TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED

How long will it be before Trump gets impeached:

  • Before Finishing 1st year?

    Votes: 54 25.6%
  • After 1st year?

    Votes: 26 12.3%
  • After 2nd year in office?

    Votes: 25 11.8%
  • After 3rd year and before he completes his full term?

    Votes: 50 23.7%
  • I hate America, I don't believe in Justice and that Trump is guilty or should be Impeached.

    Votes: 56 26.5%

  • Total voters
    211
whoever that idiot is Fox news dug up
"That idiot" as you say happens to be one of the brightest legal minds on the planet. Alan Dershowitz graduated first in his class at Yale Law. He was the youngest person ever to be granted a full professorship at Harvard Law. He's also a HUGE liberal politically. He endorsed both Obummer and Illary. Pertinent to this site, he's been a staunch defender of our right to produce and partake of pornography as a first amendment issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
 
I did and I confess that but hearing what Dershowitz said makes me want to double down on Trump unless someone can face off with him and prove Dershowitz incorrect

it just goes to show more of the right's double standard.... and the trumpies giving it new meaning!


Funny How Trump Was Cool With Ted Nugent Joking About Killing The President

President Donald Trump, along with many others, was understandably disgusted this week by a photo of Kathy Griffin in which she is seen holding a prop resembling a bloodied and beheaded version of the president’s head.
Early Wednesday morning, Trump called the photo “sick” and said Griffin “should be ashamed of herself.”
It’s an entirely justifiable reaction to a photo that has gotten Griffin fired from her gig as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve programming.

But it’s also worth noting that Trump had a much different reaction when someone who later supported his run for president also joked about killing the commander in chief.

In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, musician Ted Nugent made comments at a National Rifle Association meeting in St. Louis that, like Griffin’s photo, led to an investigation by the Secret Service.

“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their [the Obama administration’s] heads off in November,” Nugent said at the time.

He added, “If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Trump addressed Nugent’s comments directly. But rather than saying the musician should be “ashamed” of himself, as he said of Griffin, Trump declared that Nugent demonstrated “the anger people have towards” then–President Obama, even if his “figure of speech” was a bit “unfortunate.”

*******************************
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Ted Nugent was obviously using a figure of speech, unfortunate as it was. It just shows the anger people have towards @BarackObama.
******************************

Nugent would go on to become one of Trump’s loudest supporters once he officially launched his presidential campaign, saying at one point that “Donald Trump is as close to Ted Nugent as you’re going to get in politics.”
He would go on to say other things too, like a joke about assassinating Harry Reid, and that Obama and Hillary Clinton “should be tried for treason & hung.”

Nevertheless, Trump invited Nugent to the White House last month, where he posed for a photo with a man who has repeatedly called for the deaths of high-level government officials.

On Wednesday, Politico reporter Matthew Nussbaum asked White House press secretary Sean Spicer how Griffin’s photo compared to Nugent’s past comments.

“Obviously [Griffin’s] conduct has been widely condemned, and it’s not a partisan thing to say joking about violence toward the president is unacceptable,” Nussbaum began.

“But on that note, I wanted to ask about Ted Nugent, who joked multiple times about assassinating President Barack Obama, who said Hillary Clinton should be hanged. He was invited to the White House for dinner by President Trump. Do you believe that was appropriate? And if Trump is offended by this incident, why was he not bothered by all of Mr. Nugent’s comments?”

Spicer all but balked at the question.

“I’d have to look back and see what those statements were and what the reaction was at the time,” Spicer said.
Nussbaum gave an example: when Nugent said that Obama should “suck on [his] machine gun.” Spicer had no answer and moved on to the next question.
 
We'll just have to see how this turns out. I just wanted to submit that bit of evidence earlier to illustrate my view that no one else appeared to bring up in Trump's defense. If history proves me wrong about Trump at least a Democratic Harvard law professor would be on my side and maybe even Mueller too down the road.
( https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-25#post-1407872 )
History also shows that the Nixon Watergate scandal was much more about the cover-up of the incident than the actual incident itself.

History doesn't always repeat itself but it sure does rhyme and here we now have kremlingate. Its not about what happened so much now as the cover-up as well. This Paris agreement withdrawal to cater to his small minority base is his death-knell even if he doesnt get impeached. The US will not stand for a Hitler running and ruining their country. His ass is outta here.
 
