Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Neutraligon]

Like anyone else they can be fired without a word as to what. However if the president where stupid enough to say it was because they are Muslim, then the president would be breaking the law.

Sure, but your initial statement was "Not true", to Kramania saying that it was quite easy to terminate someone just by telling them they were fired.

He wasn't exactly talking about which times would it be legal and which times wouldn't. He just said it was quite easy, which is true.

Granted I was trying to be a bit more specific but it was unneeded.

[The Rich Port]

I still haven't figured out if it's deliberate dishonesty or if so many Trump supporters are just legitimately too dense to understand the concept that just because we may have wanted Comey fired for his behavior during the election doesn't make it hypocritical to question the timing and method of his firing.

Pro Tip: we don't actually care about Comey, we care about the President firing the Director of the FBI by surprise for the apparent reason that he refused to make investigations the President doesnt like go away.

I can criticize Trump's blatant attempts to shut down politically inconvenient investigations and simultaneously enjoy James Comey's humiliation and dismissal because he apparently never learned that you can't half-ass being a partisan hack in a position like that, it's all or nothing.

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

There is also no other evidence he did it for any other reason.

Ever heard of motive?

[Gauthier]

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

There is also no other evidence he did it for any other reason.

Ever heard of motive?

People act like the Lester Holt interview never happened.

[Seangoli]

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

There is also no other evidence he did it for any other reason.

Ever heard of motive?

The mere fact that he fired Comey for investigating the Russian connections is obstruction of justice in and of itself. It doesn't particularly matter if he had other reasons, or what said reasons would be even if they existed.

Simply put, firing the person investigating something inconvenient to you for the expressed purpose of them investigating you is obstructing justice, regardless of whether or not there are other reasons to doing so, even if valid. He opened Pandora's box on himself in this one by admitting it. People would have had a point that there is no indication of him obstructing justice, except for the fact that Trump couldn't keep his damn trap shut for 5 minutes.

Now, the problem is this isn't really enough to pass political muster for impeachment, even though it is grounds for doing so. It's not quite "bad" enough to sell to the public. What will be bad enough is if it becomes clear that actual collusion occurred, as that would mean that Trump obstructed justice in order to hide possible crimes rather than obstructed justice because he is a god damn idiot. People are willing to accept the President being a moron. Probably less so if everything is true.

[AiliailiA]

I still haven't figured out if it's deliberate dishonesty or if so many Trump supporters are just legitimately too dense to understand the concept that just because we may have wanted Comey fired for his behavior during the election doesn't make it hypocritical to question the timing and method of his firing.

Pro Tip: we don't actually care about Comey, we care about the President firing the Director of the FBI by surprise for the apparent reason that he refused to make investigations the President doesnt like go away.

I can criticize Trump's blatant attempts to shut down politically inconvenient investigations and simultaneously enjoy James Comey's humiliation and dismissal because he apparently never learned that you can't half-ass being a partisan hack in a position like that, it's all or nothing.

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

...

Well, it's not like Trump is on tape in a public interview stating that he fired Comey because Comey was investigating Russian ties to his campaign. No, no, that would surely not be the case.

He said that was the sole reason he fired Comey, eh?

The evidence Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: Trump's own words.

Kramania: But he didn't say that was the only reason!

Do you do this to be funny?

[Kramania]

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

...

He said that was the sole reason he fired Comey, eh?

The evidence Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: Trump's own words.

Kramania: But he didn't say that was the only reason!

Do you do this to be funny?

Trump said he "considered" it.

Which makes sense since he knew there would be political blowback if he fired Comey.

That better?

[Kramania]

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

So you know better than the Special Counsel and the entire investigation? You know that Trump didn't do it? Why haven't you gone public?

This is why there is an investigation in the first place.

No evidence has yet been released demonstrating collusion.

This isn't hard.

[Cannot think of a name]

So you know better than the Special Counsel and the entire investigation? You know that Trump didn't do it? Why haven't you gone public?

This is why there is an investigation in the first place.

No evidence has yet been released demonstrating collusion.

