Could it be happening? Trump being held accountable?

[OddBeMe]

I’m very surprised. Usually former presidents are swept under the rug….

Yes

No

[USLegionary]

This is the Biden regime abusing his power

[OddBeMe]

Funny im not afraid of the govt, I’m afraid of trumpers

[USLegionary]

Trumpets aren't bombing POC neighbourhoods

[OddBeMe]

Yeah i read about army or swat training in shitty neighborhoods. But i couldnt help notice when volunteering how trashy poor people keep their neighborhoods anyway…

I’m passionate about helping the poor whilst disliking them a lot…

[USLegionary]

I'm talking about obamas and the Biden regime's drone bombing campaigns I'm the middle east and Africa

[OddBeMe]

Oh well yeah. Not sure why they can’t understand how that induces more terrorism.

But have you read about the missile that killed the latest al quaeda guy? It slams into the room and doesn't explode. The fins ripped the targets up like a blender.

[USLegionary]

But you have to postion him, of course the taliban set him up

[OddBeMe]

Smart on the taliban side

[USLegionary]

They made a mistake in the late 90s by allowing Al queada to base themselves in Afghanistan, they never imagined Al queada capable of 9/11 and even though they offered the US government Osama it was too late.

[OddBeMe]

Dont remember them offering Osama, but I do remember Pakistan hiding him for a decade. Then we invaded the wrong country again.

[USLegionary]

He was in Afghanistan but supposedly escaped to Pakistan, probably wasn't even Osama just some guy with a beard and a turban. We basically have to take the US government's word for it.

[Goforit1010]

Held accountable... for what specifically? And what specifically that needs a raid on his personal residence by the FBI?

What they (DOJ and FBI) did is stupid. This certainly is NOT going to help the cause for Democrats in NOV. What did they find? As far as I can tell, nothing. Breaking a safe and getting nothing from it only costs the US taxpayers. What idiot judge authorized this shit?

Why weren't they this aggressive against Hillary for her theft of over 3000 CLASSIFIED emails on her personal server? Or go after her for the purposeful LIES she spread about Russia Russia Russia? And why doesn't the FBI go after Hunter Biden for his KNOWN criminal misconduct with gun laws, drugs, and influence peddling with other countries for his father.

Like I read, this is how wars get started. This is what Democrats are pushing and leading up to a Civil War.

[Avicenna]

The democrats are dying to wipe out their political opponents, one way or another

[888theGreat]

@Avicenna They will kill him before it is over but unlike when they killed JFK , people will know it and it will never go away this time.

[Avicenna]

@888theGreat: They don’t think anyone will stop them from doing whatever they want because they’ve filled the federal bureaucracy, especially law enforcement and the courts, with compliant supporters. And they‘ve shown they will go after political opponents with impunity.

[Anonymous]

I’m not holding my breath. I won’t believe it until I hear a guilty verdict from a court of law. At this point, Donald Trump is proof that the rich are not held to the same standard as everybody else.
I would love to see this change, but I just can’t see that happening. If it was, we would see arrests of people who were entwined with Epstein.

[Tommy789]

That is the biggest thing, I have never heard of a president being convicted after being investigated.

[ChooChooHaha]

You'd see a lot more than that.

[ChooChooHaha]

@Tommy789 lol. S' not rocket science. The whole thing is an intimidation tactic.

[ChooChooHaha]

For what?

Cause the deep state didn't have him completely under their thumb?
"Mishandling of classified information." WHERE THE FUCK is the raid on the Clintons?

[goaded]

There was an investigation, it found some emails that contained classified information, but usually without the correct labelling. It was concluded that any mishandling was unintentional. Now explain how a dozen boxes of documents classified up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information could unintentionally be kept at Trump's residence for two years. In his safe.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded
Lol, "an investigation."
It's an intimidation tatic. Remember when the FBI raided his lawyer's office? Same thing.

