This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Maine Eagle  USA 21 May 19 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Oh Bravo. You are now the HOL's number one liberal fruitcake. He's POTUS and if he were a convicted criminal he would be removed. He cannot be convicted of a crime as sitting president. He has committed crimes though, so he is a criminal. Neither you, Hrolf, or Stirlingsays, know American law better than almost 1000 bipartisan former federal lawyers. ALMOST 100 LAWYERS agree he committed a crime. Neither one of you has even read the Mueller report. This isnt bias against Trump, this is facts and law against Trump. He criminally obstructed justice, and the 2020 election now carries more significance for him as if he loses he is going to jail. Trump fans have crossed into the twilight zone, will you ever wake up?
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 May 19 5.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
So attempted murder is not a crime, only murder? Nonsense, total and utter tripe. Please read the American law on obstruction of justice, Stirlingsays, as you clearly dont understand it. So rich people are above the law? More tripe. He is a criminal.
Firstly I agree with Trump's frustration and annoyance as I don't regard these agencies as being neutral. The reality is as Barr said, if there is no evidence there is no case to answer. He's the attorney general you aren't. Secondly Trump can quite easily explain away all these charges after the presidency via the same legalese that brings them.. You aren't going to get your wish.....it's a tough course for you Maine. The god emperor wins against you beta boys once again. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 May 2019 5.23pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
If Trump was serious about it he could have compelled or obstructed himself. That comparison is not only nonsensical it's laughable.| Maine Eagle USA 21 May 19 5.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Firstly I agree with Trump's frustration and annoyance as I don't regard these agencies as being neutral. The reality is as Barr said, if there is no evidence there is no case to answer. He's the attorney general you aren't. Secondly Trump can quite easily explain away all these charges after the presidency via the same legalese that brings them.. You aren't going to get your wish.....it's a tough course for you Maine. The god emperor wins against you beta boys once again. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 May 2019 5.23pm) For perhaps the 8th time, I compel you Stirlingsays, to educate yourself on this topic by reading the Mueller report. You seem interested in American politics, and you generally seem supportive of Trump and his methods. I implore you to read the Mueller report to have your eyes opened up a little bit here. Trump personally tried to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. That is him personally trying to obstruct justice. Trump is the president, and was formerly head of a large business empire. You dont get into those roles if you cannot delegate, so the president asking someone to obstruct justice, is the president attempting to obstruct justice. He cannot issue every order to the end of the order chain personally. Also they dont let the mob boss off who ordered the hit, and only prosecute the hit man, do they? Barr has lost the plot, sold his country out, and is acting as Trump's personal attorney, therefore I care little for what he says. I also care little for what someone like Adam Schiff (for example) says on many topics, as he has gone too far in the other direction and loses credibility. If Trump can easily explain away several counts of obstruction of justice, I would like to see it.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 May 19 6.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
For perhaps the 8th time, I compel you Stirlingsays, to educate yourself on this topic by reading the Mueller report. You seem interested in American politics, and you generally seem supportive of Trump and his methods. I implore you to read the Mueller report to have your eyes opened up a little bit here. Trump personally tried to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. That is him personally trying to obstruct justice. Trump is the president, and was formerly head of a large business empire. You dont get into those roles if you cannot delegate, so the president asking someone to obstruct justice, is the president attempting to obstruct justice. He cannot issue every order to the end of the order chain personally. Also they dont let the mob boss off who ordered the hit, and only prosecute the hit man, do they? Barr has lost the plot, sold his country out, and is acting as Trump's personal attorney, therefore I care little for what he says. I also care little for what someone like Adam Schiff (for example) says on many topics, as he has gone too far in the other direction and loses credibility. If Trump can easily explain away several counts of obstruction of justice, I would like to see it.