This isn't hard.

The 'no evidence' thing is a bit disingenuous. There is no evidence I colluded with Russia. As a result, there is not currently a growing investigation against me.

However, there is cause to believe that Trump indeed did collude and as a result there is a growing investigation against him.

[Kramania]

No evidence has yet been released demonstrating collusion.

This isn't hard.

The 'no evidence' thing is a bit disingenuous. There is no evidence I colluded with Russia. As a result, there is not currently a growing investigation against me.

However, there is cause to believe that Trump indeed did collude and as a result there is a growing investigation against him.

And yet no evidence he did has actually been revealed thus far.

[Camicon]

The 'no evidence' thing is a bit disingenuous. There is no evidence I colluded with Russia. As a result, there is not currently a growing investigation against me.

However, there is cause to believe that Trump indeed did collude and as a result there is a growing investigation against him.

And yet no evidence he did has actually been revealed thus far.

Yeah, because Mueller is doing his job. Not revealing evidence before the conclusion of an investigation is kinda how things are supposed to go.

[Kramania]

And yet no evidence he did has actually been revealed thus far.

Yeah, because Mueller is doing his job. Not revealing evidence before the conclusion of an investigation is kinda how things are supposed to go.

Right. And until any evidence is revealed any claims that Trump colluded will continue to be baseless and without evidence.

[Albrenia]

Why don't we just wait and see what the investigation turns up? Trump sure is great at acting really guilty but only time will tell what the final result is of the investigation.

[Kramania]

Why don't we just wait and see what the investigation turns up? Trump sure is great at acting really guilty but only time will tell what the final result is of the investigation.

Because that's too hard and we know he colluded because reasons so impeach him already.

[Cannot think of a name]

The 'no evidence' thing is a bit disingenuous. There is no evidence I colluded with Russia. As a result, there is not currently a growing investigation against me.

However, there is cause to believe that Trump indeed did collude and as a result there is a growing investigation against him.

And yet no evidence he did has actually been revealed thus far.

I feel like I just covered this...

[AiliailiA]

...



The evidence Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: Trump's own words.

Kramania: But he didn't say that was the only reason!

Do you do this to be funny?

Trump said he "considered" it.

Which makes sense since he knew there would be political blowback if he fired Comey.

That better?

No, it's not. Your claim that there is NO EVIDENCE has been quoted by a half dozen posters, you have had your nose rubbed in it. YOU WERE WRONG.

A new form of words to qualify or explain away how the evidence isn't very strong is simply not enough. You could do that a hundred times, the original statement would still be wrong.

I still haven't figured out if it's deliberate dishonesty or if so many Trump supporters are just legitimately too dense to understand the concept that just because we may have wanted Comey fired for his behavior during the election doesn't make it hypocritical to question the timing and method of his firing.

Pro Tip: we don't actually care about Comey, we care about the President firing the Director of the FBI by surprise for the apparent reason that he refused to make investigations the President doesnt like go away.

I can criticize Trump's blatant attempts to shut down politically inconvenient investigations and simultaneously enjoy James Comey's humiliation and dismissal because he apparently never learned that you can't half-ass being a partisan hack in a position like that, it's all or nothing.

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

I ask again, did you say that to be funny?

[The Rich Port]

Why don't we just wait and see what the investigation turns up? Trump sure is great at acting really guilty but only time will tell what the final result is of the investigation.

I get the distinct feeling that the investigation will not be concluded by the new director, if it will even continue while a new director is appointed.

Meanwhile, we are expected to believe that this is all respectable and legitimate.

I would also like to mention, the difference between Clinton and Trump is that her investigation was concluded, and then a new one begun... She has been investigated thoroughly, and particularly during a time when Republicans swarmed the Congress and pressed the investigation in order to find SOMETHING to implicate her of wrongdoing.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively trying to obstruct his own investigation.

[New haven america]

So you know better than the Special Counsel and the entire investigation? You know that Trump didn't do it? Why haven't you gone public?

This is why there is an investigation in the first place.

No evidence has yet been released demonstrating collusion.