[goaded]

No, I don't remember, but it would still have been because of probable cause that a law had been broken and the FBI couldn't be sure that evidence wouldn't be destroyed if they simply asked nicely. And a judge would have signed off on it. Like the Trump-appointed judge who signed off on this search warrant.

It's called the rule of law, and Republicans used to pretend to be in favour of it.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Not always true.
"But it would still have been because of probable cause that a law had been broken and the FBI couldn't be sure that evidence wouldn't be destroyed if they simply asked nicely." Then maybe a federal agency should have something better to make their case than,"He was going to destroy evidence."
Doesn't matter if Trump appointed him or not or if D/R claimed to be in favor of rule of law. It's called the claimed rule of law. They are 2 faces of the same coin.

[goaded]

You know they didn't just search for documents, they found them, right? Also, it wasn't the first time the documents were requested, these were over and above the ones retrieved earlier in the year and include highly sensitive documents.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Doesn't matter what they found. They could've found Jimmy Hoffa and the Missing Minutes of the Watergate Tapes. Ever heard of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree? It's tainted.

[goaded]

What are you talking about? They were looking for stolen goods. They found stolen goods.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Legal standard. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
If your search occured without anything substantial to back it up, doesn't matter what they found. Doesn't count. They could've found Jimmy Hoffa's skeleton. Still doesn't count.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded FBI can want to find X, hate X all they want. Can't just break into people's houses if the deep state says so.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded And you just contradicted yourself. Is it the rule of law, or the FBI's whims?

[goaded]

The FBI had enough probable cause to convince a Trump-appointed judge to sign a search warrant to find stolen documents, and they did. Surprise! He's a crook.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded No they didn't.
It doesn't matter who appointed him. They found it, based on an illegal search. Surprise! It's all bullshit.

[goaded]

In what way was it an illegal search? The warrant, signed by a Trump-appointed judge, made it legal. That's what "due process of law" means.

It shouldn't matter who appointed the judge, but it's a lot harder for you to argue that the search was politically motivated when they were appointed by Trump. That and the fact that nobody would have known about the search if Trump himself hadn't talked about it.

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded
You have to have procedure, you have to have the government make their case. Feds have to have something other than "Cause we want to, we don't like him, etc." to break into someone's house. That is due process. Just cause a judge signs off on what the FBI supposedly gives him doesn't mean there was anything to necessarily back up their case. As the defense, Trump doesn't have to prove shit. Feds have to prove he IS. THAT is due process.

Judges can sign off on bullshit all the time, doesn't matter who gave him the job. It goes over the judge's head with power. How do you know Trump wasn't set up by the feds? How do you know things weren't planted? How do we know these documents even exist/ are real, classifed docs? Cause the FBI said so? Cause government media said so?

Never said it was political. You did. I said it's an intimidation tactic. Same way Michael Cohen's office was broken into, same way Project Veritas' homes were broken into (there's more to PV, but that's another story).

And the media outlets. Plenty of media outlets knew as well. But it also doesn't matter who mentioned it. Plenty of shit happens that no one talks about, or very few people talk about.

[goaded]

Why do you think there wasn't procedure? Really? To get a warrant, agents have to convince a prosecutor (and in this case the US AG, a judge, as well) that they have probable cause, and that prosecutor has to then convince a judge (in another branch of government) of the same on the basis of sworn testimony. Clearly, they were right to perform the search, because they found stolen documents that Trump's lawyers clearly didn't know about (they'd sworn that all documents had been turned over months ago).

If the FBI had announced the search or the investigation publicly (like "her emails"), or if they hadn't found anything, those would have been signs of intimidation, but nobody would have known about it without Trump trying to make money out of it (and, incidentally, generously providing proof that the safe they opened was his).

[ChooChooHaha]

@goaded Why do you think there was probable cause? How do you know they're right to do so? Are you sure there were even documents? How do you know all that? Yes really. Like I said, doesn't really matter what the FBI found. How do you that? Sworn testimony doesn't necessarily mean truth.

