[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

I could care less about what CNN wanted, hell I hold them partially responsible for helping elect Trump, it is all a show for them. Trump and CNN play off each other trying to make each other relevant, they help one another more than they harm each other.

Breaching a NDA is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Theft is a criminal matter. Yes, they are different. I do think they should roll back that precedent and start treating stolen property as stolen property as it should be. All they are doing by not doing so is encouraging people to hack into other's people's property and steal from them and I cannot support that. The whole Podesta Emails BS was not even anything of value, it was petty and insignificant really. It was the press building it up that was worse than the actual content. That isn't the point though, no matter how miniscule it was, it was stolen. I don't even think it met the " whistleblower" criteria as it was not for the better good of society, no lives were saved from this, and hell my Dad was an actual whistleblower. But he saved actual lives with the information he released about the Nuclear reactor not being installed properly and leaking dangerous radiation to surrounding neighborhoods and a day care, soil and groundwater. This nonsense stolen and released from the DNC was just soap opera BS irrelevant for the most part.

I support whistleblowers and spent part of my childhood in hiding due to one of the other whistleblowers having their car blown up. I do not see hacking people to get soap opera BS as whistleblowing, I see it as no different than stealing someone's diary and personal letters to friends and should be condemned. It is a federal offense to break into someone's mail box and steal their letters, this is no different and should be treated no different under the law.

Also as for Manning:

According to the newly unsealed indictment made public on Thursday, in early March 2010, Assange agreed to help Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, with cracking an administrative password to the military's classified internet system. Getting access to the password would have made it harder for investigators to track Manning as the source of the information being posted by Wikileaks.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/julian-assange-chelsea-manning-intertwined/story?id=62344376
Sounds like theft to me.

 

[Schadrach]

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

Again, the same policy being followed, just with more willingness to prosecute. If there was suspicion the kids were with adults other than their parents, suspicion they were mistreated, or the parents were being prosecuted kid were separated from adults by both admins. I'll agree that of the 70-ish people that died in border patrol and ICE care during the Obama admin, none of them were kids. The last kids that died in CBP/ICE care before those were over a decade prior. Border Patrol and ICE have never been particularly cuddly departments, but the main difference in actual policies is Trump's admin being more willing to prosecute illegal crossings.

It means that Democracy is dead in America.

Was it dead in 2008 when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the presidency?

Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron.

Racist, liar and moron I'll give you no argument. Rapist and Terrorist require actual hard proof, and let's be honest if there was hard proof of terrorism the House would be trying to impeach on that rather than fighting over getting to see the Mueller report to see if Trump said or did something that can count as obstruction of justice. Actual terrorism is a much stronger and harder to defend charge.

He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

How did Republicans corrupt it? Are you about to invoke gerrymandering and project REDMAP here? Because gerrymandering doesn't effect the electoral college except in a couple of states (where electors are distributed by congressional district rather than being proportional or all in with state popular vote). Gerrymandering effects the House and state legislature, not Senate or Presidential elections.

The electoral college is "corrupt by design" in almost exactly the same way the House of Representatives or European Parliament is. For European folks, complaints about the Electoral College being "corrupt" or "unrepresentative" is akin to people complaining that Germany doesn't have enough MEPs or that Luxembourg has too many MEPs, because citizens of Luxembourg are overrepresented and citizens of Germany are underrepresented. Except that the American case isn't as drastic.

 

[Saelune]

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

Again, the same policy being followed, just with more willingness to prosecute. If there was suspicion the kids were with adults other than their parents, suspicion they were mistreated, or the parents were being prosecuted kid were separated from adults by both admins. I'll agree that of the 70-ish people that died in border patrol and ICE care during the Obama admin, none of them were kids. The last kids that died in CBP/ICE care before those were over a decade prior. Border Patrol and ICE have never been particularly cuddly departments, but the main difference in actual policies is Trump's admin being more willing to prosecute illegal crossings.

