Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

What does Trump hope to prove by not sending a lawyer to the impeachment hearings to represent him, and refusing to attend himself?

Asked by Dutchess_III (41057points) 4 days ago

He says the impeachment hearings are a hoax.

Is this just another idiotic, baby hands move or does he actually think it will benfit him somehow? And if he doesn’t send any representation, will this benefit the Dems who are impeaching him?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

82 Answers

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s an attempt to make it seem illegitimate.
I’m not sure of the legality, based on the fact that he’s POTUS. So far, Trump has been above the law.

It shouldn’t change the outcome of the hearing. Assuming it’s all based on facts. It’s a risky tactic though. The dems can basically present, only facts that would benefit their case. A representative of Trump, would produce evidence to contradict those facts…

johnpowell's avatar

Depends on your view. To me it is indefensible behavior so yeah. He clinged to a Clinton aid claiming the 5th saying it was essentially a admission of guilt. But he will do it and say that the system is corrupt.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Those were my thoughts too @MrGrimm888. The dems can say almost anything they want. It’s just a dumb move (again) on trump’s part.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Well. It’ll probably galvanize his base. But the dems will still need to prove their case.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s important to understand that the hearings are but the investigative phase of the impeachment process. As such, there is no point to Trump or his attorney attending the proceedings, just as though you were a suspect in a crime, you or your attorney would not necessarily participate in your investigation UNLESS and UNTIL you were to be questioned. What Trump has done is to forbid anyone from the executive branch to comply with Congressional subpoenas on the truly flimsy pretext of executive privilege. It is apparently his only defense, and ludicrous as the courts have thus far told him. But stonewalling is not going to save the fool. People of integrity have openly defied the dummy and complied with the subpoenas and as expected dug an ever deepening hole for the fool’s grave. As a practical matter, it has become rather apparent that the job of representing Trump as his attorney is the opposite of the get out of jail free card. For, Cohen, Manafort and now Giuliani it’s go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go!

Yellowdog's avatar

The republicans / Trump’s attorneys cannot call witnesses without approval, nor have advanced knowledge of what witnesses the democrats call, thus, never know what evidences they need to produce or challenge in court. The process, like the charges themselves, is partisian and illegitimate—exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

Let it move onto the senate, where rules of evidence will be followed, legitimate witnesses accepted, and due process allowed for both sides.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The impeachment phase is NOT a trial. It is the gathering of evidence and the fool is not allowed to determine or challenge that evidence UNTIL he is charged and tried.

seawulf575's avatar

as @Yellowdog said, there really is no point in sending anyone. Let’s be honest about what this hearing is. When Schiff and the Intelligence Committee were actually interviewing witnesses, they didn’t want to allow the Repubs to call any witnesses and didn’t want to give the President a chance to have attorneys present to defend himself. Now Nadler and the Judiciary committee are picking up a hearing and have extended the option of the President or his attorneys to be present. On the surface, that sounds good. But look deeper. The purpose of this hearing is to have academics come in and answer esoteric questions about impeachment. They are not actually having any substantive interviews. Repubs and the President (or his attorneys) are still not going to be able to call witnesses and the Dems have refused to actually give a list of who will appear. This portion, just like the previous iteration, is a sham. It is an effort by the Dems to act like it is legitimate. By sending his attorneys, Trump would be giving legitimacy to it with absolutely no gain whatsoever.

stanleybmanly's avatar

In view of what happens to Trump’s attorneys, and anyone else with the impertinence to defend the slimeball under oath, it seems reasonable for both Trump and anyone foolish enough to insert themselves between the idiot and the gallows to avoid the proceedings at all costs.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog “Let it move onto the senate, where rules of evidence will be followed, legitimate witnesses accepted, and due process allowed for both sides.”

If you had knowledge of, or respect for, the Constitution then you’d understand the this is the legitimate process laid out in the Constitution. And you’d know that letting it move to the Senate means that the President has been formally charged. The House conducts the investigation, the Senate conducts the trial.