They did the same thing to Michael Cohen and PV. No, you're wrong. They don't tell you when it's an intimidation tactic. They also take whatever they want. They took things from Veritas and Michael Cohen too. * rolls eyes* How did he try to make money off of it?

[goaded]

"Why do you think there was probable cause?"
Because they got a judge to sign a search warrant. I've seen a copy of it, and the receipts for what was taken. You might as well ask why I think there is an FBI, how do you know it's not just fiction?

Michael Cohen was guilty, along with Trump. He spent time in prison. PV has also broken the law.

[Stoner710]

They shouldn’t have done that there are 46 people in American life you don’t raid there houses 5 of them are still alive. You also need incredible trust in your federal government if you are going to raid the home of a former president of the United state especially one who could be a potential candidate in 2024. The excuse was he took some documents to maralago when he was still in office and didn’t put then in the national archives. This is some banana republicans type shit here. Even if doesn’t stop trump from running in 2024 if he looses again do you really think there won’t be a civil war? (Frankly if he win. I think democrats will start a civil war). We are very close to the end of the republic my friend. One side will be left come 2024 the United States will be at war with the United States

[hostboy__fastestlaps]

It's actually 45 since one of them ran twice non-consecutively

[Stoner710]

@hostboy__fastestlaps fair I believe that’s Grover Cleveland and he lost to Benjamin Harrison who actually wasn’t a bad president for some reason he was actually unpopular because he gave the Civil War veterans pensions are considered to be government overreach at the time. Amazing but we consider a government overreach now apparently raiding the former president and potentially next President of the United States house is somehow not government overreach for some stupid documents that he could have classified anyway

[hostboy__fastestlaps]

I am a Never Trumper, but I don't think the FBI should have permission from the government to raid homes of presidents. This is just another neoconservative authoritarian bullshit excuse to support censorship. Biden and Harris supporting the enforcement of indoctrination-abomination of critical race theory and sex education in levels as early as kindergarten and first grade is another form of censorship; on the contrary, kids will not be taught to tolerate one another, instead they'll be confused in their life and prefer identity politics over real estate and civic education and cursive writing.

[RiseofArtemis]

Hmmm I wonder why Hunter Biden doesn't get a visit of the FBI. Or is it maybe because they are together in it. It smells of corruption everywhere and Biden should also be investigated. After November there might be someone else sitting on the top spot.

[monorprise]

You realize you crossed a very important and very dangerous Rubicon with this FBI raid?

Setting the precedent of successors raiding their predecessors is going to make it much harder to convince incumbent presidents to peacefully give up power after an ugly election cycle to a successor who threatens them personally.

You've just taken away everything they have to lose in fighting.

Good luck maintaining a democracy after this.

[Anonymous]

I don't really care what happens. It is just funny watching his cult come up with excuses for the poor loser.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. Because if you shits couldn’t find anything illegal in the 4 year Russian collision probe, the Muller report, 2 impeachments, and a “commission” that put on a show trial, you’re bound to find something in his home.

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.

But it’s definitely not politically motivated. And it’s definitely not a witch hunt. Nope.

[Part2603]

Aren't you the same people that always say "Fuck the Police. All cops are bastards, the police are all corrupt, and you can't trust the White Supremacist racist police." ?

[OddBeMe]

I have heard that in the heat of protests. Like you fcks calling for the hanging of Pence and Pelosi.

But I challenge you to find one liberal who wants to get rid of police. “Defund” is a word that got out of hand. And “restructure” or “de-escalate” the police doesn't have the same ring.

[Part2603]

Well here's one. Why don't we dismantle the FBI right now? Oh, that's right, you only support the police when they're the being leftist stasi enforcing drag queen story hour.

[OddBeMe]

Wha huh? Now you want to get rid of the fbi simply because it follows a judges writ?

[Part2603]

Lol aren't all the Judges old white men?

[Part2603]

twitter.com/.../1557494241856831489

[ShadezMcgee]

I would say it's being used as a smear and attempt to block him from potentially running again in 2024.

