Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Don’t you breath that evil into this world!
  2. “Trump is accomplishing the greatest feat he never knew about!! MAGA!!!’
  3. And Michael Cohen just announced that he'll testify to House Oversight Committee on Feb 27th.
  4. How does that refute what I said? If they are given pardons then they are forced to admit they committed crimes and to testify about everything they know. That doesn't help Trump. It actually helps the Dems collect the information Trump might be trying to hide.
  5. That's perverse. You WANT the Dem president to indict Trump whether there is evidence he committed "treason" or whatever other crimes you think he committed. You WANT the DOJ/FBI to be used as a political weapon for your party's benefit. You WANT a politically-motivated prosecution just because you oppose Trump politically. You WANT the entire judicial system to get warped for your party's political gain. That Trump is trying to do just this thing doesn't make your calls right. It makes what you're doing just as dangerous as Trump and now you have zero credibility or moral authority to criticize what Trump is doing. How can you say what Trump is doing is wrong if you want the exact same thing?
  6. By the way, I believe that the House can legitimately subpoena the information from the Mueller report, even the classified information, on the claim that impeachment is the only remedy for holding the president legally accountable. And impeachment doesn't require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that DOJ and prosecutors have to meet. So they can begin hearings with the goal of determining if impeachment is appropriate and get access to all of Mueller's files regarding Trump's actions. I don't think that Trump will be able to block that. Executive privilege certainly doesn't apply here and I'm not sure declaring it all "classified" will work either.
  7. Also, you didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions that I asked. You act like you're immune from criticism. You're not. When you post stupid things, others are free to call it stupid. So stop being stupid.
  8. Why did you tag him? He isn't part of the conversation. It's stupid, unnecessary, and accomplishes nothing. Me criticizing you for posting on the boards is not being the "board police". I criticize what people say all the time. You're not immune just because you have some weird a** fetish with tagging a particular poster 6-12 times a day even when he is not part of the conversation.
  9. Who the f*** cares how he sees things?!?!?!?! Why the f*** do you insist on tagging him every other gotdam post? Edit: He is not even part of this conversation!!! You already acknowledged that he's not going to respond in good faith or add anything productive. What is the point? Stop it, please.
  10. It is debatable. But the person who has the most evidence to answer that question is Mueller and, increasingly, the House committees and SDNY. I hear what you're saying about obstruction. There's a lot more evidence of that than other allegations. I'm responding more to this amorphous free-floating anger that translates into things like "he's a traitor" and "he committed treason" and "indict him" before all of the evidence is out there. When we're talking about accusations of criminal behavior against political opponents, we have to be extremely careful. It's too easy to let that slip into the dangerous partisan "lock her up" stuff.
  11. You kind of proved my point...we wait for the report and the evidence and THEN draw conclusions about Trump's guilt or innocence. That's not what happened here. "I want Kamala Harris so we can indict Trump" presumes, without evidence, that Trump has commited a crime. And of course if they try to bury the report then that's an issue and it has to be addressed. But calling for prosecuting somebody before evidence of criminal behavior is exactly what "lock her up" was about. What they ACCUSED Clinton of doing was illegal. But the investigations concluded that she didn't do those things and yet they yelled "lock her up". We cannot allow the judicial system to be used for short term partisan political advantage. Nobody will like how that ends.
  12. A trial comes after an indictment. If there's not enough evidence to indict him then there's no point of a trial. How about we all just wait to see what evidence is presented first and then draw conclusions?
  13. That's fine because all of them have been convicted based on strong evidence of crimes. I'm talking about people jumping to things like "elect Harris and indict Trump". That's dangerous.
  14. If this turns into some "lock him up" talking point by Democrats, then they will be just as guilty of undermining democracy as Trump has been. Jumping to conclusions and demanding the jailing of political opponents without the evidence and facts to support that is dangerous and needs to stop. It's wrong when Trump went around chanting "lock her up". It's wrong for you and Democrats to do the same against Trump.
  15. We may not see the report itself, but Congress can (and will) subpoena all of the witnesses and the investigators (e.g., Mueller) to find out what the results were. And to your other post, the timing is suspicious and that's why they need to bring Mueller to testify about whether he was stopped early or not.
  16. We'll see. I'm not commenting on whether Mueller will find anything implicating Trump or not. Trump's lawyers seem to think it will be damaging to him. But nobody knows until the report comes out. My post was really just a "it's time and I'm ready to see what he says".
  17. Also interesting how Trump launches into another twitter tirade just before the announcement of completion of Mueller's investigation. His lawyers have been saying for awhile that they expect Mueller's findings to be very damaging to Trump.
  18. This is simple. Have Mueller testify before Congress and answer questions directly about whether he was able to finish his investigation and whether the conclusions/findings were influenced by Whitaker/Barr.
  19. ^^^Does he think that the story of (possible) Russian collusion is one where Trump had control over and manipulated Putin into doing Trump's bidding??? That dude is an even bigger moron than I thought.
  20. I don't know, the GOP is running this guy for Congress in NC...
  21. ^^^Says the guy who once loudly proclaimed that there were no illicit meetings between Trump’s campaign and Russians.
  22. Absolutely. But the IG report only said that he wasn’t truthful about his role in a particular story about Clinton (which was anti-Clinton). So yeah, he has credibility issues, but we’re not talking about the likes of Roger Stone or Donald Trump in terms of lying.
  23. One of my former students whohas been working in the DNC for years told me about a conversation she had about a month ago. She was thinking about joining the Klobuchar campaign, but a friend of hers who is high up in Minnesota politics told her explicitly that she shouldn’t do it because of how Klobuchar abuses her workers. One of the things that she apparently did was, when she was traveling with the state-law required police escort, she would never allow them to stop for meals. Some of them worked all day on her detail withouth eating. She was also told some other stories that haven’t been made public (yet) that were worse than the stuff being reported.