"That idiot" as you say happens to be one of the brightest legal minds on the planet. Alan Dershowitz graduated first in his class at Yale Law. He was the youngest person ever to be granted a full professorship at Harvard Law. He's also a HUGE liberal politically. He endorsed both Obummer and Illary. Pertinent to this site, he's been a staunch defender of our right to produce and partake of pornography as a first amendment issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
Thanks for the INFO - but his statements on this issue were naive, and hence he was an idiot for taking the Fake-News bait. They used him like a puppet on a string. And because he supported Democratic candidates means what- nothing to me. You guys still make the incorrect assumption in that because someone is against Trump they are on the left. I'm more right-leaning and I'm still stand with the Right-side conservative crowd who launched the 'Never Trump' campaign movement.

Trump is a clear and present danger to this country and who wants a person like him with his erratic behavior and associates in our white-house. There is no integrity to him, Jeff Sessions, and many of his cronies he has surrounded himself by.

Yeah and as for the Kathie Griffin incident who only took a picture compared to Ted Nuygents verbal words calling for assassination - remember this - pot calling the kettle...



FUK TRUMP​
 
Last edited:
...You guys still make the incorrect assumption in that because someone is against Trump they are on the left. I'm more right-leaning and I'm still stand with the Right-side conservative crowd who launched the 'Never Trump' campaign movement...
That's curious. If you recall Republican Mitt Romney seemed to have led the "Never Trump" campaign for awhile but even he seemed to have arrived at some peace with Trump as president because he no longer protests against Trump. Why would you think that would be the case? As a historical reference to refresh the minds of others reading this who might have forgot Romney's position here is an example:
( http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/mitt-romney-trump-speech-220167 )
 
Last edited:
That's curious. If you recall Republican Mitt Romney seemed to have led the "Never Trump" campaign for awhile but even he seemed to have arrived at some peace with Trump as president because he no longer protests against Trump.

that's ONLY because he saw trump as a way to get back in!
if you remember right Romney "interviewed" for the sec of state position...... he wants back in and it will take a republican to do it.... and right now Trump is the only game in town!
 
that's ONLY because he saw trump as a way to get back in!
if you remember right Romney "interviewed" for the sec of state position...... he wants back in and it will take a republican to do it.... and right now Trump is the only game in town!
That was true, but Rex Tillerson got that job now. And seeing that's the case why would you think Romney's not protesting against Trump again seeing that there are no other positions that he could be rewarded with? He not protesting Trump anymore, but I don't recall him recanting his position either?
 
Romney's not protesting against Trump again seeing that there are no other positions that he could be rewarded with
in politics.... and especially in Trumps cabinet.... those positions change ... hourly!

but then I think the main reason he would NOT pick Romney is Romney's position on Russia!
probably what stopped him in the first place.... but with things the way they are now might be a good move on trumps' part!
 
in politics.... and especially in Trumps cabinet.... those positions change ... hourly!

but then I think the main reason he would NOT pick Romney is Romney's position on Russia!
probably what stopped him in the first place.... but with things the way they are now might be a good move on trumps' part!
And Rex and P u t i n are good 'ol boys too. Romney does not have that kind of friendship with P u t i n. So at the very least under regular circumstances Tillerson is going nowhere.
 
Romney spoke out a bunch against P u t I n when he was running..... I'm sure Trump remembered that....interviewing him for a job was just to shut him up and placate Romney some
I recall that. I think they even had dinner together too? If I'm correct it must have been an expensive meal that placated Romney? Not that he'd need a free dinner as he's loaded.
 
yes it was dinner at a nice restraint... and hell they are both loaded so who knows who paid....... may have even been free with all the press the meal got
 
yes it was dinner at a nice restraint... and hell they are both loaded so who knows who paid....... may have even been free with all the press the meal got
If that kind of expensive dinner can silence Romney's "Never Trump" campaign where he probably got some kind of additional reward (whatever it was if any?), I wonder if Trump did the same thing with you or @bigblackbull76 if you would do the same?
 