[normalice]

I mean, an FBI raid is not just for show, but I'm still in "believe it when I see it" mode. It makes headlines when rich criminals end up in prison entirely because it is so rare.

[888theGreat]

Witch hunt just continues. He has been investigated 200 times by every branch and they found nothing and proved nothing. FBI might have doctored papers to look like something , but it is all about stopping him from running the country.

[OddBeMe]

Yet Hillary’s emails was legit. Check your politics.

[Waldoe]

or... Investigate the Clintons? that will NEVER happen

[ChooChooHaha]

Check yours.

[Chazmatazz269]

There’s no way they don’t nail Drumpf to a wall. They simply won’t stop until they do.
Look at how far they’ve gone already. What evidence is there that they’ll ever give up? Ell oh ell!

[Waldoe]

Trump is stronger than anyone realizes... he won't bend and he won't break... and it drives Liberals Crazy, it is so much fun to watch, I look forward to all the "Show trials" where there is No Proof of any wrongdoing... and they will continue... I just thank GOD that the Clinton Dynasty was STOPPED be fore Hillary raped an intern too

[Anonymous]

He pissed them off while he was wearing a hole in the oval rug. Treat people badly.. they remember. He disrespected the CIA too, right? They must be in line rubbing hands together over whatever the FBI found to investigate further.

[FilmGuy93]

I'm not sure how many examples you need of Trump being found "not guilty" before you realize that the Dems are just making this shit up

[normalice]

Fyi trump has never once been found not guilty.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice That's actually not correct. Trump has been found not guilty on several things.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56059881 www.nytimes.com/.../trump-impeachment.html

[normalice]

Impeachment isn't a trial. That's why it has its own word.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice no, impeachment is absolutely considered a trial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/impeachment

[normalice]

Considered? Sure. But the rules that apply to criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment. True criminal trials have mechanisms in place to prevent them from becoming derailed by politics. If such things existed in an impeachment trump would have been 100% voted against. Also, if you are convicted in a criminal trial you become a criminal and probably go to prison. The only consequence for losing an impeachment is you can't hold office anymore.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Where is your evidence to support the claim that Trump would have been voted against?

[normalice]

It was presented in the house impeachment. The case would have been iron clad to an impartial jury. But that isn't what we had. We had a hyperpartisan jury in which the leaders of half of it openly admitted they were coordinating with the defense, and no one held them accountable for it. That, by the way, is something that absolutely wouldn't happen in a real criminal trial.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice That's a fuckin cop out and you know it. Trump didn't commit a crime; that's why he didn't get impeached. The main GOP hated Trump just as much as the Dems did. If he actually committed a crime, it would have been the perfect excuse to get rid of him.

[normalice]

Why would I "know" your disinformation? Again, an impeachment isn't a criminal trial. The problem was he violated the constitution by bribing a foreign entity. The proof was pretty much indisputable but because of unwavering GOP loyalty to the ideal that republicans should be allowed to do whatever they want, republicans simply dismissed the impeachment as invalid rather than claim he didn't actually do the thing he was accused of.

Republicans know full well they can never be seen to visibly turn on trump. Yes, they think he is a low class turd bowl, but he gets all the other people they think of as low class turds to vote Republican when they would otherwise not do so for any reason they could come up with. They know they need his base to get more money and power for themselves and so they will never show themselves turning on him. Indeed, those few republicans who have were ostracized. You of course know all of this about Cheney but are pretending not to..

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice It's not "disinformation" when it's true. And anyway, what does Cheney have to do with a conversation about whether Trump is a criminal?

[normalice]

Right. But it is disinformation when it isn't true. Which your disinformation is not true.

And I bring up Cheney because you claimed the GOP would have gotten rid of trump at the first opportunity. Cheney has staked her career on openly presenting that opportunity and yet, contrary to your prediction, instead the GOP has gotten rid of Cheney.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice My information is entirely true, that's why I'm able to provide authoritative sources on everything. And using Cheney's behavior as an example doesn't really evidence your point very well; its actually better evidence of my point. The entire problem with Cheney was that she aligned with Trump at a time when Trump was hurting the GOP; it speaks to how disposable Trump has become.

