Doesn’t This Just say it All.....

[Kentonio]

You are clearly wrong in your analysis.

And Trump has not committed any, as you say, "major financial crimes". If Trump was the hardened criminal gangster you and others are painting him to be he would have been arrested years ago. The only reason for any of these "investigations" is purely political.

He can't have commited crimes because otherwise he'd have been caught earlier? Wow, that's an unusual and interesting view of law enforcement.

To offer yet another example of one person being investigated on bogus charges while another person is clearly proven guilty but not prosecuted, let's look at the case of Stormy Daniels.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Why has Stormy Daniels not been arrested for extortion? Trump is being investigated for paying hush money, which isn't a crime, but the recipient of the hush money, who has committed a federal crime, walks.

This whole thing is laughable.

This is becoming bizarre. Stormy Daniels didn't go to Trump and say 'give me money or I'll tell everyone your dirty secrets'. She was going to publicly talk about things that happened in HER life, and Trump and his cronies paid her a ton of money to dissuade her.

I don't think you really understand what extortion means.

 

[Allandavid]

I would likely take that same position on general principle. It creates a dichotomy. Is abandoning Trump an admission that everything that has gone on over the last two years has been right?

I see this entire thing as a grotesque abuse of authority on the part of the government and I might be tempted as a protest against that abuse to support Trump.

Again, you skirt the point of the poll.

You are a Trump supporter.

You are given PROOF that he either conspired with the Russians, or he has obstructed justice.

PROOF.....Hold that thought....

You continue to support him...

 

[HTacianas]

He can't have commited crimes because otherwise he'd have been caught earlier? Wow, that's an unusual and interesting view of law enforcement.



This is becoming bizarre. Stormy Daniels didn't go to Trump and say 'give me money or I'll tell everyone your dirty secrets'. She was going to publicly talk about things that happened in HER life, and Trump and his cronies paid her a ton of money to dissuade her.

I don't think you really understand what extortion means.

Good luck getting that one past a judge. "Yes your honor I was going to tell all about

Again, you skirt the point of the poll.

You are a Trump supporter.

You are given PROOF that he either conspired with the Russians, or he has obstructed justice.

PROOF.....Hold that thought....

You continue to support him...

Things like that happen every day. Someone commits a crime and during their arrest the police abuse the suspect. Crowds of people protest the police and demand that the suspect be released.

What's the difference?

 

[Kentonio]

Good luck getting that one past a judge. "Yes your honor I was going to tell all about

She wouldn't ever have been in front of a judge in the first place. I don't know how you don't understand this. She didnt extort money, she was offered money to not talk about something.

If you did something with another person that you knew would be hugely embarrasing to them if it was ever revealed, do you actually think that you have no right to speak about that ever or else you would be commiting extortion? That you couldn't talk about your own life without being criminalized?

 

[HTacianas]

She wouldn't ever have been in front of a judge in the first place. I don't know how you don't understand this. She didnt extort money, she was offered money to not talk about something.

If you did something with another person that you knew would be hugely embarrasing to them if it was ever revealed, do you actually think that you have no right to speak about that ever or else you would be commiting extortion? That you couldn't talk about your own life without being criminalized?

You have every right to talk about it. Taking money for your silence is extortion. It's no different than an elected official being charged with extortion for accepting a bribe. The official has every authority to either do or not do what was asked, and the bribe was never his idea in the first place. He never demanded the bribe, merely accepted it.

 

[Kentonio]

You have every right to talk about it. Taking money for your silence is extortion. It's no different than an elected official being charged with extortion for accepting a bribe. The official has every authority to either do or not do what was asked, and the bribe was never his idea in the first place. He never demanded the bribe, merely accepted it.

In no way, shape or form is it comparable to an elected official taking a bribe. The whole point of bribing an elected official would be to get them to do something contrary to their elected duties. With Stormy Daniels she had every right to talk about whatever she wanted, and Trump had every right to offer to pay her money for her not to do that.