If that kind of expensive dinner can silence Romney's "Never Trump" campaign where he probably got some kind of additional reward (whatever it was if any?), I wonder if Trump did the same thing with you or @bigblackbull76 if you would do the same?
lol - nope I would politely decline verbally and never give a reason why but secretly hold my middle finger up and silently giving Trump the big FUK YOU! Romeny was a Judas selling out for 30pieces of silver and I highly admired the man and his Bain Capital business model which I proudly tell people I emulate but his shinning armor took a huge dent in my book because I'm a man who prides himself on not selling out to big business special interests. Like SecDef Ret. GEN Mathis had said 'Nothing keeps me up at night, I keep other people up at night'. I don't sell out my core-principles to others, they eventually sell out or bend to my will. I've been offered and I'm still offered positions and memberships which would seem to some an allegiance to the illuminati and I would have so many connections but my conscious won't allow me. Thats my flaw - I could be alot more successful than I am now but I won't be branded like cattle. But I understand and I don't penalize Romney too harshly, if Trump offered him an olive branch and opportunity to work in his Administration that was something Romney coveted a high-ranking position in Government to shape the world but Trump apparently back-stabbed him at the last minute.

I have a confession to make to you @STIFFBBC; I actually worked on a project that was started under Obama and was signed into law by Trump which was a major milestone I worked a long time on getting done. I resigned my position because I can't stand the guy to answer your: what would I do if I were in Romney's shoes question. This is 100% true and there is alot you don't know nor never will you know about what I know.

But you should know this - TRUMP is 100% guilty of cover-up, obstruction of justice, collusion and will be the worst President the US has ever had up to this date. I repeat again, TRUMP is 100% guilty. I know alot more than you do as for starters your too far from proximity (citizenship, employment in the world of business & politics, and location - you need to be in DC) to this whole situation. I find it laughable that your the only one who comes on here religiously to try and defend an indefensible character such as Trump and his antics. I only responded this time cause you asked me a direct question that was viable to take a minute to respond to but arguments posted in support of Trump I laugh off as they are so ridiculous.

Trump will never be respected, Obama never got this much heat, and Shillary wouldn't have received this much either and Trumps base is shrinking smaller and smaller the more and more he fails and fumbles at every turn much of his own doing. I think a 3rd party candidate like Marc Cuban or Bloomberg is gonna give Trump trouble like George Bush had his 2nd election and ultimately cost him the Presidency if Trump makes it out of his 1st term without impeachment or resignation.

Trump is that weak and vulnerable and enough people with alot of economic and political power smell ******* and thats bad in the land of political sharks. Look at all the headlines being posted about Trump as Obama's headlines were never this bad and every week it only gets worse.

I don't post all this in the thread here for my health, I post it for posterity so all can look back on the timeline for the disaster that Trump's Presidency was/is/and going to be (as it says in Revelations - the Babylon that was/is/soon to-be) that I prophesied like St John on the island of Patmos. Shout out to @Orion Pax there, I know my scripture Mr. Mad Lion.

Bottomline: You can say this entire thread is BBB76's Book of Revelations & Apocalypse

Now back to our regular scheduled programming here.

FACT CHECK TIME: The Paris Agreement / Climate change / Scientific facts and data on CO2 in the atmosphere


Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 9.59.01 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 9.59.46 PM.pngScreen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.00.52 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.01.29 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.02.01 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.02.34 PM.pngScreen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.03.11 PM.png Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.03.50 PM.png Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.15.40 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 10.16.22 PM.png
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/fact...llions-and-billions-and-billions-of-dollars-5

 
Last edited:

"Elected to be President of Pittsburg not Paris" huh when 80% of the people did not vote for you and here is their response:

Another man, who identified himself as Alan, lambasted what he called the "criminality" of the Trump administration. "When will you call them out?" he asked Lance.

Lance, a mild-mannered 64-year-old, is one of many centrist Republicans who are feeling voter heat over Trump and are vulnerable to a backlash in next year’s congressional elections.

Democrats hope to make the 2018 mid-term elections a referendum on Trump. Any path they have for capturing the Republican-led House of Representatives runs through areas such as Lance's, one of 23 Republican districts that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

In Lance's district, anger has risen over proposed cuts to domestic programs, Republican efforts to roll back Obamacare, President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, and allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign team and Russia, despite the president's denial of any such contacts.



At the Cranford town hall, the congressman made clear he has differences with Trump on issues such as the budget and a special counsel investigation into any links between Trump's campaign and Russian officials.