This isn't hard.

Maybe because they're doing this little thing called an "Investigation."

Please don't tell me you'd release info during an investigation? If you do I recommend you never work in any law profession, cause you'd suck at it if that was the case.

[Kramania]

And yet no evidence he did has actually been revealed thus far.

I feel like I just covered this...

You said there is "reason to believe" he did. "Reason to believe" is not evidence. You essentially said something so useless it's a wonder you posted it.

[Kramania]

Trump said he "considered" it.

Which makes sense since he knew there would be political blowback if he fired Comey.

That better?

No, it's not. Your claim that there is NO EVIDENCE has been quoted by a half dozen posters, you have had your nose rubbed in it. YOU WERE WRONG.

A new form of words to qualify or explain away how the evidence isn't very strong is simply not enough. You could do that a hundred times, the original statement would still be wrong.

The evidence that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation: none.

Thanks, come again!

I ask again, did you say that to be funny?

You've yet to disprove anything I've said.

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and your incredibly long-winded posts are almost always useless.

[Proctopeo]

I feel like I just covered this...

You said there is "reason to believe" he did. "Reason to believe" is not evidence. You essentially said something so useless it's a wonder you posted it.

I think we all need to sit down and remember that the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "he might have lol"

[AiliailiA]

Why don't we just wait and see what the investigation turns up? Trump sure is great at acting really guilty but only time will tell what the final result is of the investigation.

The FBI investigation would be over by now if there was literally no evidence. On the other hand, it would also be over (with a recommendation of prosecution) if the evidence was really strong. There's something, we don't know what it is, but it's probably not damning of Trump personally.

Damn it will be messy if there's a criminal case against one of Trump's family. He'd pardon them of course, and for some bizarre reason the constitution gives a gloss of legitimacy even to such blatant criminal collusion by the President, but there would be a huge political cost for Trump. Even more than Ford suffered, since Ford was over in the US House when the crimes occurred.

No, it's not. Your claim that there is NO EVIDENCE has been quoted by a half dozen posters, you have had your nose rubbed in it. YOU WERE WRONG.

A new form of words to qualify or explain away how the evidence isn't very strong is simply not enough. You could do that a hundred times, the original statement would still be wrong.




I ask again, did you say that to be funny?

You've yet to disprove anything I've said.

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and your incredibly long-winded posts are almost always useless.

Well if we're going to get personal: you're a liar.

[Camicon]

Yeah, because Mueller is doing his job. Not revealing evidence before the conclusion of an investigation is kinda how things are supposed to go.

Right. And until any evidence is revealed any claims that Trump colluded will continue to be baseless and without evidence.

Oh, there is plenty of evidence already in the public domain, because Trump was stupid enough to... well, do it publicly. The question now is whether that evidence will lead to impeachment, or a trial, which we won't know until the investigation is concluded and all evidence made public.

[New haven america]

Yeah, because Mueller is doing his job. Not revealing evidence before the conclusion of an investigation is kinda how things are supposed to go.

Right. And until any evidence is revealed any claims that Trump colluded will continue to be baseless and without evidence.

His own son fucking revealed it.

[Cannot think of a name]

I feel like I just covered this...

You said there is "reason to believe" he did. "Reason to believe" is not evidence. You essentially said something so useless it's a wonder you posted it.

I said 'reason to believe' because I was trying to avoid a semantic wank involving a legalistic interpretation of 'evidence' that no post on a forum or casual conversation would warrant but a pedant desperate to come up with piece of driftwood no matter how small to hang a defense of Trump on would jump all over.

Because anyone not twisting themselves into some sort of ridiculous pretzel would know that legalistic evidence comes at the end of an investigation but starting an investigation, especially one that keeps expanding its scope, knows that it happens for a reason. A reason to believe or to say it another way, evidence.

[Cannot think of a name]

You said there is "reason to believe" he did. "Reason to believe" is not evidence. You essentially said something so useless it's a wonder you posted it.

I think we all need to sit down and remember that the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "he might have lol"

Nationstates posts are not courts of law.