 

[Sparagmos]

You'd just as well ask them if they would support impeaching Trump if he rode into town on a unicorn. A thing that never happened never happened.

That makes no sense. Unicorns aren’t real, obstruction of justice is, and the operative word is “if.”

 

[Sparagmos]

All that is merely a rehash of the same nonsense that has been going on since Trump was elected. Lots of people calling for the heads of some people for allegedly doing some things, but all the while the evidence clearly proves that some other people violated the law but they get a pass. Most notably this, from the article:

"It is illegal under US campaign finance law for campaigns to accept material aid from foreign nationals."

Yet this entire fiasco was started by the Steele dossier, a/k/a material aid from a foreign national. Now what is Mueller planning to do about that? It is quite obvious that the Clinton campaign received material aid from a foreign national, and that foreign national claimed that it came from Russian intelligence.

This is either a prosecution of some people for harboring and holding opinions contrary to someone's orthodoxy, or it is not. We're going to investigate those who might have received material aid from a foreign national during a political campaign but not prosecute those who are proven to have done it.

The Steele dossier is not material aide from a foreign national, that’s ridiculous. Christopher Steele is not the British government.

 

[FenderTL5]

...Trump has not committed any, as you say, "major financial crimes". If Trump was the hardened criminal gangster you and others are painting him to be he would have been arrested years ago...

Trump has operated his business(es) on the edge of unethical and illegal financially for years and this is widely known and shown in the civil courts, in numerous lawsuits. A prominent one being the fraud associated with Trump University.
Civil law and criminal law are different things. However, Trump is a crook and has been for years. It is yet to be shown that he's a criminal.
I'm opposed to impeachment unless it is shown that he committed a crime while in office.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So atheists from other countries are anti-Trump. I see.

When you've got nothing else, weaponize religion. Classy!

 

[KCfromNC]

All that is merely a rehash of the same nonsense that has been going on since Trump was elected.

Yep. You'd think the fact that there have been ongoing successful prosecutions of Trump campaign and administration officials for the last two years would signal to some people that hey, maybe there's a problem there. Guess the message isn't getting through to everyone.

 

[KCfromNC]

What does that have to do with the subject of the thread...?

It is an attempt to turn the discussion away from the topic of the thread and turn it into one about various personal attributes of the posters.

 

[dgiharris]

You have every right to talk about it. Taking money for your silence is extortion. It's no different than an elected official being charged with extortion for accepting a bribe. The official has every authority to either do or not do what was asked, and the bribe was never his idea in the first place. He never demanded the bribe, merely accepted it.

You have seriously got to be trolling. You can not be serious.

If what you say were true, then that means that every single NDA signed and settlement made in this country is a form of extortion.

People are paid legally to keep their mouth shut all the time, every day and twice on Sundays.

When I was let go from my corporate job in Silicon Valley, the company paid me 1/2 of my annual salary for my severance package. Part of the Severance Package included a NDA which stated that for the rest of my life, I was prohibited from talking about the internal business practices of the company. Not just proprietary info, but everything.

According to you, me taking that money and agreeing to keep my mouth shut about the stuff my ex-company did was extortion?

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[FenderTL5]

Yep. You'd think the fact that there have been ongoing successful prosecutions of Trump campaign and administration officials for the last two years would signal to some people that hey, maybe there's a problem there. Guess the message isn't getting through to everyone.

[overheard]
Trump has to be the unluckiest person in the world, everyone associated with him is a criminal.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have every right to talk about it. Taking money for your silence is extortion.

If so, then Trump's use of NDAs shows a pattern of conspiracy to commit extortion.

Luckily for him, this claim makes zero sense.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have seriously got to be trolling. You can not be serious.

You need to have some sympathy for Trump supporters. A while back, they could cling to his claims about not paying off porn stars he had sex with while his wife was at home pregnant with their child. Or his claims that no one from his campaign met secretly to collude with Russians during the election.