While Trump has called the Russia probe a "witch hunt," Lance said he believes it is necessary and that he will "let the chips fall where they may" when the findings come in.


BBB76 Note: Can you believe a Republican congressman actually said that! - No DEMO ever said that about Obama in his entire 8yrs of office and we are not even 8months into Trumps!


rtx37vkp.jpg


Lance also questioned the economic assumptions underpinning Trump's budget and said he opposed its proposed cuts for the arts and environmental programs.

Of the 23 Republicans in districts that voted for Clinton, Lance has been among the more vocal in distancing himself from Trump. But there are others. Republican Representative Barbara Comstock of Virginia has said she could not defend Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Dissenters

Comstock and Lance were among 20 Republicans who voted against the Trump-backed Republican healthcare bill in May. Nine of those dissenters hailed from the 23 Republican districts where Clinton beat Trump in November.

In California, Republican Representative Darrell Issa has faced weekly protests in his district since Trump's inauguration in January.

Issa says he backs Robert Mueller, the special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation, and like Lance, he opposes Trump's proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency.

But Issa infuriated Trump opponents with his backing of the healthcare bill.

"We saw your vote!" some chanted outside Issa's office, while others displayed the message "Repeal & Replace Issa" on a California bridge.


donald%20trump.jpg

Still, the 23 districts, which have a majority of white voters and tend to be moderately well-educated and well-off, do not make easy targets for Democratic congressional candidates. Republicans have triumphed repeatedly in these districts during the past 20 years, winning 198 races to Democrats' 36.

And Republicans have won every U.S. House election in 11 of those districts since 1996.(For graphic on the districts: http://tmsnrt.rs/2rN3xb9)

In Lance's district, a collection of well-heeled bedroom communities outside New York City, registered Republican voters outnumber Democrats, but "unaffiliated" voters outnumber both categories.

Balancing Act

Lance is rated a slight favorite to keep his seat by the Cook Political Report, a non-partisan election tracker.

Speaking after the Cranford town hall, Lance said he thought the crowd had been less contentious than those that had confronted him at recent constituent meetings. He thought his rejection of the healthcare bill was one reason.

"I guess I had to prove my bona fides," Lance said. "I vote with the president when I think he's right and I don't vote with him when I don't agree with him."

But Democrats note Lance had earlier backed Trump's healthcare bill in a House committee. Lance should have "tried to convince his colleagues to do the right thing, and he didn't do that," said Linda Weber, a 53-year-old bank executive who is one of four people already seeking the Democratic nomination to take on Lance next year.

2017-05-26t111446z2lynxmped4p0pwrtroptp4g7-summit.jpg
Reuters/Philippe Wojazer

Ed Harris, a retired attorney who attended the Cranford town hall, said Lance's rejection of the healthcare bill was a step in the right direction. Harris, an unaffiliated voter, said he voted for Clinton in 2016, though not enthusiastically.

"I thought the bubonic plague was better than Trump," Harris said. "I will support anybody who is opposed to Trump."

Voters like Harris pose a conundrum for Lance and other Republican moderates as they prepare for the mid-term elections. Differing with the president may help them win over centrists or independents, but then they run the risk of alienating Trump supporters.

Trump backer Wells Pikaart, a sales manager from Westfield, New Jersey, said he understands Lance's predicament but was nonetheless disappointed that the congressman did not vote in favor of the Republican healthcare bill.

"I think that he needs to use his time now to advance the president’s agenda," Pikaart said.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-fa...wmakers-split-from-trump-on-key-issues-2017-6

One, Two, the FEDs are coming for you, three, four better lock your door. I know this must give him nightmares:

Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 11.06.19 PM.png

It didn’t last long.