[normalice]

But you haven't provided "authoritative sources," as such a thing in this case would be the constitutional ammendment that clearly states that impeachment is a criminal trial, which such an ammendment doesn't exist.

And your attempt to use a reverse card with Cheney makes no sense. The simple fact is when the GOP wants to oust someone in their party, what is happening to Cheney is a perfect example of how that is done. The GOP is not doing that to trump.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I cited we’d law, which described impeachment as a “quasi-criminal trial,” but we both know you’re trying to distract from the point of this conversation.

Trump and Cheney are totally different people with totally different levels of sway over the party. If Trump didn’t have the voter support base he did, the Republicans would have gotten rid of him the way they did Cheney.

[FilmGuy93]

*Wex Law

[normalice]

Dont describe what you were doing and then just say its what i was doing, lol 😅

The point was he has never been found not guilty because he has never been put on trial. Yes you can technically say the Senate "trial" found him not guilty, but it's willful ignorance to overlook the fact that the only thing that bound half the jury members to take their duty seriously was their oath to remain impartial, and those same people who took said oath were openly coordinating with the defense.

You can say you just want him to get away with it. I already know anyway..

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice the point I’m making is that he can’t “get away” with something he clearly didn’t do.

[normalice]

And my point is that he has gotten away with pretty much everything that he did do with the exception of a number of civil suits he settled out of court for. So how would you, a rank and file member of his cult, be able to tell the difference?

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice The main reason is I'm not a member of his cult; I hate the guy.

[normalice]

You are absolutely in the cult of trumpism. It's a weird cult where everyone is ready to sacrifice all their integrity for a leader half of them claim to hate, but claiming to hate someone while greedily consuming any disinformation that excuses his numerous crimes is is still being in his cult. Genuinely, I'm sorry. I've seen people I grew up with in cults and I know what it can do, how much pain it takes to get out, and why therefore are unlikely to do so on your own.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I'm willing to give you the same offer and opportunity I give to absolutely everyone else; if you can demonstrate with particularity Trump's criminal behavior, I will happily concede that you are correct. I'll even read any evidence you give me in the most favorable light possible to you. I'll put my right hand on your preferred religious text and swear by your preferred diety to interact with your argument in good faith.

[normalice]

I'll ask the same thing I asked my mother immediately before she stopped talking to me in 2016 to solidify her permanent devotion to the trump cult: what evidence would it take to convince you Trump committed crimes?

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Well, for the sake of this conversation, I'm willing to say that I would accept anything that tips beyond a reasonable doubt. So for example; if you wanted to convince me that Trump tried withholding aid from Ukraine, you would need to show me evidence of Trump doing something that the most likely rational explanation for him doing is that he wanted to abuse his power to get reelected.

[normalice]

Too vague. "Most likely" is subject to your interpretation and you have already demonstrated that you will go to extraordinary lengths to interpret things in a way that avoids accountability for anyone on the right.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice no no no my friend, you don’t get to throw in the towel that easily. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a matter of opinion; it’s a legal standard for a reason.

[normalice]

Yeah, but if you have already decided he is not guilty no matter what, as you have, you can endlessly claim you have a reasonable doubt and no one can prove you are lying.

[normalice]

Also, I took issue with "Most likely" not "reasonable doubt." I assume that's what you meant.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice no, I genuinely meant exactly what I said. I am always willing to change my positions when confronted with new facts. If you can present me with a set of neutral facts that demonstrates that it’s a higher probability that Trump committed a crime than it is that he didn’t; I will concede to your position.

[normalice]

But you're not or you would have by now. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was presented in the first impeachment. No one even bothered to dispute that he did it. His lawyers literally argued that he should just be allowed to get away with it. And yet you take this as reasonable doubt. I have no reason to thus conclude that "but I think he should be allowed to get away with it" would be considered reasonable doubt for anything else.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice or maybe that evidence wasn’t as ironclad as you think. I looked at the evidence first hand. It doesn’t lead to the conclusion you think.

