If he’s paying them, I’m sure they’re charging triple, and basically said they wouldn’t come on board unless he paid them a retainer that is probably close to what they would expect to receive as a full payment from a normal client. Rudy’s working for free, because of course he is.
Trump will do nothing. He won’t even say “Sir, Sir, please stop with your invasion.”
Trump won’t acknowledge it and the press won’t press him on it. If you’re not in the liberal bubble you won’t know about it and if you’re in the right-wing bubble you won’t believe it anyway - Trump right there said we don’t have any soldiers in Syria.
Here I’ll lay it out in a different form for you, but I know you won’t answer it either, and I’m really struggling to understand why.
Scenario A: Two mob bosses arrange a heist using a series of goons that are intended to shield them from any real culpability. It’s impossible to get them, because everyone says the mob bosses had nothing to do with it when caught. All of the evidence against the mob bosses is circumstantial because of this intricate shielding.
Scenario B: Two mob bosses arrange a heist using a series of goons that are too stupid to cover up what they’re doing properly. It raises a ton of red flags with other goons who say that they’re going to get caught. When the goons are inevitably caught doing the heist, mob boss 1 goes out into the public releasing all his email back and forths related to the heist, and says it was a ‘perfect’ heist. He then says he will be committing another heist soon if anyone wants to get involved.
Mob boss 2 comes out and says, yeah, I was working on the heist with him, but I didn’t know what we were stealing despite his number 2 being in the meetings where what they were going to steal was being discussed and having a package of notes related to what they were going to steal in his possession.
Same situation?
All I’m trying to get you admit is that the two situations described are not similar. This has nothing to do with outcome, it’s about the situation we’re in now vs. the situation then.
the people in charge of moving money around in the stock market are a lot dumber than we give them credit for
1 Like
If it’s not about the outcome, then who cares? Yes, it’s a different thing, but who knows if they outcome is different. And a little more than 6 out of 12 of the jury members are working for the mob boss in this case. And “similar” is also vague. Of course they are similar, and they’re different. The only difference that matters though is the outcome and while you’re talking about semantics and seem to care about what I’ll admit, I’m making a point and it’s that this is a political thing and what matters is how politicians think it will effect votes. They are the jury and that will be the basis on which they’ll be judging Trump and Pence.
This seems like very much a “holy fucking shit” situation. Nevertheless,
No possible. Daddy said he brought our troops home.
When any vote happens in the Senate, in red areas the Senators’ phone will be ringing off the hook with “Remove my President and you’re dead to me” and many of them will leave off the “to me”. Wonder why so many Republicans are resigning.
1 Like
Claims that it was an accident. I mean it probably was but still.
You started this out by saying that Reagan and Bush were not removed, and you seemingly were saying that because they weren’t, that Trump and Pence wouldn’t be. Am I mischaracterizing the intent of your post?
.
That is my point. My point is that indicting and convicting a ton of people who aren’t Trump doesn’t mean Trump is going to get it, and that’s whether or not he admits to crimes. Maybe if he lives past being POTUS he can be judged by those standards and maybe he will be, but while he’s President he’s absolutely immune as long as enough politicians are afraid to prosecute/remove. And just generally, every piece of news about so and so is going to jail is not “we got him”.
Good. I hope they resign and live in shame for the rest of their lives.
You think this is some sort of gotcha? I deliberately asked him multiple times whether the situation is different. He refused to answer that question multiple times.
It’s bizarre to think that what Reagan and Bush did (privately and insulated) is congruent with what Trump and Pence have done (publicly and doing it themselves). No one knows the outcome of what will happen, but it sure seemed to me that he is saying that because of that other outcome under wildly different circumstances that we should be using that one as a basis. If you wonder why I have a problem with you, your little (.) there sums it up perfectly.
So then I am correct that you’re trying to apply the same standard to Reagan/Bush and Trump/Pence?