Immediately before and after his well-received speech to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28, President Trump curtailed his use of Twitter. "For precisely four days, eight hours and five minutes, Trump refrained from tweeting anything inflammatory," the Washington Post noted. "That’s 6,245 consecutive minutes!"
That self-restraint began to break down on the evening of March 2, just two days after his big speech, when Trump accused Democrats of having “lost their grip on reality” and engaging in a “total ‘witch hunt.’
Just before 1 p.m. the next day, he tweeted a picture of Vladimir Putin and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) having coffee and donuts, lifted directly from the Drudge Report, accompanied by the mock demand for “an immediate investigation into @SenSchumer and his ties to Russia and Putin. A total hypocrite!”
Then a few hours later came a picture of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2010 underneath the caption: “I hereby demand a second investigation, after Schumer, of Pelosi for her close ties to Russia, and lying about it.” (It took the president with the “very good brain” three tries to spell “hereby” correctly, having first tried “hear by” and “hearby.”)
The presumption behind those tweets was that there was some kind of ethical or legal equivalence between the public meetings that Democratic lawmakers held with Russian leaders and the lies — in Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s case under oath — that Trump aides told about their own private meetings with Russian representatives while Putin was intervening in the presidential election to help Trump. This notion can only be credible to the most purblind Trump partisans — the same people who would take seriously Trump’s even more sensational allegations, soon to come.

58074ec45124c9ba2d61e58a-800
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the Business Russia Congress in Moscow Thomson Reuters

At 6:35 a.m. on Saturday, March 4, the president of the United States tweeted from his weekend getaway, Mar-a-Lago: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
A few minutes later: “Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” Followed by: “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” (“Tapp”? “Hearby”? Doesn’t Trump’s phone have a spell-checker?)
Having supposedly uncovered a scandal comparable to Watergate, what did the president do next? He took a respite from Twitter for more than an hour, until 8:19 a.m., when he sent out an insult against the actor who replaced him on The Celebrity Apprentice: “Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t voluntarily leaving the Apprentice, he was fired by his bad (pathetic) ratings, not by me. Sad end to great show.” (So much for Trump’s premature claim to Congress on Tuesday night that the “time for trivial fights is behind us.”) And then he headed out for a nice round of golf.
It was left to Trump’s aides, the news media, and members of Congress to answer the “Huh??? What???” questions. Had Trump actually gotten his hands on classified information that the FBI had wiretapped him during the Obama administration?

undefined
President Barack Obama greets President-elect Donald Trump at inauguration ceremonies swearing in Trump as president on the West front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

There are only two ways this could have occurred: Either the FBI had presented a court with evidence that Trump was engaged in criminal activity or was an agent of a foreign power, or Obama had ordered an illegal wiretap. Either conclusion would be scandalous. But after a frantic weekend of fact-checking, no evidence whatsoever was presented by the White House to support Trump’s allegations, which were denied by everyone from Obama’s spokesman to James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and FBI Director James Comey.
It’s possible that Trump aides were wiretapped as part of a broader FBI probe into the connections between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin or were simply recorded, as had been the case with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, during the routine monitoring of Russian officials. But there is no reason to think that Trump himself had been a target of the wiretapping, nor that Obama interfered in the lawful workings of the FBI.
It appears that Trump had gotten his information not from a top-secret briefing but from a Breitbart article long on innuendo and short on verifiable facts.

BBB76: This is where alot of the Trumpsters get there INFO from unfortunately and then try to counter-argue with you from the fake news stories.

One would be tempted to say that the president’s reliance on “alternative facts” to smear his predecessor is the real scandal here were it not for the fact that an actual, honest-to-goodness scandal — one that may conceivably rival Watergate — is at the bottom of this ruckus.
Why, after all, did Trump have a midweek meltdown that dashed pundits’ hopes that he would act in more sober fashion? The answer is as obvious as it is significant: On the evening of March 1, the day after his lauded speech, major new revelations emerged about the mysterious links between the Trump camp and the Kremlin.
The New York Times was first out of the gate that evening with a story reporting: “American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.”
The Times story would have been big news were it not almost immediately overshadowed by a Washington Post article with an even more alarming finding: “Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.”

undefined
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks in front of a portrait of former U.S. President Andrew Jackson after being sworn-in in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 9, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Smaller but still significant revelations followed the next day. The Wall Street Journal reported that Donald Trump Jr. “was likely paid at least $50,000 for an appearance late last year before a French think tank whose founder and his wife are allies of the Russian government in efforts to end the war in Syria.” (What could Trump Jr. say that would possibly be worth $50,000?)
J.D. Gordon, Trump’s national security advisor during the campaign, admitted that, contrary to his earlier denials, he had directly intervened at Trump’s instigation to remove the language in the 2016 Republican platform which had called on the United States to arm Ukraine against Russian aggression.