[normalice]

No, it was. I looked at it. Either you're lying about looking at it, yourself, or you've already made up your mind. Or both.

Probably both. You've already convinced me you made up your mind. But now to say the evidence wasn't ironclad when his defense actively just made the case that he should be allowed to do it - at no point making the case that he didn't do it - means you just didn't watch any of it.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I'm going to ask you again. Because you are so certain of exactly what you've seen; please point out, with particularity, the exact moment where you believe the crime happened.

[normalice]

Again, I'm convinced you have already made up your mind. The easiest evidence for this is the first impeachment. The house laid out an ironclad case which the Republican Senate simply didn't allow to be presented. You can still see it in the archives of the intelligence committee. I watched every second of it and what happened was everyone who said he did it said so under oath while everyone who said he did not do it refused to say so under oath.

But thats not even the easiest example. The easiest example is actually the 2nd article of his first impeachment. Notice I said the intelligence committee: that's not supposed to be who handles impeachment investigations. The DOJ is. But Trump blocked all investigation into himself, publicly and repeatedly. That's a crime. Trump told witnesses not to testify. That's a crime. Trump both threatened and delivered retaliation. That's a crime. Again, no one denies he did these things, they just denied that he should be held accountable for it.

But you already know all this. You're just pretending not to because you already made up your mind..

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Trump telling his subordinants to not volunteer information is neither a crime nor inappropriate in any way. That's how the legal system works.

I'm going to ask you again; please point out to me the particular evidence you think demonstrates that Trump is a criminal.

[normalice]

Its definitely a crime. And you did exactly what I thought you'd do. You already made up you mind and have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary - instead only reinforcing it by showing your exhaustingly predictable ace in the hole: when completely backed into a corner you will just claim that crime isn't crime.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice The onus isn't on me to disprove claims that you haven't made yet. Trump told his employees not to comply, absent subpoenas that compelled their testimony; that is not crime.

[normalice]

I'm saying "onus" has nothing to do with it if you're just going to cultishly claim crime isn't crime when Trump does it.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I really, genuinely and truly do have an open mind. You said the House made an iron clad case. So, because I saw the same information you did and reached a different conclusion, I'm curious if you can point to specific evidence that makes you think Trump committed the crime. Forgetting what I think for a moment, why do you think what you think?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

[normalice]

I know you are saying that, but I don't believe you because you just demonstrated that you are perfectly content saying crime isn't crime when you are backed into a corner.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Here's what the law says: 2 U. S. Code § 192 states "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

Congress "summons" a witness by way of a subpoena. "An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress." Section 1, Paragraph 1 www.govinfo.gov/.../GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm

The Executive branch is legally allowed to contest the validity of subpoenas, as is any other witness called to any other proceeding where the subject matter they will be asked about is potentially privileged. That is not a crime. Crimes are actions that violate the law.

[normalice]

They are legally allowed to contest the validity through the courts. Not by just saying 'don't show up or there will be retaliation.' Thats a crime (witness tampering, among other things) that trump committed and thus, according to you, not a crime.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I agree, that would be a crime! Can you show me that that happened?

[normalice]

What would qualify as showing you that it happened?

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice A story, statement, or some other official correspondence of the Trump Administration that, when put in the full context, makes reasonably apparent threats against employees for the act of complying with the subpoenas without direct authorization from the Trump Administration to do so.

[normalice]

It was not up to the trump administration to authorize witness participation. Putting that caveat in there tells me you know exactly what he did but because he "didn't authorize," lawfully supeanaed witnesses to answer their supeanaed, which again wasn't up to him, the crime isn't a crime.

