Not saying it isn't, just saying it seems oddly familiar of a trope, and with evidence casting lots of doubts on the case, it's equally as plausible it's all contrived.
I can't personally give a definitive ruling either way.
Advertisement
by Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 7:55 am
by Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 8:02 am
Tarsonis wrote:Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Acting under the assumption that nobody could be that evil is the best way to make sure that the people who really are that evil never get punished for their actions. We shouldn't necessarily take the report at face value, but we also shouldn't ignore the possibility, however unlikely it might be, that it's not lying.
Not saying it isn't possible. I agree the trial should go one. I'm just saying if the video is legit in that it exonerates him, it casts a lot of doubt on the rest of the reports, which almost seem like they trying to demonize him rather than legit accusations. As I have no way of knowing, I can't say either way, I'm only pointing out the situation is not cut and dry as some people are making it.
by Ifreann » Mon May 20, 2019 8:05 am
Galloism wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Oh there's definitely psychos, but with Gallagher the accusations are pretty egregious, and suggest a massive conspiracy to cover up his antics by the Navy Seals. I mean it's possible but there needs to be a lot of proof. The fact that there is supposedly camera footage that exonerates him, really casts doubt on the rest of the allegations.
And, honestly, if the allegations are true, then the responsibility for them must also exist up the chain. You don't act like that for a long time without someone up the chain noticing and deciding "hey, we'll just let that slide".
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
They've basically made him out to be like the chopper gunner from "Full Metal Jacket."
"Anybody who runs is a terrorist. Any body who stays is a well disciplined terrorist."
Acting under the assumption that nobody could be that evil is the best way to make sure that the people who really are that evil never get punished for their actions. We shouldn't necessarily take the report at face value, but we also shouldn't ignore the possibility, however unlikely it might be, that it's not lying.
by Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 9:55 am
by Gormwood » Mon May 20, 2019 10:04 am
by Cekoviu » Mon May 20, 2019 11:22 am
Thuzbekistan wrote:Ifreann wrote:And it just so happened that the best summation of the idea that Trump doesn't care about foreigners or liberals that you could think of was to quote my post, my post about throwing milkshakes Nigel Farage, from a thread that you don't normally participate in. Of course, for all I know you routinely read the UK politics thread and only rarely post, and that was why you had my post in that thread fresh in your mind when you read my post about a sailor doing war crimes. For all I know it's a complete coincidence that you're aware of that post of mine that's two pages back from the most current page of the UK politics thread. I'm sure that's the most likely explanation.
Best answer woulda been "yeah, exactly this" rather than launching into a tyraid...
by Farnhamia » Mon May 20, 2019 11:34 am
by Zurkerx » Mon May 20, 2019 12:30 pm
by Valrifell » Mon May 20, 2019 12:37 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Trump expected to instruct McGahn not to testify and defy subpoena
Daily reminder that innocent people don't try to hide or obstruct the evidence that proclaims their innocence. Eh, it's going to come down to the Supreme Court, isn't it? Or the 2020 Election?
by Zurkerx » Mon May 20, 2019 12:52 pm
Valrifell wrote:Zurkerx wrote:Trump expected to instruct McGahn not to testify and defy subpoena
Daily reminder that innocent people don't try to hide or obstruct the evidence that proclaims their innocence. Eh, it's going to come down to the Supreme Court, isn't it? Or the 2020 Election?
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
by Gormwood » Mon May 20, 2019 12:53 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Valrifell wrote:
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
I agree. But I do wonder this: if Trump loses and when he leaves office, will they go after him still? It's a question I always pondered, especially since most women stop going after Kavanaugh after he was confirmed (not an apples to apples situation but close enough).
by Corrian » Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Valrifell wrote:
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
I agree. But I do wonder this: if Trump loses and when he leaves office, will they go after him still? It's a question I always pondered, especially since most women stop going after Kavanaugh after he was confirmed (not an apples to apples situation but close enough).
by Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm
Valrifell wrote:Zurkerx wrote:Trump expected to instruct McGahn not to testify and defy subpoena
Daily reminder that innocent people don't try to hide or obstruct the evidence that proclaims their innocence. Eh, it's going to come down to the Supreme Court, isn't it? Or the 2020 Election?