KNOWITALL's avatar

He’ll care when told he needs to, like powerful people do. I think its rather comical that he’s thumbing his nose at the circus, its his risk to take.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Darth_Algar Partisian impeachment for political reasons, impeachment without due process or evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, are NOT in the Constitution. Almost everything the Dems are doing in running this runs in opposition to the Constitution.

Elian's avatar

Trump might not have been a vetted politician but he has plenty of advice and he is perfectly street smart. If he decided against playing in a rigged game, it is a good decision. Any WH participation would have fully legitimized the process.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^ The man-baby doesn’t make his own decisions. He’s not smart enough. I’m sure he’s doing what ever lawyer he has, who’s not in jail, is telling him to do.
If he has any thoughts it’s dreams of a Big Mac and chocolate cake.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

Yeah, that’s exactly what many Democrats said when the Republican controlled House was holding impeachment hearings against Clinton.

Funny how “due process”, ect depends on one’s political views.

Vignette's avatar

It must be a legitimate investigation because it is about Trump. They know they don’t have shit on him to impeach him so their last ditch ruse is to lure him into giving testimony in hope they can get him to fib or lie about something no matter how obscure to hang him with. Without it they have bubkis on Trump to actually impeach him. Whatever they (Dems) do try will never be enough to pass a vote in the Senate so it is all a colossal waste of time and money. Blow-back from this impeachment nonsense will be of epic proportions for the Dems.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Darth_Algar Clinton committed actual felonies, and had full legal representation who could call their own witnesses and months to prepare a defense. Everything was done in public, not a secret chamber in the basement of the capitol.

In this case, we have no idea even what the charges are, no witnesses permitted on the president’s side, and a completely stacked court.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

We “have no idea what the charges are” because there are not charges yet. The impeachment phase is an investigative phase to determine if there has been wrong doing. The House conducts the investigation and then charges or declines to charge, depending on what said investigation uncovers. If the POTUS has been formally charged it then goes to the Senate for the trail phase.

This has been explained to you several times. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about it. Think of it like this: you cannot be tried in court until you have been formally charged. And you cannot be formally charged until an investigation has been conducted. Stop listening to the shouting imbeciles on cable news and try to learn something for once.

KNOWITALL's avatar

fyi-

The Mechanics of House Impeachment Investigations

The House has a number of options for proceeding with its impeachment investigation, as the manner by which the body chooses to implement its impeachment powers is textually and historically committed to the House’s own discretion. It could adopt a resolution that explicitly authorizes the House Judiciary Committee (or another committee) to conduct an investigation to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach the President and, if warranted, report articles of impeachment to the House. Or the
House could establish and empower a select investigative committee to handle this duty, perhaps giving the body broad jurisdiction over all relevant aspects of the allegations against the President. In either case, an authorizing resolution typically makes explicit that the investigating committee is acting with the imprimatur of the House and exercising the full panoply of the House’s constitutionally based investigative and impeachment powers. Authorizing resolutions also provide a means for the House to both direct the scope of an impeachment inquiry and, if desired, provide the investigating committee with
additional tools to enable a thorough and expeditious investigation. While House rules already provide standing committees with several compulsory mechanisms to gather information, authorizing resolutions for impeachment inquiries have generally conferred additional investigatory tools to a committee, such as the authority to compel responses to interrogatories.
Rather than considering a resolution that expressly authorizes an impeachment inquiry of the President, the House might take the position that such an inquiry is already underway, and opt to allow its committees to continue their ongoing investigations or begin new inquiries using their existing investigative tools and authorities. It is because those existing investigative tools and authorities have grown over time—and now include allowing committee chairs to issue subpoenas and committee staff to take depositions—that the practical need for obtaining additional powers from the House may have
diminished. Both the Speaker’s initial statement, in which she specified that the House will “direct[] our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” and subsequent statements suggesting that the Intelligence Committee will continue to focus on recent whistleblower accusations, appear to suggest that the House may follow this type of approach, with an impeachment investigation that encompasses ongoing investigations by various committees.
If the House takes no new action on authorizing the investigation, the Speaker’s statement that the House is launching an “official impeachment inquiry” is unlikely to put to rest the debate among some inside and outside of Congress about how to properly characterize various committees’ ongoing investigations of possible executive misconduct, including continuing investigations by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. This debate centers on the proper role of the House in initiating impeachment investigations. For example, while Chairman Nadler has stated that the Judiciary Committee is already in
“formal impeachment proceedings” and the Committee has adopted “procedures” for the “presentation of information in connection with the Committee’s investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment,” Ranking Member Collins has asserted that “House precedent requires the full House approve a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry.” Nor does it appear that the Speaker’s statement alone will necessarily prevent the Trump Administration from
arguing (as it is doing in pending litigation) that the House has not “expressly endorsed” the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation. The Speaker’s statement might be read to support those in the House who believe authorization for an impeachment investigation has already been provided by prior legislative actions, including, among other things, referring articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee and authorizing House committees to exercise “any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution” in specified litigation matters.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10347

