of literally anything I posted above - of which at least the very first one is already publicly proven and done with. Further, it's backwards to state 'he must be found guilty before he can be impeached'. That's not how impeachment works. This is how impeachment works: (1) Someone accuses the president of high crimes and misdimeanors. (2) A vote is held to hold impeachment proceedings or not. (3) [B]Then[/B] a not-quite-trial is held to determine whether the accusations bear weight and whether or not Congress feels that, even if true, they'd like to impeach the President on those grounds. (4) The President is or is not impeached of various crimes and misdimeanors. (5) If the President was, [B]then[/B] indictments can be brought and actual trials and so forth can proceed. (6) If they proceed and the President is found guilty, [I]then[/I] he has been found guilty and nowhere before then. As you can see, it does not require a President to have been found Guilty of anything to be removed from office. Congress can literally hate your Pink Suit and Tie and remove you from office for it.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53141665]He's already findable of those crimes. We've found him guilty of several right here in this thread.[/QUOTE] Yeah but you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Trial by social media doesn't stand up in court.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141673]Yeah but you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Trial by social media doesn't stand up in court.[/QUOTE] Impeachment proceedings [I]are not a court[/I] (at very least in the 'traditional sense'; there is no jury but for the Congress, there is no Judge but for the Vice-President (or hopefully the Chief Justice), there is no Executioner -- there is only the Congress' vote). It is [I]a trial by social media[/I] effectively. The Congress [I]is[/I] the Judge, Jury, and Executioner ultimately as goes impeachment. As I've just stated, you can be impeached and removed from office if Congress [U]doesn't like your tie[/U]. If it seems this is an extraordinary power it is because it is -- because the Legislative branch [I]is the check of power on the Executive[/I]. As such, it has [I]extraordinary[/I] powers over the Executive.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141673]Yeah but you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Trial by social media doesn't stand up in court.[/QUOTE] The listed impeachable offenses don't go through a judge or jury. The bulk of them go through congress. Impeachment is a political matter. The politics of today are protecting Trump despite previous politicians being impeached for each of those offenses at various points throughout our history. Congress could choose to impeach Trump for any one of those issues literally any day they're in session. The bulk of the things on those lists aren't speculation. These are things that Trump has ostensibly done in broad daylight, and yet congress refuses to act. EDIT: Ninja'd
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141673]Yeah but you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Trial by social media doesn't stand up in court.[/QUOTE] Let's make this clear: high crimes of office are not necessarily criminal offenses, though criminal offenses are high crimes of office. That Trump is allowing our nation to be attacked is not a claim that needs to be proven in court: Trump himself is actively admitting to that fact, and is publicly tweeting about it right at this moment. That is an impeachable offense, and not one that requires a court trial -- just a vote from Congress. Trump is breaking his oath office with just that one single fact, and should be impeached because of it. All the other things stated as [B][U]additional[/U][/B] impeachable offenses? Many share the same designation. Though Obstruction of Justice and Criminal Conspiracy / Sedition / Treason are all specific criminal charges that can be impeached, his other offenses are high crimes of office and conduct that violate his oath of office and threaten our national security, even if not [B]criminal[/B] offenses in a standard sense. The notion that a sitting president has to be found guilty in a court of law before he can be impeached is laughably ignorant. The president cannot even be [B]CHARGED[/B] with a crime until he has been impeached, meaning he can't possibly have a trial before we decide to impeach him.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53141673]Yeah but you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Trial by social media doesn't stand up in court.[/QUOTE] four members of trump's staff have been indicted on crimes related to the special council. I find it hard to believe this isn't going somwhere.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53141696]The president cannot even be [B]CHARGED[/B] with a crime until he has been impeached, meaning he can't possibly have a trial before we decide to impeach him.[/QUOTE] Though I agree that so far this has been the case, there has nonetheless been indications that indictments could be brought against a President successfully before they were impeached by those who study that sort of thing for a living. If Congress refuses to impeach when Mueller's findings come to light, even in spite of all the other perfectly impeachable offenses that could bring him down literally right this second by a majority vote followed by another singularly successful majority vote, we could be seeing the first time the Judicial branch steps over a Legislative branch which refuses to check the Executive. Nonetheless, doing so would be extraordinarily risky to say the very least of it and it would still likely need to be reviewed if the attempt was even made -- ultimately someone's going to have to say 'We'll allow it' or 'we won't allow it' because there's no actual precedent other than scholarly investigation into whether he can or can't be indicted before he's impeached. It is nonetheless 'ass backwards' from how it's supposed to work which is why I'd expect the SCOTUS would have to make a ruling on the constitutionality of it before said indictments could even proceed. Meanwhile, as that's being sorted out, they've opened themselves up to direct attack from a corrupt Executive and Legislative. It would truly be a 'weapon of last resort'.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53141683]It [I]is a trial by social media[/I][/QUOTE] Unless those active anti-Trumpers on social media can [B]objectively[/B] [which they probably cannot do] convince Congress of impeachment and a subsequent guilty verdict, Im going to predict that a supermajority is not going to happen and Trump will remain President. Especially since it is proven that the Russians play both sides of the coin in the bid to stir up confusion. To me it looks like the Russians are succeeding in driving a wedge though maybe that wedge was always there. If I am wrong, I will admit it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.