It means that Democracy is dead in America.

Was it dead in 2008 when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the presidency?

Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron.

Racist, liar and moron I'll give you no argument. Rapist and Terrorist require actual hard proof, and let's be honest if there was hard proof of terrorism the House would be trying to impeach on that rather than fighting over getting to see the Mueller report to see if Trump said or did something that can count as obstruction of justice. Actual terrorism is a much stronger and harder to defend charge.

He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

How did Republicans corrupt it? Are you about to invoke gerrymandering and project REDMAP here? Because gerrymandering doesn't effect the electoral college except in a couple of states (where electors are distributed by congressional district rather than being proportional or all in with state popular vote). Gerrymandering effects the House and state legislature, not Senate or Presidential elections.

The electoral college is "corrupt by design" in almost exactly the same way the House of Representatives or European Parliament is. For European folks, complaints about the Electoral College being "corrupt" or "unrepresentative" is akin to people complaining that Germany doesn't have enough MEPs or that Luxembourg has too many MEPs, because citizens of Luxembourg are overrepresented and citizens of Germany are underrepresented. Except that the American case isn't as drastic.

That's not how that works. If Trump chooses to abuse and corrupt something Obama set up to help people so he could instead hurt people, that is not Obama's fault.

Trump kills kids just for being immigrants.

Democrats don't believe in the corruption that Republicans clearly do. Obama had this crazy notion of co-operation and compromise. Fat lot of good that did him or us. And Obama was ya know, Democratically elected.

'Grab em by the pussy' Trump have no doubt, is a rapist. And terrorist he also is. This country would not be so bad off if he wasnt. He actively encourages white supremacy. That is a terrorist, as are all white supremacists. From Nazis, to the KKK, From Dylan Roof, to the Synagogue shooter, to the Trump Van bomber.

I have been nothing but honest. Facts do not defend Trump.


It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump. McConnel keeps vetoing every single thing that would endanger Trump at all, he stops Merrick Garland from his rightful position, and he and Graham put rapist Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court which he has no right to be on, for being a rapist, a liar, and an incompetent drunken baffoon. Checks and Balances are dead thanks to McConnel, Graham and Kavanaugh. Thank God my home State of New York is full of ethical Judges. Ironic that State Rights have a powerful Democrat tool.

The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

 

[Schadrach]

It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump.

Republicans as a party tend to strongly value party loyalty, moreso than Democrats. It's really the only reason they're a political threat in some places, because you can rely on them to come out and consistently vote for the party, pretty much regardless of what the party is doing or who's running under it. That's not exactly a positive quality, but it's an effective one.

The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

You've done this before, you're confusing the Electoral College and the 3/5 compromise. The 3/5 compromise was created to increase the effective population of slave states despite those slaves not having the rights of citizens. Slave states wanted them to count, other states did not, and the 3/5 compromise was the agreement that both were willing to go along with rather than risk splintering into at least two smaller nations immediately after the revolution.

The Electoral College was designed to both 1) make running the presidential election feasible at the time and 2) also prevent the largest population centers from concentrating too much power, and thus functionally ruling the country (this being necessary to get the smaller states to agree to membership in the first place). In fact early on it tamped down on the influence of Virginia in the same ways and for the same reasons it does California now and acted to benefit places like Rhode Island and Delaware for the same reasons it benefits Wyoming now. Which would suggest the actual opposite of your position, as the largest population states (like Virginia) also tended to have the largest slave populations and the largest economic reasons to persist the institution of slavery.

It's a thing I see you do pretty often, it's basically the "basket of deplorables" problem, wherein you take things you disagree with and just clump them together and pretend all are the same thing and there's no reason to give it any further though or consideration. It's why I'm deemed a Trump supporter by you because (despite openly agreeing he's a shitty president, albeit one legally elected according to the rules set forth and thus the one we're stuck with at least until the end of his term unless someone reveals serious proof of an impeachable offense).

