Random Politics & Religion #34

Trey Gowdy for AG!

I’m sure he’ll do a fine job. Like that time he investigated Benghazi seven times. If he goes for an eight investigation I’m sure he’ll get Hillary.


Russia if you’re listening...


... oh ***you were listening.


Today’s news is buttery.

I would prefer Trump twists slowly in the wind.

That isn't going to happen either.

But all you guys/gals were outraged by the comments of Obama hanging from a tree. Oh the hypocrisy.

The irony of pointing out failed investigations while still convincing yourself that this one is actually going to get Trump.

Well so far his campaign manager is in jail, and several other members of his campaign have plead guilty/are cooperating with the on-going investigation. So like 30+ indictments, 5 guilty pleas, and Manafort is in jail? Sure does seem like a lot of *** evidence of something going on with Russia and is progressing at a fairly rapid pace for such an investigation. So yea, while charges have not been brought against Trump himself, it seems pretty obvious to anyone who isn't an absolute sack of ***devoid of any logical moral guidance.

That's a fancy way of saying you have nothing on Trump. But go ahead, maybe throwing out more insults will make evidence magically appear.

Rav is just going to continue to pretend no evidence exists because he has not been personally briefed on it, but its nice to see Mueller is still marching on despite all the swings and misses thrown at him.

So, pretending something doesn't exist just because I haven't seen it is a problem for you now? Aren't you an atheist?

But seriously, you guys are tossing around numbers like they actually mean something. Most of those examples were from Mueller indicting a bunch of Russians, but let's conveniently ignore the fact that when they announced these indictments they had to go out of their way to point out that no Americans were found to be complicit, and there's no evidence that their actions actually swayed the election.

Most of the indictments from Americans were either for lying or shady business practices that well preceded the election, so remind me, what did any of it actually have to do with Trump's supposed guilt? You brag about Mueller nabbing liars when that was the very frickin' thing that Clinton was proven to have done time and time again during her investigation.

Seriously, give it up.

You. Have. Nothing.

So you didn't actually read any of the documents. k?

...

So, if I understand your stance correctly....

"Trump is obviously guilty based on circumstantial evidence that does not directly implicate him and you'd be an idiot to think otherwise."

Pleebo: [+]

"The current status of the investigation shows nothing that could convict Trump."

Pleebo: "lol u have no way of knowing that"


Do you by chance work for the Law Offices of Candle & Jack?

Speak of the devil.

Just clarify the “You” in my post was in the context of the general populace aka the Royal you. But if you feel insulted on the matter, well that’s on you.

I say that because it’s obvious in your response you interpreted “anyone” to mean “you”.

You, uh, replied to me. Given the amount of passive aggressiveness that goes on in here, it's not a huge leap to think you were addressing me. That being said, it wasn't even a good insult because it didn't make sense, so I didn't take it too much to heart.

Just to be perfectly clear.

There is so far nothing on the president.

Quite a few witches have been successfully hunted.

You can't arrest a sitting president.

Ok pilgrim when was the last time a President was convicted of treason I'll wait.

The odds of Trump getting tried for treason are about the same of CJ becoming President.

I hate to say this but this might be the most rational thing you have ever posted. I don't know if I should be happy or scared.

Not only did I not read it I don't care.

but what if the frog goes near the toaster

I don't think they really understand this part, the President is immune from all prosecutions because they are head of the Executive branch. A former President on the other hand can be prosecuted, in fact the framers of the Constitution deliberately set it up this way. It was to prevent one political entity from retaliating against a President they didn't like, kinda like what's happening now.

So if the Dems want to charge President Trump with treason and high crimes against humanity for having Orange hair and beating Hillary, they need to first have the House vote to Impeach him, and then have the Senate confirm the Impeachment. Then and only then can you start a prosecution against a now former President.