Asset forfeiture makes up for the cost. But, that’s not convenient to the narrative is it?Originally Posted by ralph
Asset forfeiture makes up for the cost. But, that’s not convenient to the narrative is it?
Don't you tire of being wrong?
Last edited by Alpha Sierra; 05-29-2019 at 06:48 PM.
No, it's not.. When you spend $30,000,000 and come up with nothing, rational thinking would tell you that maybe it's time to give it up, and try to do something positive with what little time you have left.. But, no, our democrat friends are about to double down on stupid..They're all in on impeachment..this will be their waterloo..
I'm really liking Gowdy's take on this. As weird as this has been, this would be the perfect next act in the shitshow that never ends.
5 min vid.
Last edited by critter; 05-29-2019 at 07:24 PM.
You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius
It's bizarre, surreal, and defies logic. There are so many points that seem contradictory to other points in the same statement.
We can't indict a sitting president... but we're going to do something that walks, talks, and smells like a criminal investigation of the president. If the first point is true, why bother?
Am I to believe that if Mueller's team uncovered a smoking gun email chain between Trump and Putin, Mueller would not have said the president should be indicted? At a minimum, would he not have said this would normally be indictable?
It would not be fair to accuse the president of a crime outside of a criminal proceeding because he cannot defend himself... but here's a list of things he did we think might be criminal.
We could not prove guilt... but that doesn't mean he's innocent (see above point about defending himself).
If he thinks his opinion about not exonerating the president is meaningful, did he actually look for exonerating evidence? If all he is looking for is incriminating evidence, why would we expect him to exonerate? If that's the job of the president's defense team, then where's the trial where that evidence could be presented? (again with the passive aggressive non-accusation accusations).
I don't see how to interpret this other than him telling Congress, "Here's a bunch of bad stuff the president and his associates did. Hope this helps with your impeachment thing. Thanks for the $35 mil."
Honestly, how would any of us feel about having a prosecutor or criminal investigator do something like this to us publicly? We can say, "Yeah but we're not Donald Trump," but don't you think this will start to be done to people who aren't Donald Trump?
Finally, we talk a lot about "lanes" on this forum. Without revealing too much about myself or my employer (whose opinions are not mine), let me say the DNC computer hacking evidence I've seen so far is weak. I am in my lane with this opinion. Before you believe what the news sources report, remember they are no more accurate with computers and networking facts than they are with gun facts.
Last edited by Edster; 05-29-2019 at 09:13 PM.
The purpose of an investigation is to gain information for the prosecutor to make an informed decision whether a behavior broke the law and whether sufficient evidence exists to charge and convict. The headline says "Mueller Did Not Clear Him of Obstruction" We don't have a Federal Bureau of Exoneration to clear ANYONE of ANYTHING! That is the reason the law demands a finding of "Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" before anyone can be punished for a crime.
As was noted in previous posts, the Democrats have nothing to present to the American public which would cause a reasonable person to vote for one of their candidates. The best they can do is sling shit on the walls and hope it sticks in their voting blocks mind. The strategy is of benefit because: 1. Perhaps they can sling enough to provoke the President into a misstep. 2. It makes them appear to be be doing something, some infinitesimal thing, that benefits their constituency. 3. They get to slander both the President and the Attorney General, presumably harming their credibility if there is an actual investigation of the actions taken against Trump's candidacy.
Last edited by FNFAN; 05-29-2019 at 10:23 PM.
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
Wait . . . Wuuut?
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Trump doesn’t read anything, he gets his information from low-wattage talking heads on TV and he signs things with an adult crayon (Sharpies). In other words: Glass houses.Pelosi doesn't read anything. She has staff for that.
The only congressman who has said that he has read the entire report is a Republican. (Who then said it’s impeachment time.)
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Has anyone other than @JHC read these documents in their entirety?
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I tried reading it online, PITA. I ordered a hard copy.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Reply With Quote