So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

Oh, I certainly deny being a Trump supporter, you just tend to attack him on incredibly poor grounds, most of the time. You confuse disagreeing with your arguments with supporting the guy you're attacking.

It would be like if I looked at your response to the accusation made against Neil deGrasse Tyson a while back and just said you were a rape supporter because you weren't demanding his career be immediately ended based on the accusation alone. Though I've gotten tired of repeating it, when Kavanaugh comes up I've pointed out time and again that SCOTUS justices are not immune to the law, and even pointed out the correct jurisdiction to investigate Ford's claims and that to date she has made no complaint to them and that prevents them from going anywhere with it. If Ford really wanted justice, that is who she needs to talk to to get the investigation in motion, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar.

 

[Saelune]

It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump.

Republicans as a party tend to strongly value party loyalty, moreso than Democrats. It's really the only reason they're a political threat in some places, because you can rely on them to come out and consistently vote for the party, pretty much regardless of what the party is doing or who's running under it. That's not exactly a positive quality, but it's an effective one.

The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

You've done this before, you're confusing the Electoral College and the 3/5 compromise. The 3/5 compromise was created to increase the effective population of slave states despite those slaves not having the rights of citizens. Slave states wanted them to count, other states did not, and the 3/5 compromise was the agreement that both were willing to go along with rather than risk splintering into at least two smaller nations immediately after the revolution.

The Electoral College was designed to both 1) make running the presidential election feasible at the time and 2) also prevent the largest population centers from concentrating too much power, and thus functionally ruling the country (this being necessary to get the smaller states to agree to membership in the first place). In fact early on it tamped down on the influence of Virginia in the same ways and for the same reasons it does California now and acted to benefit places like Rhode Island and Delaware for the same reasons it benefits Wyoming now. Which would suggest the actual opposite of your position, as the largest population states (like Virginia) also tended to have the largest slave populations and the largest economic reasons to persist the institution of slavery.

It's a thing I see you do pretty often, it's basically the "basket of deplorables" problem, wherein you take things you disagree with and just clump them together and pretend all are the same thing and there's no reason to give it any further though or consideration. It's why I'm deemed a Trump supporter by you because (despite openly agreeing he's a shitty president, albeit one legally elected according to the rules set forth and thus the one we're stuck with at least until the end of his term unless someone reveals serious proof of an impeachable offense).

So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

Oh, I certainly deny being a Trump supporter, you just tend to attack him on incredibly poor grounds, most of the time. You confuse disagreeing with your arguments with supporting the guy you're attacking.

It would be like if I looked at your response to the accusation made against Neil deGrasse Tyson a while back and just said you were a rape supporter because you weren't demanding his career be immediately ended based on the accusation alone. Though I've gotten tired of repeating it, when Kavanaugh comes up I've pointed out time and again that SCOTUS justices are not immune to the law, and even pointed out the correct jurisdiction to investigate Ford's claims and that to date she has made no complaint to them and that prevents them from going anywhere with it. If Ford really wanted justice, that is who she needs to talk to to get the investigation in motion, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar.

Republicans are what they support. It is not wrong to criticize people of a political party for supporting their leaders when their leaders are terrible.

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

If you aren't a Trump supporter, stop supporting him. You have done nothing but support Trump these last pages.

Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

 

[Schadrach]

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

Yes, clearly something that tamps down the power of the largest states and reinforces that of the smallest is there to abuse the slave population in the fashion you describe despite the result doing exactly the opposite and depressing the power of the largest slave states when it was put into effect. The only way to even argue your position is to ignore entirely that the largest populations of slaves were also in generally the largest states already (like Virginia) as opposed to the states that actually had more relative legislative and electoral power per citizen (like Rhode Island) as a result of it.

You can't argue that something was designed to benefit the states that engaged in the most slavery while it also actually reduced the power of same. You're literally trying to make the Electoral College about slavery so that you can make an ill conceived moral argument against its existence and argue anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is defending slavery. It's ridiculous.

Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

I'll agree with you he's not a good president. If you'll notice all the times I've argued with you about it it's been things like "continuing a policy from the previous administration makes Trump uniquely evil" or "he said something stupid in what he thought was private before even running" or "impeaching the president should automatically impeach the vp" or "we don't know what will happen because we've never impeached before" or that sort of thing. Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence) while ignoring that it in practice is often unnecessary or mistargeted ("Are you proud?").

 

[Agema]

Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence)

To be fair, "punching Nazis" qualifies as left, centre, and moderate right wing violence.

Frankly, the moderate right could well do plenty more Nazi punching, because at the moment the right seems interested in making itself sound more Nazi in order to win over the xenophobic nationalist demographic.

 

[Schadrach]

Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence)

To be fair, "punching Nazis" qualifies as left, centre, and moderate right wing violence.

Frankly, the moderate right could well do plenty more Nazi punching, because at the moment the right seems interested in making itself sound more Nazi in order to win over the xenophobic nationalist demographic.

Right, except it's often mistargeted or targeted at people who aren't extreme enough to justify any kind of violence. Because "punching Nazis" these days includes anyone in a MAGA hat, right-wingers (even far right wingers) who are peacefully protesting, anyone in a generic red baseball cap who happens to be in the wrong place and approached from behind, anyone who doesn't understand what you're getting at when you ask them "Are you proud?" (including one case where it was a Marine - you know "the few, the proud"?), etc - then we just pretend like they're only attacking dangerously violent extreme right folks in self defense because of course we do.

 

[Agema]

Right, except it's often mistargeted or targeted at people who aren't extreme enough to justify any kind of violence. Because "punching Nazis" these days includes anyone in a MAGA hat, right-wingers (even far right wingers) who are peacefully protesting, anyone in a generic red baseball cap who happens to be in the wrong place and approached from behind, anyone who doesn't understand what you're getting at when you ask them "Are you proud?" (including one case where it was a Marine - you know "the few, the proud"?), etc - then we just pretend like they're only attacking dangerously violent extreme right folks in self defense because of course we do.

Yeah well, people in MAGA hats aren't exactly shy of a bit of political violence themselves, are they?

And it's not just ordinary right-wing citizens [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47208909], but also high ranking right-wing politicians [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/happened-republican-greg-gianforte-body-slammed-reporter/story?id=58610691], both of whom do so with the approval of the right-wing president [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766]. So you'll just have to accept that making a big deal about political violence from the left is especially feeble at the moment.

I'm actually fairly sanguine about much of it: politics generates strong feelings and a spot of low level political violence - the odd tussle or punch - is par for the course, and not really worth that much comment as long as it's sparse and without serious injury. Violence from elected officials, though, is pretty bad. And encouragement of either from the national leader is abominable, especially when someone's murdered and his salient description of the group the killer came from was "fine people".

Now we all know Trump's a bullying braggart with little conception of good conduct so we can hardly expect him to do the right thing, but we might expect Republican senators and congressmen to take a much stronger line. Oh well! Turns out just a handful of weak sauce mumbles of disapproval for appearances sake, before they quickly bury it and back him to the hilt everywhere it matters. Turns out it's not a big deal as long as the votes roll in.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I guess everyone is busy reading the report then?

 

[Asita]

Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

 

[Scarytown_v1legacy]

Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

I've read through a lot of it. Barr definitely underplayed its severity, though truthfully it doesn't really bring up anything that hasn't been brought up before. Just more or less confirms it. I think the biggest take away is that it shows is just how stupid things really are behind the scenes.

The best way to describe it is Mueller went in looking to find a smoking gun tied to Trump, but instead found a gun that was used like a ninja star tied to him. Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

 

[Agema]

Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied.

It's a lot more damning than Barr's memo, but it doesn't really matter.