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
by Valrifell » Mon May 20, 2019 12:56 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Valrifell wrote:
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
I agree. But I do wonder this: if Trump loses and when he leaves office, will they go after him still? It's a question I always pondered, especially since most women stop going after Kavanaugh after he was confirmed (not an apples to apples situation but close enough).
by Valrifell » Mon May 20, 2019 12:58 pm
Sidesh0w B0b wrote:Valrifell wrote:
I'm fairly sure a SCOTUS battle would be a losing one, even the most partisan judges can see letting the executive branch get away with stuff like this isn't super great for maintaining coequal branches of government and the general stability of the Republic.
Any other ruling would, naturally, be disastrous.
It would be a big losing decision for Mr. Trump. Chief Justice Roberts is an institutionalist. He's not gonna make Trump the one and only. So then the idiot Trump would resort to what? Ask the AG fire Roberts? Trump's painted himself into a corner.
by Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 1:03 pm
Valrifell wrote:Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
It would be a big losing decision for Mr. Trump. Chief Justice Roberts is an institutionalist. He's not gonna make Trump the one and only. So then the idiot Trump would resort to what? Ask the AG fire Roberts? Trump's painted himself into a corner.
Rumor says that if the decision on US v. Nixon wasn't unanimous Nixon was going to ignore it. I wouldn't put it passed him to go full Andrew Jackson "they've made their decision, now let them enforce it" which would definitely spark a bigger constitutional crisis than the one we might already be in.
But that would, again, likely lead to widespread violence if not Trump's forced removal from office.
by San Lumen » Mon May 20, 2019 1:33 pm
Valrifell wrote:Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
It would be a big losing decision for Mr. Trump. Chief Justice Roberts is an institutionalist. He's not gonna make Trump the one and only. So then the idiot Trump would resort to what? Ask the AG fire Roberts? Trump's painted himself into a corner.
Rumor says that if the decision on US v. Nixon wasn't unanimous Nixon was going to ignore it. I wouldn't put it passed him to go full Andrew Jackson "they've made their decision, now let them enforce it" which would definitely spark a bigger constitutional crisis than the one we might already be in.
But that would, again, likely lead to widespread violence if not Trump's forced removal from office.
by Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 pm
San Lumen wrote:Valrifell wrote:
Rumor says that if the decision on US v. Nixon wasn't unanimous Nixon was going to ignore it. I wouldn't put it passed him to go full Andrew Jackson "they've made their decision, now let them enforce it" which would definitely spark a bigger constitutional crisis than the one we might already be in.
But that would, again, likely lead to widespread violence if not Trump's forced removal from office.
I would not put it past Trump to ignore the Supreme Court.
by Duhon » Mon May 20, 2019 1:37 pm
The Failing New York Times (it will pass away when I leave office in 6 years), and others of the Fake News Media, keep writing phony stories about how I didn’t use many banks because they didn’t want to do business with me. WRONG! It is because I didn’t need money. Very old fashioned, but true. When you don’t need or want money, you don’t need or want banks. Banks have always been available to me, they want to make money. Fake Media only says this to disparage, and always uses unnamed sources (because their sources don’t even exist). The Mainstream Media has never been as corrupt and deranged as it is today. FAKE NEWS is actually the biggest story of all and is the true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! That’s why they refuse to cover the REAL Russia Hoax. But the American people are wise to what is going on.
Now the new big story is that Trump made a lot of money and buys everything for cash, he doesn’t need banks. But where did he get all of that cash? Could it be Russia? No, I built a great business and don’t need banks, but if I did they would be there...and DeutscheBank was very good and highly professional to deal with - and if for any reason I didn’t like them, I would have gone elsewhere....there was always plenty of money around and banks to choose from. They would be very happy to take my money. Fake News!
by San Lumen » Mon May 20, 2019 1:39 pm
by Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 2:12 pm
San Lumen wrote:Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Well now, that would surely exonerate him!
His cult like base would cheer it on and say something like "Look the courts are against our leader who can do no wrong."
Republicans in Congress would probably defend it too as they are too scared of primary challenges to do their job instead of seeing his praises all the time
by San Lumen » Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Sidesh0w B0b wrote:San Lumen wrote:His cult like base would cheer it on and say something like "Look the courts are against our leader who can do no wrong."
Republicans in Congress would probably defend it too as they are too scared of primary challenges to do their job instead of seeing his praises all the time
If so, then this entire thing with Trump becomes far worse than Watergate/Nixon. Why go there if you're Trump? It would only show he must be guilty as sin. Two words for it. Stupid, evil.
by Thermodolia » Mon May 20, 2019 2:19 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Ancientania, Atrito, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hirota, Ifreann, Likhinia, Neo-Hermitius, Republics of the Solar Union, Singaporen Empire, Stratonesia, Tungstan
Advertisement