I have gone over the Mueller report the other day and listened to the excellent Sam Harris podcast on it.....and Sam Harris is hardly a Trump supporter to say the least. I'll forward you the link. As for your attitude towards Barr.....sorry, he's the top lawyer in the country and he has real power.....so you can say you don't think he is credible but what does that matter. Essentially Trump isn't going to be removed during his presidency......but he behaved inappropriately during the investigation.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 22 May 19 3.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I have gone over the Mueller report the other day and listened to the excellent Sam Harris podcast on it.....and Sam Harris is hardly a Trump supporter to say the least. I'll forward you the link. As for your attitude towards Barr.....sorry, he's the top lawyer in the country and he has real power.....so you can say you don't think he is credible but what does that matter. Essentially Trump isn't going to be removed during his presidency......but he behaved inappropriately during the investigation.
Thats exactly how I feel about Hrolf, or that is Hreally how I feel about Hrolf I should say. The credibility of the president, and the AG, matter a lot. Well they used to. They should. They really should, the president and the AG should not be liars and truth benders. Once the Trump era is over, I expect an over correction, as we strengthen the framework of the institutions in America which preserve democracy. DEMOCRACY!....As Obi-Wan once shouted. Trouble is it will go too far the other way, but thats human nature isnt it. I think Trump will be impeached in a few weeks, but the invertebrate republicans will not remove him from office, they are too busy cow towing to their supreme leader, who has abandoned huge swathes of their principles and positions. Trump is the ultimate example of identity politics. Impeachment will give the Dems some more hearings though, more theater. What they are trying to do (much like May) is flog a horse which they know is dead, but they have to flog it all the same. They want to show the American people that Trump is crooked and is a criminal, hoping that there will be a groundswell of support for impeachment. Its never gonna happen. Trump could murder someone in NYC and Lindsey Graham would say he is a hero as it was self defense. He could rape someone but her claims would be treated like Dr Ford and ridiculed. He could commit obstruction of justice but Barr would say its presidential harassment and was justified. He could get in bed with the Russians for ill-gotten rewards but this would be fake news, according to Mitch McConnell. In other news, Trump just got hammered in court in one of the cases he is fighting as a judge quickly dismissed his claim that Deutsche Bank and some others should not release his financial records to congress. That is not good news for the commander in cheat as this precedent could filter through to many other cases, such as the one over Don McGahn not testifying, and publicly calling the president a no good liar. Like it or not, Congress has far reaching investigative and oversight powers and the president cannot stop those, only delay them. The big reveal will come on day, when we finally see why he went all the way to the supreme court to hide his taxes...quite an effort. I wonder what is in those taxes.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 25 May 19 12.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by twist
Trump has been bypassing Congress at every possible turn. Something that every other sitting president could have done, but mostly did not. When the checks and balances can no longer check and balance, what remains ? Now he uses a loophole to bypass congress and sell 8 billion in weapons to the Saudis, citing the Iran threat as the reason. But the real reason Saudi wants the weapons has nothing to do with Iran. The sudden Iran "threat" was purely fabricated so this sale could go ahead. I feel for the civilians who will die at the hands of these soon to be Saudi weapons. Yes Minster episode "The Whiskey Priest" covers this very well. If you sell arms sooner or later they end up in the wrong hands so either don't do it or don't give a damn there is no ethical policy for arms sales.
One more point |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 27 May 19 1.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Meanwhile, CNN ratings are at a record low now that they cannot peddle the Russian collusion hoax anymore and have no decent reporting elsewhere. Take out all the hotel lobby views and ratings would be even less. [Link] Edited by Penge Eagle (27 May 2019 1.16am)
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 27 May 19 7.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Meanwhile, CNN ratings are at a record low now that they cannot peddle the Russian collusion hoax anymore and have no decent reporting elsewhere. Take out all the hotel lobby views and ratings would be even less. [Link] Edited by Penge Eagle (27 May 2019 1.16am) I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show.
One more point |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 27 May 19 3.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show. But was she good looking though?
