This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
@WoodyAq ok,I won't
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson "President Donald Trump considers his tweets to be official White House statements.
When asked at a press briefing whether Trump’s tweets qualify as official statements on behalf of the White House, Spicer said that he “is the President of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States.”
Furthermore , this issue has since been looked at by a judge who is in concurrence.
When you start repeating the nonsense that comes out of Huckabee's mouth you know you're in trouble jack.
What's next ? ..... " Collusion is not a crime. "
When asked at a press briefing whether Trump’s tweets qualify as official statements on behalf of the White House, Spicer said that he “is the President of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States.”
Furthermore , this issue has since been looked at by a judge who is in concurrence.
When you start repeating the nonsense that comes out of Huckabee's mouth you know you're in trouble jack.
What's next ? ..... " Collusion is not a crime. "
@RodionRomanovitch Very well said!!! Kudos to u!
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I don’t have to and am not defending anything. The opinion was expressed to all. Woody I’m not defending anything. There was nothing done that would remotely end a presidency. A huge waste of time energy and money. Plus getting nice guys like you all worked up for nothing. @WoodyAq
WoodyAq · M
@jackjjackson Gotta admit, your opinion confuses me. You are a smart guy, so what gives?
The underlying offense is a major foreign espionage operation to subvert American democracy. If anything is worth spending money on to find out about, that would be it.
The presidency ending part is Trump's collaboration with that espionage. I just can't think of anything worse than conspiring with the military of another country against one's own people.
The underlying offense is a major foreign espionage operation to subvert American democracy. If anything is worth spending money on to find out about, that would be it.
The presidency ending part is Trump's collaboration with that espionage. I just can't think of anything worse than conspiring with the military of another country against one's own people.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I have always agreed with your middle paragraph. The last paragraph is where the whole witch hunt label and issue came from. @WoodyAq
WoodyAq · M
@jackjjackson That characterizing only works for people who are not practicing witchcraft.
It is clear now that the Trump campaign met with Russians to discuss the campaign receiving the fruits of Russian espionage. There is compelling evidence that Trump himself knew about at the time.
The stolen information was released for Trump's benefit, although not directly through Trump himself.
That is the very legal definition of conspiracy. Two people agree to commit a crime, and at least one of them takes steps to implement it.
This information came out because of an investigation Trump is frantically trying to shut down. That's the legal definition of obstruction.
It is clear now that the Trump campaign met with Russians to discuss the campaign receiving the fruits of Russian espionage. There is compelling evidence that Trump himself knew about at the time.
The stolen information was released for Trump's benefit, although not directly through Trump himself.
That is the very legal definition of conspiracy. Two people agree to commit a crime, and at least one of them takes steps to implement it.
This information came out because of an investigation Trump is frantically trying to shut down. That's the legal definition of obstruction.
WoodyAq · M
@jackjjackson Russians handing over dirt to the Trump campaign is a crime. Technically an illegal campaign contribution. Furthermore, the dirt was acquired by criminal activity (espionage, cybercrime). Receipt of stolen goods.
Not that it matters at all for the charges against Trump, but the Clinton campaign paid full market value for legally obtained research. Completely different activity.
Not that it matters at all for the charges against Trump, but the Clinton campaign paid full market value for legally obtained research. Completely different activity.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Woody you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment my friend. @WoodyAq
WoodyAq · M
@jackjjackson Bringing me back to my original question: you are a smart guy; how are you not getting this?
WoodyAq · M
@jackjjackson The red meat is already there. Nixon resigned just ahead of charges that look very similar to what Trump will face, except that Nixon may not have known as much of the details as Trump did, and G. Gordon Liddy did the break-in instead of the KGB. So Nixon, but with an added layer of treasonous conduct.
But the law on this is clear, and the evidence is there.
Whether or not the Congress decides to follow the law or follow Trump, I don't know.
However, if it decides not to uphold the constitution, it's a decision that will have large ramifications for the country for the future.
Other countries have faced similar choices, and made the wrong one. It has never worked out well.
But the law on this is clear, and the evidence is there.
Whether or not the Congress decides to follow the law or follow Trump, I don't know.
However, if it decides not to uphold the constitution, it's a decision that will have large ramifications for the country for the future.
Other countries have faced similar choices, and made the wrong one. It has never worked out well.