United States Corrupt Twattery

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1138936855573999616

 

[Scouse]

I don't think the position, as he presents it there, is unreasonable @Wij.

 

[Wij]

I don't think the position, as he presents it there, is unreasonable @Wij.

That's an open invite to foreign influence in democracy. It's totally undemocratic.

The Gore campaign had a similar experience in 2000 and alerted the FBI immediately as they should.

 

[Gwadien]

I don't think the position, as he presents it there, is unreasonable @Wij.

Considering one of the main reasons why he was elected is because he wanted to see Hillary hanged for corruption...

 

[Wij]

Considering one of the main reasons why he was elected is because he wanted to see Hillary hanged for corruption...

We're way beyond that given that Trump and family are using personal phones / emails / anything all the time anyway.

What really struck me is the line where he said:

TRUMP: I’ll tell you what, I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t call the FBI.

I mean, that's how mobsters speak. How can a US President say this? He's supposed to uphold the constitution and the law.

 

[Scouse]

That's an open invite to foreign influence in democracy. It's totally undemocratic.

The Gore campaign had a similar experience in 2000 and alerted the FBI immediately as they should.

Gore lost. And I bet you the Dems would listen. Maybe then they'd notify the FBI, but they'd listen.

"It's against the law" doesn't stop anyone doing anything ever. Or we wouldn't have murder.

 

[Wij]

Gore lost. And I bet you the Dems would listen. Maybe then they'd notify the FBI, but they'd listen.

"It's against the law" doesn't stop anyone doing anything ever. Or we wouldn't have murder.

Look it up. They did the right thing.

Who cares whether it stops them. That's not the point. If they get caught they should get jailed. If they say they would do it then they aren't fit for office.

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1138940179497050112

 

[Scouse]

Who cares whether it stops them. That's not the point. If they get caught they should get jailed. If they say they would do it then they aren't fit for office.

Just to be clear - if Norway comes to Trump and says "we've got solid evidence that Hillary is a criminal" then Trump should turn it down? I pretty much think he should *also* turn that over to the FBI. But if there's evidence of wrongdoing - by anyone - I don't really care how it comes to light, as long as it does.

 

[Wij]

Just to be clear - if Norway comes to Trump and says "we've got solid evidence that Hillary is a criminal" then Trump should turn it down? I pretty much think he should *also* turn that over to the FBI. But if there's evidence of wrongdoing - by anyone - I don't really care how it comes to light, as long as it does.

Yes. He should go to the FBI. Every time. No ifs no buts.

Shorter Trump. "NO COLLUSION!!!! Also collusion is fine. I'm happy to collude with Russia."

 

[Wij]

I mean this is literally something the FBI is mandated to investigate:

Combating Foreign Influence — FBI

 

[Scouse]

I'm bored of it @Wij. If Dems have evidence of criminal conspiracy, they need to impeach and prosecute.

 

[Wij]

I'm bored of it @Wij. If Dems have evidence of criminal conspiracy, they need to impeach and prosecute.

They have solid evidence of obstruction of justice. Obstruction that was used to cover up evidence of criminal conspiracy.

 

[Scouse]

They have solid evidence of obstruction of justice. Obstruction that was used to cover up evidence of criminal conspiracy.

They need to prove that there's a crime in the first instance, then they can prove that obstruction of justice happened. If there is no crime to pin on him, how can they prove he obstructed?

IF they had solid evidence of anything then something would happen. But right now it's all just continuing noise. Like JC and antisemitism.

 

[Wij]

They need to prove that there's a crime in the first instance, then they can prove that obstruction of justice happened. If there is no crime to pin on him, how can they prove he obstructed?

IF they had solid evidence of anything then something would happen. But right now it's all just continuing noise. Like JC and antisemitism.

Jesus Christ no. You could not be more wrong. Think about what you are saying for a minute.

If you had to be able to prove an underlying crime to be found guilty of obstruction of justice then mafiosos would just do more obstruction. It would be an open invite to threaten witnesses and the like. The law does not require it for very good reason.

