On 3/29/2018 7:56 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2018 7:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2018 5:47 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/18 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Trump:Â* 1
Stormy: 0

and a California judge, no less !


A delay,nothing more. But have heart...plenty of new ****storms are
coming Trump's way. Will a divorce suit from Melania be among them?


I suppose.Â* Her suit will be delayed like Mueller finding collusion
with the Russians.




I think it would be surprising if she doesn't dump her sleazeball
hubby. Of course, she knew what he was before she married him, but
the scumbag cheated on her right after the new Lil Trump was born,
and apparently with quite a few other women since then. No wonder she
brushes his hand away...no telling what that hand has been on...or in.

As for Mueller, it's up to Mueller to disclose his findings and he's
also in charge of the schedule.

What are you going to do if Trump is slammed with a bunch of charges
or is an unindicted co-conspirator on some serious ****? Defend him
until the death? Claim it is "trumped up"? Fake news? Hillary's fault?


I have said several times that if Trump is indicted and found guilty of
any crimes I will concede that I have been wrong.Â* I should qualify the
"crimes" as being serious enough to put National Security at risk ...
and if so, they would be impeachable.

As for Melania, it's her business, not mine to judge.Â* Who was it who
once said:

“You know, I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man
like Tammy Wynette .... I’m sitting here because I love him, and I
respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been
through together."

Who was *that* woman?



It is an unsettled question as to whether a sitting president can be
indicted and if indicted, tried. Therefore you are giving yourself a
hell of an out. Also, so long as the Republicans control the House, I
don't see a possibility of impeachment, no matter what. I suppose so
long as the evangelical christians have given trump a pass on his
various immoralities, melania might, too.


I've listened to many legal types trying to define what is an
impeachable offense and what isn't. Seems the consensus is that if the
crime results in putting national security at risk, it is impeachable.
If the crime does *not* put national security at risk it is probably
*not* impeachable. Same crime can have different results in other
words. Lying under oath may or may not be an impeachable offense
depending on what the person is lying about.

If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians during the
campaign and the results of that collusion influenced the outcome of the
election ... it still probably is not an impeachable offense, much to
the dismay of some of your party members. That's why this whole fiasco
is a waste of time and money. Your party should be focusing on winning
the next elections rather than trying to oust Trump.

As for giving him a "pass", didn't your party give Bill Clinton a pass,
more than once? Getting a blow job in the Oval Office didn't seem to
bother many people. Why should Trump's alleged roll in the sack 12
years ago with a consenting bimbo matter?

Lastly, you are giving yourself just as much as an "out" as I am ..
perhaps more so. You complain daily about how horrible and incompetent
Trump is, claiming he's going to start a nuclear war, yet concede that
there's not much your party can do about it in the short term ...
especially those calling for his impeachment.

In article ,
says...


I've listened to many legal types trying to define what is an
impeachable offense and what isn't. Seems the consensus is that if the
crime results in putting national security at risk, it is impeachable.
If the crime does *not* put national security at risk it is probably
*not* impeachable. Same crime can have different results in other
words. Lying under oath may or may not be an impeachable offense
depending on what the person is lying about.


That's all garbage. Impeachment is a political matter. You
would impeach Hillary for her e-mail server, claiming
"national security" violations.
WJC lied about sex, and it was enough to get him impeached.
DJT is a veritable perjury machine. You'd better hope he is
NEVER put under oath.

If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians during the
campaign and the results of that collusion influenced the outcome of the
election ... it still probably is not an impeachable offense, much to
the dismay of some of your party members. That's why this whole fiasco
is a waste of time and money. Your party should be focusing on winning
the next elections rather than trying to oust Trump.

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy.

As for giving him a "pass", didn't your party give Bill Clinton a pass,
more than once? Getting a blow job in the Oval Office didn't seem to
bother many people. Why should Trump's alleged roll in the sack 12
years ago with a consenting bimbo matter?


Bill was impeached for lying about sex, not for getting a BJ.
The Dems will probably have a much more solid case for
Trump's impeachment should they take the House.
Trump is a real sleazeball. And he's crazy.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.
Certainly there was some damaging information released but isn't that
what news organizations are supposed to do? Nobody has said the
released emails were not true and they indicated the Hillary team was
trying to hurt Sanders as much if not more than Trump. I would think
democrats would like to know that, particularly Sanders democrats.
Only a democrat could call the truth "meddling".
As for the trolling on Facebook, the dossier and the data mining, you
have to blame Zuckerberg along with a russian company and the Brits.
Why aren't you saying the Brits meddled in the election too? One of
their intelligence officers was involved along with one of their
corporations. Isn't that pretty much what you say about Russia?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.

On 3/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.





It's progressive liberal tactic.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.

On 3/30/2018 1:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.






I won't be surprised at all at whatever the outcome of this "hunt" is.
Our country has gone nuts.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:16:18 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:00:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:27:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense

I have not seen any proof that the election was "fixed" in any way.

"So you say cooperating with the Russian government to fix a
Presidential election is not an impeachable offense - if it's
Trump? Note, you said it, not me. You're ****ing crazy."

Chopping as you did is a very poor practice.

I just questioned the "fixed election" part of your rant so we could
take your points one at a time.
When you preface an entire scenario on a lie, the rest does not rise
to the level of being taken seriously.
How was it "fixed"?
If you can't describe the "fix" the rest falls from it's own weight.



"If, as the left claims, Trump worked with the Russians
during the campaign and the results of that collusion
influenced the outcome of the election ... it still probably
is not an impeachable offense, much to the dismay of some of
your party members."

Luddite described the fix, not me.
Like I said, he's crazy.
What scenario? What's to fall of it's own weight?
You mean that he's crazy?
You can have your own opinion on that.

So now you admit the election wasn't "fixed"?
It is pretty clear that no election district has said a single vote
was altered and the count seemed to be pretty much uncontested. I am
not sure where the fix would be.
Was there some bull**** and backstabbing? certainly but it seemed to
be more on the DNC side. All the hacks/leaks did was inform the voter.
The DNC never denied any of it. Don't we want informed voters?
Well maybe not if the truth makes your candidate look bad.