And campaign advisor Carter Page admitted that, contrary to his earlier denials, he had met with the Russian ambassador at the Republican National Convention. It is hard to imagine why so many people would lie if they didn’t have something pretty significant to cover up.

Out of all of these revelations it was the news about Sessions — which may open him to perjury charges — that was the most significant.
In response to the Post report, the attorney general was ****** to recuse himself from the Kremlingate inquiry, much to the fury of President Trump, who was not consulted about this decision. This is what led to Trump’s wild-eyed rants on Twitter, designed to distract from the real scandal and to convince his more credulous followers that he is the victim of a plot by his predecessor.
But why would Sessions’ recusal make Trump so unhinged? The president must have felt relatively confident that the “Kremlingate” probe would go nowhere as long as it was in the hands of Trump partisans such as Sessions, Rep. Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Richard Burr of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But with Sessions out of the picture, the way is now clear for the deputy attorney general — either the current placeholder, career Justice Department attorney Dana Boente, or Trump’s nominee to replace him, Rod Rosenstein, another career government lawyer — to appoint a special counsel because of the “extraordinary circumstances” surrounding this case.


undefined
Donald Trump with an all-male group of staff in the oval office Drew Angerer/Getty Images

A special counsel would not have the same degree of autonomy as the independent counsels who in the post-Watergate era probed executive-branch misconduct until the law authorizing such appointments expired in 1999. Independent counsels were appointed by, and answerable to, a three-judge panel; special counsels can be appointed, and fired, by the Justice Department. But a special counsel would be expected to investigate much more aggressively than the White House would like, and firing a special counsel would only aggravate the scandal.
In addition to a special counsel, Congress could and should appoint a joint select committee to look into Kremlingate and issue a public report, but a special counsel would be likely to conduct a more professional investigation and, unlike lawmakers, would possess the power to indict, which may help loosen the tongues of suspects.
There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise we will never know the full story of the Kremlin’s tampering with our elections and of the Kremlin’s connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal. Wonder why?
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-knows-the-feds-are-closing-in-on-him-2017-3
 
Last edited:
...
I know alot more than you do as for starters your too far from proximity (citizenship, employment in the world of business & politics, and location - you need to be in DC) to this whole situation. I find it laughable that your the only one who comes on here religiously to try and defend an indefensible character such as Trump and his antics. I only responded this time cause you asked me a direct question that was viable to take a minute to respond to but arguments posted in support of Trump I laugh off as they are so ridiculous...
I respect your position as well as your intellect ( as well as that of @subhub174014 and @MacNfries ) and I am not trying to proselytize none of you. I have my opinion and you clearly have yours. You have the opinion of "Never Trump" while I was "Never Hillary". As you suggested if...if...if...if...if Trump should survive his first term (perhaps even a second term too) I have a feeling there will be accomplishments he can reflect upon which would benefit all Americans. And I'll let history judge my posts too for posterity as well. I might even go so far as to suggest that the recent Kathy Griffin stunt may even be the harbinger of pathos for Trump from the public at large?

This thread is good for us to debate and discuss things. We have our basic opinions fine, but again I respect your intellect so even if we can discuss peaceful tangents like Romney that would be cool to hear your input on things. :) If lawyers and debaters can oppose one another in a courtroom or on a forum and then peacefully communicate with each other afterwards why not here too? At the very least should I be so grossly incorrect I'll get to read your posts and see your take on things to see how things truly function in America. It is in my nature at times to be a contrarian. Time will tell if I am right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
...I've been offered and I'm still offered positions and memberships which would seem to some an allegiance to the illuminati and I would have so many connections but my conscious won't allow me. Thats my flaw - I could be alot more successful than I am now but I won't be branded like cattle....
Very noble of you I heard Professor Griff speak about this exclusively in the arena of celebrities and the reason why several of them get tattoos like that are for that very reason of ownership. Examples like the number of tattoos Justin Bieber or Angelina Jolie have suggest that they are not their own and that they have "sold out". And have you ever noticed Drake with his affinity towards the owl? That too suggests he may be aligned with possibly Bohemian Grove?
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove )

I too was once offered a membership in a secret society in my neck of the woods. As you know they can be recognized by their jewelry. And I refused for obvious religious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top