MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[Tarsonis]

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."

You say that like it's not plausible.

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.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

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.

In this, I completely agree with you. I was just warning against becoming complacent, and you don't seem to be doing that, so I've got no complaints against you here.

[Ifreann]

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".

Aside from all the alleged murder, it sounds like Gallagher is very good at his job. He's trained as a sniper, medic, and explosives expert. He's highly decorated for acts of bravery, apparently cool and level-headed under fire, and inspirational to the men he trained.

One can easily imagine how it's easier for the higher-ups to ignore reports of a loose cannon if he gets results.

---

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.

Whether Gallagher is actually guilty of the crimes of which he has been accused is somewhat beside the point. Trump is, presumably, aware of the accusations against Gallagher. He probably knows more or less what we know. And knowing that, he's set his people to start the process of pardoning Gallagher before his trial.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

If there’s anything he deserves it’s the gallows

Come now, we're civilized here. Electric chair.

No. Gitmo.

[Gormwood]

An interesting poke at the economy and jobless rate hype.

America Is In Full Employment, So Why Aren't We Celebrating?

[Cekoviu]

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...

Tis spelled 'tirade', just so you know. Wasn't sure what you meant at first.

[Farnhamia]

Best answer woulda been "yeah, exactly this" rather than launching into a tyraid...

Tis spelled 'tirade', just so you know. Wasn't sure what you meant at first.

"Tyraid" is a portmaneau word referring to Ty Pennington's propensity for sneaking into lumber yards at night and stealing wood for his various carpentry projects. *nodnod*

[Zurkerx]

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?

[Valrifell]

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.

[Zurkerx]

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.

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).

[Gormwood]

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).

That fin swimming to the cello notes belongs to the Southern District of New York.

[Corrian]

I see we're still all fine and dandy.

[Corrian]

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).

I feel like they should, honestly. I know it may look petty, but people shouldn't get away with crimes.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

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.

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.

[Valrifell]

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).

I have no doubt that, at the very least, the New York AG investigations will keep going after he leaves office but I do suspect there'll be far less national coverage of those in that case.

[Valrifell]

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.

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.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

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.

The person that did that tattoo of Nixon on Roger Stone's back should ink one up on Trump's face. Maybe his forehead.

[San Lumen]

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.

I would not put it past Trump to ignore the Supreme Court.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

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.

Well now, that would surely exonerate him!

[Duhon]

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!

wut

[San Lumen]

I would not put it past Trump to ignore the Supreme Court.

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

[Sidesh0w B0b]

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

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

Because Republicans wont cross Trump and if anyone goes against him they are his enemy

[Thermodolia]

White House must comply with subpoena federal judge rules

Also Cohen claims he was coached to lie to congress in 2017

[Corrian]

White House Says It's Blocking Don McGahn From Testifying In Congress

But there's nothing to hide.