How the standards have fallen.The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
How the standards have fallen.I don't understand.
Flynn now wants to plead the fifth.
Do you remember Twitler's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister and ambassador to the US in which Twitler passed intelligence gathered from a foreign intell service to his guests?
He just basically admitted to passing secrets, admitted they were from Israel and punched himself squarely in the balls, all in about 10 seconds.
Nice work for posting that mate, and she did a decent job highlighting all the really important and truly scandalous erm scandals from the Trump campaign and Presidency. You are right though, there is a hell of a lot missing and it's far from complete, however I feel for anyone trying to make a truly comprehensive list. It's a monumental task.
That's another one I'll have to refer you to him for.
Bwaahahaaa such a perfect explanation.I'll never understand the fifth amendment.
Basically allows crooks to get away with doing whatever they want whilst openly admitting they've done it without actually admitting it.
Or I suppose Trump supporters would suggest that because he won't actually say what he's done he's completely innocent.
They'll subpeona the White House for transcripts, so that moron pleading the fifth is least important.
But subpoenas don't seem to mean jack shit at the minute. They've thrown subpoenas at people and then they've simply refused to give up their information. Flynn and Page (not sure on that one) have already done this haven't they?
Can you imagine the White House pleading the 5th and coming under contempt of court? With an inquiry of obstruction of justice having on their heads nonetheless?
My mother is a lawyer so I'm only speaking from what little I overheard but pleading the 5th is basically saying I'm stupid enough to incriminate myself and I waive that risk. They just need to find a different way to unlock that door. If they declined Flynn's offer of immunity it means they already have enough to incriminate him one way or another.
Basically it just means you are not required to give testimony for or against yourself. Usually how you view it, will depend on how you view the case already. If you think someone is guilty, you will assume they are using it hide their guilt. In cases where you think someone is innocent you will think they are using to it to avoid giving answers that will make them look guilty when they are not.
It is also contains a guarantee of due process, against double jeopardy, and couples the idea of eminent domain to fair compensation.
The existence of the 5th Amendment does not allow crooks to get away with doing whatever they want, it just means you are going to need other evidence other than the testimony of the accused to gain a conviction.
It of course is not an idea that the US invented, nor is the US the only nation that allows one to avoid it as a right. I believe historically it was derived as protection against people being tortured to obtain confessions (well before the 5th amendment).
Should be illegal anyway, I remember when in Philadelphia a tugboat was pushing a barge went over a disabled amphibious "duck" boat killing 2 Hungarian tourists, a lot of illegality was found but the pilot just called the 5th amendment and was the end of it.
Basically the same cycle of stepping on his own dick (figuratively in his case, of course) as the Comey firing.
He's getting into the historical Ronaldo-Messi level bracket of modern greatness, except in incompetence.
It's only kind of like the right to remain silent in the U.K.
You do know that the operator of the tug boat, did end up going to jail right? Not for very long granted, but he was found guilty in federal court.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/justice/pennsylvania-duck-boat-sentence/index.html
Not to mention of course the victims were able to get monetary compensation (no make up for the lose of life of course) from the companies that operated the duck boat and the tug boat.
Hmm, interesting.
So presumably he's still going to have to turn up unless he wants to risk jail time. Maybe then just sit there and refuse to answer any questions?
So presumably he's still going to have to turn up unless he wants to risk jail time. Maybe then just sit there and refuse to answer any questions?
I didn't know that and I'm glad he went to jail but I do remember about the lawsuits and I think the "duck" boats belongs to the city and they look awful and I hated when I had one in front of me a very slow pace and I couldn't pass (driving in the city)
Last edited:
No shock that Trump would once take a narrow-minded, uninformed view of the 5th Amendment.
Since you want to bring up that shite again, I won't beat around the bush. There are circumstances where people cannot get anything to eat or get a roof over their heads around the world, but with a little bit of effort and a lot of hard work, that should not be a problem for people in most part of Europe and North America. Yes there is discrimination everywhere, I face that every day because of my skin color and religion, but I was taught to rise above that and work hard for whatever I get in life instead of blaming the "system". It's easy to go and mug an old lady instead of trying to get and education and work for things that you want in life. Too many take the easy way out. There are many people of different color who are making their lives successful instead if blaming the "system" in the United States. Maybe I have touched a raw nerve with you on this topic, but I don't give a damn as long as I am abiding by the rules of this message board. You can simply move on without having to respond to my post if you don't like it or agree with it, but now you're just baiting me. The person who I originally responded to did not even reply to my post, so if you're a person who blames the "system", then you need to work a little harder.
This epitomises why it will be very difficult if not impossible for us to have a rational debate on here between opposing views. This thread is best left to be an anti-Trumpists playground.
Who is "they"? Do you honestly think we can have a constructive debate you and I? What makes my ideas antiquated, just because they aren't the same as yours, right?
No, it was a joke, of course i'm not in tears over it, however seeing the environment laws being destroyed and people suffering over the disgusting healthcare plans makes me very upset. I cannot understand those who wouldn't be upset, to be honest.
The reason I describe those who support or defend him in a particular way is because I have yet to find anyone who has an honest or rational explanation for doing so, or anyone who can justify anything he has done in an honest way. For example draining the swamp yet employing 6 ex Goldman Sachs employees, any of the misogyny, racism or sexism, the countless conflicts of interest, the blatant emoluments laws being broken, the hypocrisy of one minute saying Hillary should be locked up, then not the next then back to locking her up, the disgusting healthcare law, the bombing of Syria and the way he is handling North Korea and of course the little matter of Russia and obstruction of justice, and on and on ad nauseam.
And there you have it, typical Trump supporter post. and you wonder why we in here commonly share an opinion of some Trump supporters? Almost all the Trump supporters on this site have done as you have, and that is come in, have a dig and be rude about those who think differently then claim victim status for being outnumbered before saying you wouldn't want to discuss things because you are outnumbered and wouldn't want a fight or to be ganged up on or bullied then leaving without adding a single thing to the discussion other than explaining why you wouldn't post your views. Yet you bother to post explaining why you wouldn't.
Where was I rude, mate? I tried really hard not to make my post sound confrontational.
I thought I explained why I bothered to post today, it was because of your post where you said you would like to have a discussion with others who aren't likeminded and I thought it was a little bit paradoxical on your part to say that considering your previous comment negated the possibility of a sane debate with any Trump supporter.
It's a public forum, right? My contribution to the discussion was to point out that you shouldn't hold your breathe for rational debates with pro-Trump members due to the general string of thoughts and comments on this thread.
Like I said before, I'll definitely be outnumbered (surely you can't deny this) and I can't argue against a crowd that's why I personally prefer to stay off. Hope you understand me, even if you don't agree with me.
They being republicans, Trump voters, Paul Ryan voters. People who support the most dangerous and murderous organisation of modern times. Who suppress women and minorities. Who see Mike "pray the gay away" Pence as a decent human being. There's plenty of decent people who have different views from mine, but none of them are republicans. If the god this party spends it's time invoking actually exists, they're all going to hell. What would Jesus do? Because he certainly wouldn't want to be associated with a billionaire sex offender.
Last edited:
Why can't you argue against a crowd? Surely if your position is strong enough, you can argue against anyone?
Langster mate its a team sport to a lot of people. I wasnt kidding when I said they would vote for Charles Manson if they could and he was on their team. People have and will constantly vote against their benefit just because its their side. Its sickening.
- Status