Jump to content

The Idiocracy of Donald J. Trump


chasfh

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

How is this enabling?

Indicting someone for crimes is not “crossing the Rubicon”. It’s called following the rule of law, and not giving someone special preference based on wealth and power. To give a free pass because the crime may or may not be a “misdemeanor for falsifying business records” is still a crime. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Indicting someone for crimes is not “crossing the Rubicon”. It’s called following the rule of law, and not giving someone special preference based on wealth and power. To give a free pass because the crime may or may not be a “misdemeanor for falsifying business records” is still a crime. 

exactly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pfife said:

Meijer alsoo characterized the charges as weak before he knows what they are.    Seems pretty enable-y to me

There is some legitimacy to this complaint, but there has been reporting about how the felony charges had to have been done (using a fed statute that he doesn't even have authority to charge on) and if in fact that is what was done here, it is weak sauce.   

I can say my personal opinion, I really wanted GA to be the first charges.  I feel like that's the stronger case on much bigger charges.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Lindsey Graham is begging MAGAs to help pay Trump's legal fees.  You can't make this stuff up.  The sad thing thing is that they probably will!

They have got to have something more on Lindsey than he's merely gay. It's got to be something more disgusting than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They didn't actually get him yet.  There are still plenty of opportunities for this to get derailed.  

The biggest concern I have in all this is that it's all going to be primarily about paying off the woman, and not about the treason. The Trump Daniels thing is almost the exact same as John Edwards using campaign funds to pay hush money to the woman he was having an affair with, and he got acquitted. Even Clinton Lewinsky was more or less swept under the table as nothing more than he was a bad widdle boy. If they decide to go after him Capone-style and fail, I don't know how they can think they can get him on the bigger stuff afterwards. At that point it will look legitimately political. So the indictments had better have some crimes that are more than about tawdry mushroom-headed sex.

You got one chance when you go after the king. One. Best not miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The biggest concern I have in all this is that it's all going to be primarily about paying off the woman, and not about the treason. The Trump Daniels thing is almost the exact same as John Edwards using campaign funds to pay hush money to the woman he was having an affair with, and he got acquitted. Even Clinton Lewinsky was more or less swept under the table as nothing more than he was a bad widdle boy. If they decide to go after him Capone-style and fail, I don't know how they can think they can get him on the bigger stuff afterwards. At that point it will look legitimately political. So the indictments had better have some crimes that are more than about tawdry mushroom-headed sex.

You got one chance when you go after the king. One. Best not miss.

It reminds me of the first impeachment where I think they had a weak case among all the other rumored more serious stuff.  I think they are going to screw this one up too.  They've got all kinds of legitimate stuff to nail him on and this one is just going to look political and not taken seriously.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I really wish they wouldn't keep referring to him having had sex with and then paying off a "porn star". First of all, it makes him look cool to a lot of people, including the people who need to be convinced that he's a disgusting rat. Secondly, there is nothing I can see about the story that turns specifically on her being a "porn star", as opposed to being any other ordinary woman, so that part is irrelevant to the alleged crime. It's part of every story about it because it's prurient, so it's sexy (in a journalistic way) and maintains interest, page views and thus ad revenue—but again, makes him look cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      284
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...