And this has been around strike 5 or whatever. You keep asking for something but remain shifty about committing to what it must be to convince you. This is not because you are pursuing some impartial standard but because you are desperate to avoid one. The threats were made publicly, some replayed at the hearing, a few even replayed at the "trial." You claimed to have watched it but have made clear you have no idea what I even could be talking about. You are lying. You just want him to get away with it.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Actually, the administration is exactly who authorizes them to speak. All persons working for the Trump Administration are employees of the Trump Administration and are therefore subject to the president's control.

I haven't been "shifty" or dishonest at all. I've evidenced and cited everything I've claimed, and I told you exactly what would any rational person would consider acceptable evidence to say someone was guilty of a crime. It seems to me that the problem is that you know you can't substantiate your claims.

[normalice]

The administration has no such authority. That you seem to be clinging to that lie tells me further that you just want him to get away with it.

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice He does actually. The entire executive branch, including the federal agencies, are employees of the President, and are therefore subject to executive privilege. www.google.com/search

[normalice]

No he doesn't. The only entity that can override a lawfully issued subpoena is the judicial branch. And they didn't.

You know this already but you just want him to get away with it..

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Yes, and after they chose to enforce the subpoena, the Trump employees testified before the House.

[normalice]

No, many who were subpoenad didn't show. One can imagine it is because publicly Trump told them no to, with thinly veiled threats. No subpoenas were enforced. Some just decided they weren't afraid of trump or decided our democracy was too important and showed up. Vindman is the first that comes to mind. Of course hours after Trump was "exonerated" he fired Vindman and, for good measure, fired his brother too. Clear cut retaliation but you're cool with that because, all along, you just wanted him to get away with it..

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice I will... kind of grant you Vindman. I think firing an employee after it comes to light that they lied about you to Congress is different from actively suppressing witnesses, but I generally agree with what you're saying. If someone working for you made you look bad, it's not unreasonable to think you would want to get rid of that person. Again you talk about "thinly veiled threats," can you cite specific examples?

[normalice]

Again, it was publicly broadcasted in both the committee hearing and even a little bit in the Senate "trial." Here's the shortest snippet I could find after a ~20 second quick search:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u7u9jMw3oE

[FilmGuy93]

@normalice Alright, thank you. I'm at work right now, so I will take a look tonight. Thank you for sending something.

[goaded]

Presidents don't usually steal state secrets.

[OddBeMe]

Would we know?

[goaded]

Yes, they'd have been investigated by the FBI. :)

[OddBeMe]

Like Kavanaugh was “investigated”.

Love how right wingers are saying the fbi is a lefty agency now…

[goaded]

What could possibly go wrong with only interviewing people with evidence against the nominee that the White House approved of?

[OddBeMe]

I dont even think they did that. They never got off the bar stools.

[goaded]

They have to look after them. They're bar-stewards. :)

[exitseven]

It is an attempt by Bidrn's DOJ to keep President Trump from running for president again in 2024.

[anylolone]

"the walls are closing in" they are, as usual you guys project.
lol!

Just trump talking about it should give you shivers.


Oh, I love what bolsonaro is doing!

[TroyDT]

Not a fan, but raiding him for maybe having some documents while letting Hillary walk after destroying documents knowing that they were being sought seems to stink of blatant political bias.

[Twalli]

It COULD be happening. Heavy emphasis on COULD.

[OddBeMe]

If Biden doesn't pull a Gerald Ford.

[Still-alive]

If you mean pardoning trump? no way he'd do that. buuut maybe Ron Desantis or some other republican if they got the presidency would.

[OddBeMe]

@Still-alive presidents are a small club and they can protect themselves. If Trumps prosecution could open one potentially for Biden….

[Waldoe]

sounds like you've already convicted him with out a trial...

[OddBeMe]

I try not to. I would just love any trial at all.

[Jerre]

There won’t be a Trial

[Waldoe]

@Jerre FIRST... there has to be a crime... besides the Blind Hate coming from The Brigade of Hillary Losers...

[OddBeMe]

Pretty decent evdience of him stealing money from his inauguration fund, demanding GA officials “find” votes and probably some shady Trump Org shit.

[Snakeyes7]