Dutchess_III's avatar

What everyone is trying to tell you @Yellowdog and @seawulf575, is at this point they are just trying to determine if there is enough information to charge the man with specific crimes. What they are doing now is NOT a trial.

Vignette's avatar

@Dutchess_III From where I sit what you just said is NOT what the main stream media AND the DNC is telling us. Both entities have already convicted Trump and painted impeachment as the given result before there was even one hearing. Perhaps IF the MSM and the DNC presented such that our President is indeed innocent until charges are brought and then a vote is taken and passed in the Senate we would not need to have this conversation.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They may have convicted him in their minds, as I have, but so what? You and I both know that that “innocent until proven guilty” is bologna. You saw him do it, you heard him do it, he’s guilty.
Whether or not the law determines whether there is enough evidence to go to trial is not up to us.
Whether or not he IS guilty, is also up to the law, not us.

These hearings are to determine exactly that, to determine if charges should be filed.

Nothing wrong with discussing it.

Vignette's avatar

Sorry @Dutchess_III I am not convinced Trump did anything out of the ordinary that any previous President, Senator congressman, governor, etc has engaged in some form or another. There WAS in place a gentlemans understanding that certain “things” transpired that no one got their undies in a bunch over because everyone does/did it. The RNC engaged in their own fiddle faddle when Obama was our President but never to the degree the Dems are doing right now. A precedent is being established that I am afraid is toothpaste we will not be able to get back in the tube and that obstructionist politics will consume Congress unless we the voters say enough is enough. Until then if you want to play this type of game be prepared to get as much as you give. I said before the blow-back from this impeachment Russia non-sense will be of epic proportions.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s OK to have your opinion @Vignette, but it simply doesn’t matter. Neither does my opinion.
We will find out eventually, who was right and who was wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

To some of us, there’s definately something wrong with continuing using OUR taxpayer funds to try to bury the President WE legally elected. Hell Mueller was $30 million alone!

And just fyi, Bill Clinton’s approval ratings went up after impeachment, not down. So you really are helping Trump win, as we’ve mentioned.

After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman.-Wiki

seawulf575's avatar

“What everyone is trying to tell you @Yellowdog and @seawulf575, is at this point they are just trying to determine if there is enough information to charge the man with specific crimes. What they are doing now is NOT a trial.”

@Dutchess_III in other words, they don’t actually have any reason to investigate…they are hoping to find something or enough innuendo to call it an impeachment. You said it yourself…they are trying to find enough information to charge the man with crimes. Not that there ARE crimes and they are trying to establish if they are valid or even impeachable. In other words, just like the Russia Collusion farce, this is a investigation to find a crime. How’d that one work for ya? You swore up and down that Trump was going down and that he was lying about not colluding with Russia and that he was scrambling to cover up his crimes. Yet…well…the investigation found no crimes. It’s all a political hack job…not a responsible political act by congress.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay @seawulf575 I know you love having a dictator wannabe in the WH but you are not a Constitution expert !
Let the chips fall where may after they produces more evidence of “High crimes and misdemeanors” and show more about the NYC gangster and racketeer you are so happy to have WH.