It's just another a stone on the already mountain-sized pile indicating that Trump is at best an ignorant and amoral bull in a china shop. However material that would have sunk just about every other president postwar doesn't really seem to touch him.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

I've read through a lot of it. Barr definitely underplayed its severity, though truthfully it doesn't really bring up anything that hasn't been brought up before. Just more or less confirms it. I think the biggest take away is that it shows is just how stupid things really are behind the scenes.

The best way to describe it is Mueller went in looking to find a smoking gun tied to Trump, but instead found a gun that was used like a ninja star tied to him. Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

From what I have read thus far, all it would really take to charge Trump would be to subpoena him to testify and make him answer the unanswered questions and due to what he has already stated publicly repeatedly he would incriminate himself if he said it under oath. While it is difficult to subpoena him while in office, this can be easily done once he is out of office and forfeits executive privilege. He can still be charged once he is out of office regardless. Mueller pretty much set it up for Congress to go further if they choose to do so, not actually ruled anything out.

 

[Saelune]

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

Yes, clearly something that tamps down the power of the largest states and reinforces that of the smallest is there to abuse the slave population in the fashion you describe despite the result doing exactly the opposite and depressing the power of the largest slave states when it was put into effect. The only way to even argue your position is to ignore entirely that the largest populations of slaves were also in generally the largest states already (like Virginia) as opposed to the states that actually had more relative legislative and electoral power per citizen (like Rhode Island) as a result of it.

You can't argue that something was designed to benefit the states that engaged in the most slavery while it also actually reduced the power of same. You're literally trying to make the Electoral College about slavery so that you can make an ill conceived moral argument against its existence and argue anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is defending slavery. It's ridiculous.

Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

I'll agree with you he's not a good president. If you'll notice all the times I've argued with you about it it's been things like "continuing a policy from the previous administration makes Trump uniquely evil" or "he said something stupid in what he thought was private before even running" or "impeaching the president should automatically impeach the vp" or "we don't know what will happen because we've never impeached before" or that sort of thing. Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence) while ignoring that it in practice is often unnecessary or mistargeted ("Are you proud?").

I am doing that thing where I get caught up in irrelevant things. The EC is bad, if even just for its opposition to Democracy.


Trump corrupting something is on Trump. You want to blame Obama for Trump's faults.

 

[Saelune]

That this version of the report is the one that is supposed to defend Trump is really damning consider how poorly it defends him.

'Wait and see', remember that bullshit? 3+ years of waiting and seeing how we were right about Trump the whole damn time.

 

[twistedmic]

Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

I'd say it's more that someone, or several someones, on Trump's team took the bullets out of said gun. From what I've read, at least one person on team Trump refused to carry out illegal orders.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Dems right now:

 

[TheIronRuler]

This issue is very partisan, which is why it seems like the Democrats misusing resources to pin the President because he was from the wrong party... Even with the Democrats using trumped up reasons to investigate Trump (Leaked dossier from the intelligence community, it had damning evidence against Trump, etc. etc.) at the end Mueller couldn't convict Trump for what he was sent to do...

You can continue this crusade, or you can win the next elections. In my opinion it is mutually exclusive. Divert attention away from Trump and Russia and into getting a solid candidate for the next general elections... Otherwise the socialist wing of the Democrats gets the reigns and you've forfeit the elections, again. Last time the Democrats ran on, um... being a woman, and progressiveness... Didn't convince most of the country, which was suffering from the lack of manufacturing and gathering (is that the correct word? Mining, deforestation, etc.) jobs... You can't raise the minimum wage for cafe baristas and then not be able to produce steel because it's too expensive to employ Americans in that industry...

I haven't even started with the opium addictions... Jesus, China fell because of drugs... A hundreds year old Empire, because its people got too high to even fight their invaders.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

I'd say it's more that someone, or several someones, on Trump's team took the bullets out of said gun. From what I've read, at least one person on team Trump refused to carry out illegal orders.

That is also the reason his Homeland Security team just quit. Trump expects people to break the law for him.