The facts have obviously moved on from those initial claims, and rather rapidly. Given that, it must be hard to come up with new rationalizations for continuing to follow Trump. So yeah, the excuses might not hold up very well but given the reality of the situation, could you do any better? I mean, aside from accepting the facts that Trump might actually be in some legal trouble.

 

[com7fy8]

The poll found that even if he were found guilty of conspiring with Russians or obstructing justice, they would still support him...!

Here's what can happen >

If I fully believe Donald is innocent, and you ask me what I would do if he were proven guilty, you are asking me to consider if he is guilty . . . knowing I do not believe this. So, in order to spite you, I might say of course I would still support him . . . since you are willing to be so unreasonable with me.

Another possibility is that I might feel such a conviction would be rigged or unreliable, due to corruption in the justice system. Donald came, he said, to drain the swamp; possibly he meant some number of Republican justice people, included. So, I might believe in him enough to not buy what even Republicans might claim to find out about Donald, since they for all I know might be corrupt, too. Oh, and by the way > since Democrats feel that Republicans are so corrupt, why ever would they expect us to trust a conviction done by . . . those Republicans?????

Also, I might not buy a conviction if it heavily depended on the testimony of a known criminal who is known for . . . lying.

So, if you poll me and expect me to suddenly assume that everybody involved in investigating and trying Donald is trustworthy, I might not buy this.

Also > there are pro-life people who know there are high level politicians and judicial people who are ok with killing unborn Americans. So, such people, they might feel, are not likely to be capable of functioning in a just way, if their nature is ok with killing the innocent who have not even committed any crimes, at all. Because, they understand, your character for one thing will effect other things, too. Ones of this standpoint can readily decide to vote for the lesser of two evils > they would rather have a financial cheat, than someone so dangerous to unborn people.

About there being a conspiracy > there is no need. By getting all the attention, Donald is virtually rendering opponents to be unknowns, so ones are less likely to vote for them.

This poll, even, is helping to keep attention to Donald so ones will stay with him; such focus can have people subconsciously consider him to be the only likely Republican candidate. And if the poll brings out that ones are blindly loyal to Donald, this can send the party the message that they would not be wise to offer another candidate, or they could lose even more credibility. So, may be . . . for all I know . . . even if there is a conspiracy to keep Donald in, this poll report could be part of it!

People do not all think like you do. It might be interesting to let each person voting speak for one's own self. It is too lazy to just have a poll with a few one-see-fits-all questions. Why did they vote the way they did? I'll bet there are more reasons . . . or excuses . . . than I have considered.

Even if you now find me to be beyond psychological help, maybe what you offer to me, now, can help someone else. So, thank you, anyone, for taking the time to say what you have to say

 

[Redac]

MOST REPUBLICANS WOULDN'T SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT EVEN IF MUELLER PROVES HE ACCEPTED RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE OR OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, POLL SHOWS.

Most of GOP wouldn't support Trump impeachment even if he took Russian assistance: poll

For the umpteenth time....

There is no point in trying to convince Trump supporters...you vote them out of existence...!

Interesting phrasing. Trump supporters shouldn't be reasoned with or simply out voted, they need to actually not exist anymore. Not an uncommon sentiment among people like you, just interesting to see it said so plainly.

Tell me, how does voting make those Trump people nonexistent, and if voting doesn't make Trump's base nonexistent, what's the next step?

 

[com7fy8]

the next step

Adolph Hitler put people into concentration camps and ovens.

Jesus said let the one without sin cast the first stone.

So . . . we can step in the peace of God's all-loving love.

Or we can step in conceit, by not looking at how we ourselves need to get real, while we keep busy with looking down on others.

 

[Speedwell]

Adolph Hitler put people into concentration camps and ovens.

Jesus said let the one without sin cast the first stone.

So . . . we can step in the peace of God's all-loving love.

Or we can step in conceit, by not looking at how we ourselves need to get real, while we keep busy with looking down on others.

Meanwhile, Trump's base think they are the only real Christians, the only real Americans, the only real patriots and that the rest of us are trying to destroy America. Concentration camps and ovens will not be hard for them to contemplate.