And stop with the “of course he didn’t do that ! In the face of evidence to the contrary ! His logic is I’m President and I am above the Law.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575. I know it’s confusing. They have reason to believe that they have something serious worth investigating, and that is what they are doing now. They are investigating. If their suspicions are confirmed, then they will then file charges. Hopefully the Cheeto will have a different address by Christmas.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III They have nothing and we all know it. Their “witnesses” either only had hearsay evidence, opinion, or were merely brought it to whine. Look at the most “damning” evidence. It was people saying they disagreed with Trump’s foreign policy. Some underling not liking what the boss does not constitute a crime by the boss. They were originally going to try for the coercion using their pet whistleblower, but Trump slapped that aside by quickly releasing the telephone transcript. Just like with the Russian Collusion investigation, it started with a lie and grew from there. So then they were trying to read between the lines to come up with coercion but they had to ignore the fact that the Ukrainian president himself said there was no coercion…no quid pro quo…and that he never felt any pressure. He didn’t even know the foreign aid had been held up. Kinda hard to cry “Coercion!” when the one that was supposedly being coerced said it never happened.
See, you just said the entire problem with the Dems’ efforts: It’s confusing. It ignores facts, it avoids actually dealing with what they hoped was a problem, and in the end it has no coherence. If Trump used his power for political gain, then that falls apart because he never got what he was supposedly trying to get. It was never promised and it was never mentioned to Zelenskyy as anything other than a passing comment. He supposedly held up aid until an investigation into Biden to dig up dirt was done. Well, the aid has been in Ukrainian hands for a couple months and there isn’t even a mention of such an investigation being done. So that entire narrative is weak at best. There is nothing here other than desperation by the Dems.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie you are always so high strung! Didn’t you pretty much tell me the same thing when the Russian collusion investigation was going? Let the chips fall where they may and we will see what a crook Trump is! Yeah…we did. He isn’t. But you did use the correct term in your whiny response…produce. That is exactly what the Dems are doing. Especially if you take the meaning of the word as ”To create by physical or mental effort.”. That pretty much sums up the desperation by the Dems. Try to make something that doesn’t exist through physical and mental efforts.
No, I’m not a Constitutional scholar and neither are you. But let’s agree on something simple that a third grader can talk to: There has to be a high crime or misdemeanor for an impeachment to take place. So far all the Dems have “produced” is a lot of innuendo…no actual evidence of any crime whatsoever. The facts don’t support their claims. And that is exactly why the Senate will never convict. And why Trump will be our POTUS for another 4 years. Think your sanity can handle that?

Dutchess_III's avatar

They’re investigating. If they have nothing we will soon find out. If they have something, we will soon find out.
Personally, I believe they have something and something serious..

Dutchess_III's avatar

Read This article

Schiff says there’s a ‘grave risk to the country’ if lawmakers wait to get ‘every last fact.
Schiff argued Tuesday that there would be a “grave risk to the country” if lawmakers wait until they have “every last fact” before proceeding with their efforts on impeachment. (In other words, it will only get worse, not better.)
What his panel has produced so far is overwhelming (emphasis is mine) enough that it ought to be presented to the Judiciary Committee “without delay,” Schiff told reporters, adding that lawmakers will file supplemental reports if more is discovered as they continue their investigation.
Schiff also declined to say whether he supports impeaching Trump, but noted: “As you can tell, I am gravely concerned that if we merely accept this, that we invite not only further corruption of our elections by this president, but we also invite it of the next president.”

