gehringer_2 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 10 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Lindsey Graham is on full meltdown. He was almost in tears on Fox News. Lindsay has turned into one weird dude. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said: Lindsay has turned into one weird dude. It wasn't that long ago where I thought he wasn't terrible. His complete sellout has been something to behold. Quote
Tigerbomb13 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 6 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: Bragg really needs to issue that gag order Quote
Edman85 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 55 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said: Bragg really needs to issue that gag order The judge does that, right? That will come Tuesday. Quote
mtutiger Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: Lindsey Graham is on full meltdown. He was almost in tears on Fox News. See, when I hear the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome", this is what comes to mind for me. Quote
Tigerbomb13 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: If anyone ever thinks Pete was “tough on Trump” look no further than here. He’s an enabler just like the rest of them. Edited March 31, 2023 by Tigerbomb13 Quote
ewsieg Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 24 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said: If anyone ever thinks Pete was “tough on Trump” look no further than here. He’s an enabler just like the rest of them. How is this enabling? Quote
Tigerbomb13 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 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. 2 Quote
pfife Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 Meijer alsoo characterized the charges as weak before he knows what they are. Seems pretty enable-y to me 2 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 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. 1 Quote
ewsieg Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 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. Quote
romad1 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said: If anyone ever thinks Pete was “tough on Trump” look no further than here. He’s an enabler just like the rest of them. Nah, he legit wants the vampire dead. Is arguing over the composition of the stake. Quote
chasfh Posted March 31, 2023 Author Posted March 31, 2023 5 hours ago, digitalpigsmuggler said: You like living in a banana republic where candidates get charged with fake crimes? What fake crimes? Quote
chasfh Posted March 31, 2023 Author Posted March 31, 2023 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. Quote
Tiger337 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 3 minutes ago, chasfh said: They have got to have something more on Lindsey than he's merely gay. It's got to be something more disgusting than that. Like Matt Gaetz? Quote
chasfh Posted March 31, 2023 Author Posted March 31, 2023 Just now, Tiger337 said: Like Matt Gaetz? Possibly. Maybe even worse. Quote
chasfh Posted March 31, 2023 Author Posted March 31, 2023 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. Quote
Tiger337 Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 (edited) 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 March 31, 2023 by Tiger337 Quote
smr-nj Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 Campaign finance violations. That’s the crime. I couldn’t give a rats ass who Trump screwed with and when. Non-issue, except as it relates to the charge. Who isn’t acknowledging this? Quote
chasfh Posted March 31, 2023 Author Posted March 31, 2023 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. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.