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 27 May 19 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show. There is no longer any question that trump would be criminally prosecuted for obstruction if he wasn’t president.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 19 4.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
There is no longer any question that trump would be criminally prosecuted for obstruction if he wasn’t president. If Trump wasn't president the Democrats wouldn't give a monkey's......So it's another nothing burger.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 29 May 19 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If Trump wasn't president the Democrats wouldn't give a monkey's......So it's another nothing burger. Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. 2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. 3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? 4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. 2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. 3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? 4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump. He also stated that a President cannot be indicted while in office "even if sealed and hidden", so it appears that they explored that option too. They can impeach but it will be shot down quickly by the senate, so I'm not sure if there's any point. Dems would be better off trying to publicly push and highlight 2020 election security to ensure a fair election, rather than an obstruction of it
|
|
| Maine Eagle USA 29 May 19 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dollardays
He also stated that a President cannot be indicted while in office "even if sealed and hidden", so it appears that they explored that option too. They can impeach but it will be shot down quickly by the senate, so I'm not sure if there's any point. Dems would be better off trying to publicly push and highlight 2020 election security to ensure a fair election, rather than an obstruction of it
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 5.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry. I think with all things in politics, it's all about how it plays with the public, so I'll watch with interest whatever happens. I would certainly like a focus on election security though, as it's a worrying sign for a party not to be interested in that. The 2020 election will be completely no holds barred. Biden would be subject to a creepy uncle angle I suspect, so in my view would not be the best choice for dems.
|
|
| .TUX. 29 May 19 7.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry. As Mr. Assange pointed out many many times, they're all bloody criminals so nothing to see here. A quick edit........... US news now full of ''It's our constitutional obligation to begin impeachment proceedings'' blah blah blah. The Federal Reserve is also bloody UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (Do your own homework) Pick 'n' Choose benders.
Edited by .TUX. (29 May 2019 7.31pm)
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 10.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by .TUX.
As Mr. Assange pointed out many many times, they're all bloody criminals so nothing to see here. A quick edit........... US news now full of ''It's our constitutional obligation to begin impeachment proceedings'' blah blah blah. The Federal Reserve is also bloody UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (Do your own homework) Pick 'n' Choose benders.
To my mind, TUX, you almost always make a very valid contribution and have a suitably sensible suspicion of the powers that be. That's why I think your focus on Bitcoin makes a lot of sense. You're right about the likes of Assange too, and Snowden too at that. Unfortunately, though, Trump just offers another guise, another disguised incarnation of exactly the same crap. Someone in it for himself, offering political positions to his billionaire friends, filtering money into his coffers through whatever means to benefit him and his. He has no genuine comprehension or care for the likes of us, other than how he can utilise it to benefit himself. He's taking people for suckers. If I lived stateside, in 2020, I'd vote for Bernie, as he's about the only person of either party with a proven history for practicing what he preaches. Not as though he'll win the nomination anyway but he's stood up to be counted when it mattered regardless of what was politically expedient, and comparatively speaking he's not in it for the money. He's consistently expressed concern for the neglected white working class, as well as being front and centre of the civil rights movement, so he doesn't fit into the cliched Hillary style 'let's reel off every minority going to the exclusion of whites' box, nor does he tick the nod nod wink wink nature of Trump's appeal to the white nationalism. He's just a decent guy doing his best for the country he loves. I'm not in perfectly alignment with him by any stretch, but to me what he stands for counts for something and is genuine and heartfelt. In politics that's a rare bird indeed. Beyond that, if I lived there all in likelihood I wouldn't bother voting for any of the parade of fools from either side of the isle.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 29 May 19 11.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. It did happen but the scale and effectiveness has been wildly exaggerated by Democrats and believed by adherents like yourself. The Russians definitely favoured Trump, however theyr policy has always been to interfere on both sides to spread division....as with the Chinese. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. I think I can agree with that. I agree however with Trump making the job of his opponents as difficult as possible because they are out to get him.....and like him, the ethics of it is trade-able. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? As a sop to people like yourself. If he was serious why doesn't he come right out and say a crime has been committed. It sounds to me like he's tickling your balls to justify the years and cost of the investigation. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump. Again, if that's what he wants then use plain language. You are inferring what you want to infer, maybe you're right maybe not. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 May 2019 11.19pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.