Darth_Algar's avatar

If there is nothing there, then Donald Trump has nothing to worry about. So why all the protestation and attempts at obstruction? I mean, really, for an innocent man he sure goes out of his way to make himself look guilty.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It is absolutely astonishing that those popping up with excuses for the fool will not face the facts. Here are some facts. A man with the proven integrity of sewage is being called to account. For those inclined to dispute the scandalous corruption defining the fool there is the interesting fact that he cannot retain a personal attorney who is not rewarded with a prison sentence for serving in that capacity. Indeed, the Mueller report, far from absolving the fool of any guilt, undeniably demonstrates that any and all who dare risk the fool’s confidence place themselves on the fast track to prison! In fact Mueller more than hinted that the only reason our idiot President himself persists on the “outside” is that his crony appointees arrived with the sleazy trick that a sitting President is beyond prosecution—a supposition that will NEVER survive its trip through the courts. Meanwhile, everyone stepping up to the plate in defense of the dummy finds their careers destroyed, their lives in tatters. Giuliani marks the FIFTH of Trump’s personal attorneys now on the fast track to jail! Nunes stuck his neck out in defense of the dumbbell only to reveal that said neck itself is buried in the Ukraine cesspool. Everyone in on that phone call is culpable, and thereby in the express lane for destruction. Trump is ultimately the ruin of the Republican party and the graveyard of Republican reputations. Barr, a man of ability is clearly in the chute to the meat grinder for the incredibly short sighted decision to prop up the intractable turd.

Meanwhile, every day that these proceedings advance, NEW scandals arrive. No rock is uncovered without revealing more slime. Trump apologists look at this and would prefer to regard it as ruthless persecution of the dummy, to which I say “WAKE THE FUCK UP” The frenzy would be IMPOSSIBLE, were the sewage nonexistent.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar What attempts at obstruction? Really. Think about it. The Dems have, for 3 years, done nothing but create controversy and claimed all sorts of crimes that Trump has committed. They have pushed innuendo and allegation as if they were facts. They have ignored actual facts to create a narrative that says Trump is a criminal. This is just another example of that. Why in God’s name would any sane human go along with that if it was directed at them? Trump has basically said “Until you do something lawful there is no reason to take it seriously”. I happen to agree with that assessment. As much as all of you fools on the left want Trump to be a criminal, you fail to realize you have to entirely ignore facts to get there. And that is what the Dems are counting on…fools that will believe whatever they are told. Let me hear you say “Baaaaaa”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

A nice little narrative until you take a peek at all of those devout high level “believers” now worshiping from prison.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Trump has no experience with politics, or being POTUS. What he does have, is the fact he’s been sued, or been in court (for one reason or another,) dozens of times.
These proceedings, are finally something in his wheel house. I think he knows exactly how to slither out of being convicted.

You can doubt almost everything else about him. But this will just be an impeachment, not a removal of him. This time, he has the backing of the Republican party, and his experiences with being the court system. Underestimate that, if you want.

Even if evidence points to his guilt, 20-something Republicans, will have to help remove him. LOL. That’s not going to happen.

The GOP, has been/should be embarrassed by Trump. But he plays ball. He is their hit man. And they can sever ties with him, and blame him for everything, at any point. He’s a good horse to bet on, for them. And with no real damage to their party, if they blame everything on him. You’ve got to love politics…

Yellowdog's avatar

@MrGrimm888 How could ‘evidence’ point to his guilt? All evidence has done is blow your case out of the water.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I don’t have a case. Not that would be as bad/worse, than other presidents. I think it’s a waste of time/money. I do think Trump extorted the Ukraine, for political gain.
I’ve already opined, that Biden, should be removed from candidacy, on the same grounds. I think Trump should be ineligible, as well, for 2020.
And that should be the end of it…

stanleybmanly's avatar

The GOP is trapped! Ordinarily I would be the last person on earth to suggest that ethical matters are pertinent to politics. But it is at the interface of ethics and legality where the unethical perish. I am at heart a cynic, but I assure you that Trump is doomed. Just pay attention and watch it all unfold. Systemic corruption must lose in the end, and corruption allied with stupidity hasn’t a prayer.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Trump has no experience with politics, or being POTUS. What he does have, is the fact he’s been sued, or been in court (for one reason or another,) dozens of times.” Good point Grimm. However he learned absolutely zilch from his previous experiences. He simply had the best lawyers money could by, and learned to hide behind them.
He still has the best lawyers…but something is going horribly wrong now.
The fools who are foolish enough to represent him are confronted with equally competent lawyers, or better.
That’s why they keep going to jail.