It doesn't even have to be to cover up a crime. It could be to cover up something embarrassing or anything really. Obstruction is a crime whatever the reason. That's the law.

 

[Scouse]

Obstruction is a crime whatever the reason

But how do you prove it without showing what they were trying to obstruct, or, indeed, that there was something to obstruct?

 

[Wij]

But how do you prove it without showing what they were trying to obstruct, or, indeed, that there was something to obstruct?

You are making this seem way more complicated than it is. It isn't some obscure metaphysical thing:

Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

The thing to obstruct is an actual investigation, a 'federal judicial proceeding'. The fact that one existed (Mueller) isn't really up for debate.

/edit: My colleagues are now looking at me for banging my head on my desk. Thanks.

 

[Scouse]

So, if they have the evidence, bring it to the floor and impeach. Or STFU tbfh.

It's distracting from the important things - like Brexit is doing in the UK IMO.

He either did it - and they have the evidence and need to do something with it - or they don't have the necessary evidence.

 

[Wij]

So, if they have the evidence, bring it to the floor and impeach. Or STFU tbfh.

It's distracting from the important things - like Brexit is doing in the UK IMO.

He either did it - and they have the evidence and need to do something with it - or they don't have the necessary evidence.

Shorter Scouse: Impeachment is a good idea.

 

[Wij]

They need to prove that there's a crime in the first instance, then they can prove that obstruction of justice happened. If there is no crime to pin on him, how can they prove he obstructed?

IF they had solid evidence of anything then something would happen. But right now it's all just continuing noise. Like JC and antisemitism.

By the way. There needs to be a Fat Tony meme approving this theory of justice.

 

[Scouse]

By the way. There needs to be a Fat Tony meme approving this theory of justice.

If they can prove a crime, then they should prosecute.

Simple eh?

So why aren't they? Is it because they can't prove it?

 

[Wij]

If they can prove a crime, then they should prosecute.

Simple eh?

So why aren't they? Is it because they can't prove it?

Prosecute isn't the right word. The DoJ doesn't allow criminal prosecution of a president. They have enough evidence to open impeachment proceedings but it's a big political step.

Your argument is what then? Something is hard and needs time to prepare for therefore it shouldn't be done?

 

[Scouse]

Prosecute isn't the right word. The DoJ doesn't allow criminal prosecution of a president. They have enough evidence to open impeachment proceedings but it's a big political step.

Your argument is what then? Something is hard and needs time to prepare for therefore it shouldn't be done?

If they've enough evidence to open impeachment proceedings and it's in the interests of justice then it needs to be done.

That's my argument. If impeachment is in the interests of justice - and they have the evidence - then "big political step" shouldn't be the issue.

 

[Wij]

If they've enough evidence to open impeachment proceedings and it's in the interests of justice then it needs to be done.

That's my argument. If impeachment is in the interests of justice - and they have the evidence - then "big political step" shouldn't be the issue.

So, start impeachment then you're saying.

 

[Job]

He said it because he has the FBI on the ropes, after the Meuller fiasco they have a shown their anti republican agenda in full view, which is as the last place they need to be.

When the time is right he will pick them off one by one, this is the opening salvo.

 

[Wij]

after the Meuller fiasco they have a shown their anti republican agenda in full view

In 2016 the FBI started looking at something very loosely related to Hillary's emails that turned out to be nothing within a few days but they still saw fit to tell the public just before the election.

Also they were investigating the Trump campaign for colluding with a hostile foreign power, but chose not to mention it at all.

If they were trying to stop a Republican get elected they sure picked an odd way of doing it

 

[Embattle]

Donald Trump calls Prince Charles 'the Prince of Whales' | Metro News

 

[Scouse]

So, start impeachment then you're saying.

Obviously.

If they've the evidence - do it. Stop whining about it and going on and on and on in some meaningless social media circus.

 

[Wij]

Obviously.

If they've the evidence - do it. Stop whining about it and going on and on and on in some meaningless social media circus.

There's no 'if'. There's pages and pages of it in the Mueller report.

 

[Scouse]

There's no 'if'. There's pages and pages of it in the Mueller report.

So what's the fucking boring hold up?