Yellowdog's avatar

Haven’t any of you learned anything the last three years?

No evidence, no crime.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

None of his lackeys went to jail, right @Yellowdog.

Guilani and Nunes have their phone records (Ukraine _Quid pro quo related) in the impeachment inquiry and they are not not trading recipes for tuna fish sandwiches from April of this year.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog It should then follow, that no crime—no criminals. Is this in fact the case? When it comes down to the fact that anyone with the misfortune of having shaken your hand is dependably marched off in handcuffs, what conclusions are to be drawn?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@Yellowdog..what I’ve learned in the last 3 years is they don’t take prosecuting the president of the United States lightly. They aren’t working nearly quickly enough to suit me…but They know what they’re doing. They know when to hold ‘em…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Grimmy I think your post is spot on, like it or not.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I didn’t say that I liked it. But POTUSs have been involved in terrible things. Dem, or rep.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog

There’s an awful lot of his lackeys sitting in prison now for “no evidence, no crime”.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yep. Just no way to pay out.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

^ They have plenty way to pay out. Noone is willing to take the chance anymore.

seawulf575's avatar

@Yellowdog No evidence, no crime. But the Dems have thought of that. Remember Rep Quigley setting the grounds for dealing with that? Hearsay evidence is sometimes better than direct evidence. In other words, they created a justification for not having direct evidence and proceeding anyway.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s right! The liberals are making it all up. Why can’t they understand that the fool is genuinely draining the swamp? The proof? Everyone who knows him winds up in jail. What a marvelous method for cleaning up the Republican party!

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly What are the liberals making up?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Tump not only allowed a foreign country to intervene in our election, he actively invited it, for his own personal political gain.
No one is making that up. That’s exactly what he did, and it’s an impeachable offense, and he’s going to pay.

Yellowdog's avatar

How could Trump allow another country to intervene in our election?

The Obama cabal was in charge then, and said it couldn’t happen, and that Nunes and the Republicans were living back in the cold war days. We were laughed at and rebuked when we raised concerns about Russian interference and election hacking, right up to just two days before the election.

Remember when Obama told us to quit whining and go out and get votes?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Remember when Obama tried to give you, and all Americans healthcare?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Obama never said to “quit whining,” and he didn’t say “go out and get votes,” but in 2012 he did say Let’s get out there and vote.

He said this last year.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He didn’t just allow it, he actively invited it @Yellowdog, by asking Ukraine to to get dirt on Biden. He also refused to send aid until they did i t.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog He in public asked Russia to get into Hillary’s emails and DNS’s too. But he’s you hero and can do no wrong!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III “Tump not only allowed a foreign country to intervene in our election, he actively invited it, for his own personal political gain.”

Of course people are making that up. The Dems have been making that up since he was elected. Remember the entire 2 years of the Russia collusion investigation? Yeah…Trump actively invited Russia to interfere in the election….except he didn’t. This Ukrainian thing is no different. Fess up…your source is Dems, right?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Her source is his own big mouth! I don’t believe there is a soul on this site who hasn’t seen footage of the fool yelling for Russia to get to the bottom of Hillary’s emails, and China to investigate the Bidens.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Trump had no clue what was going on in the 2016 election @seawulf575. None. He was as shocked as every one when he won. He is still absolutely clueless about what he’s doing.
He’s a retard with money…and the likes of you back him up.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Trump publicly asked for Russian intelligence, on Hillary. Joking, or not, he did.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Interesting that you are saying he had no clue what was going on in 2016. Wasn’t it you fools on the left that created that entire narrative that he was nefariously working with Putin to gather dirt on Hillary and to interfere in our election? He wasn’t clueless then, apparently. But once it came out that entire narrative was a lie, now he was clueless. Which is it? And why is this silly narrative any different? It isn’t. It is a story created by the Dems for political gain. They are using Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and saying it is Trump. Just like the Russia collusion story. But the likes of you believe them blindly and back their stories no matter how silly.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Let’s be honest about the description. The Dems had already started the narrative that he was working with Russia to steal the election. He made a joke about how silly that was and said if they were trying to interfere maybe they could find the 30,000 emails that Hillary “lost”. The joke was partly about how silly the idea he was working with Russia was, but also pointing to the criminal act of Hillary to destroy evidence….something that seems to always be okay to the left. That is far from “asking Russia” for anything. And here’s another thing that always seems to be ignored by the left. If Hillary’s missing emails are such dirt that could be used against her, what does that say about her? SHE wrote them! If they are that dirty that they could cost her an election or get her in trouble, then maybe she needs to be investigated for real…not the ha-ha investigation that was done. The one that had to ignore the law to let her walk.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

But what about Hillary?

Lame for the hundredth time that you said here ! @seawulf575

She at least sat for testimony for 11 hours; your hero has claimed executive privilege for him and anyone that he had work for him for the last 5 years. No statement no testimony (his lawyers think he’s trip over his own lies).

Dutchess_III's avatar

Has it only been 100 times that he’s said, “BUTTEREMAILS!!”?

Yeah, his lawyers her telling him not to testify. It would be very bad for him to testify.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s something decidedly psychotic in the alterations of reality required in defense of the turd. To begin with—there really is no defense—everyone sees it. There can be no debate about WHAT it is. The dispute is over what it has done. While everyone smeared through rubbing up against it is swiftly flushed to prison, the turd stands fixed, profusely whining on its victimization at the hands of those merely rumored “turdlike”, and those rumors promulgated by the turd itself with amplifications by its stinky adherents.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Don’t forget that Trump’s people put this all on a server, and tried to hide it.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I’m sorry…wasn’t Hillary brought into this entire discussion? And not by me. But I notice you make my point perfectly. You can’t address the idea that Hillary is claiming to be undermined by the same emails she wrote, but you will go to your grave trying to avoid looking at that. That falls squarely “believing blindly and backing their stories no matter how silly.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The Clintons, were shady as an oak tree. I didn’t trust any of them. Yet. Somehow I loved Bill. He was a super politician. Charismatic, and smart. And, if you look at the numbers, he had the country on the way out of debt. I’m probably just as guilty of supporting him (despite what I knew,) as Trumpers are…

Just being honest…

Dutchess_III's avatar

I liked Bill. He was a good, smart president. I really didn’t care that he carried on with Lewinski. I really don’t care that trump is a whore. JFK screwed around every chance he got. Literally. I would only care if screwing another women endangered the country.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Grimmy Same, I voted for him twice.
I’ll still probably vote Rep in 2020 due to policy.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^That’s your decision.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course you are free to vote for whatever canker suits your fancy, but to pass the fool’s disgusting warts off as the fanciful imaginings of the left is dishonest, let alone as stupid as the target of all the derision itself!!! No one need invent what stinky himself so blatantly oozes!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 May I quote you? ” He made a joke about how silly that was and said if they were trying to interfere maybe they could find the 30,000 emails that Hillary “lost.”

Whatabout Hillary ??

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie May I point out that @MrGrimm888 said:
_”
Trump publicly asked for Russian intelligence, on Hillary. Joking, or not, he did.“_

I was merely responding to him. I didn’t bring Hillary into this, someone else did. Now, care to revise your smarmy comment? Or do you really like making my point for me? You can’t even stay in the conversation because it makes you question your liberal darling. So you have to try making it all about me instead. Whatabout Seawulf???

MrGrimm888's avatar

It was a public statement. And, it didn’t sound like a joke, to me.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

It is crazy how the conservatives jump on the nuances the more well educated and intelligent liberals come up with, or point out, and try to claim the concept as their own.
“So you have to try making it all about me instead. about me instead. Whatabout Seawulf???”
You aren’t Hillary and you aren’t her emails.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther