Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

What will the next Trump crime be?

282 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

I've been wondering about this and thought it might make an entertaining "what if" exercise.  The election is less than 9 months away, the Democrats are in disarray and looking very weak at present so I believe they will continue to attack Trump, possibly even attempt to Impeach again.  What say you all?  What do you think they'll attempt next? 

Will there be another leaker that acts as a whistleblower or will they try something else?  They have to be extremely angry and frustrated that even with near total media negativity for 3 years, they haven't touched his popularity.  He is actually improving the outlook of millions of Americans and is slowly gaining ground with groups whose support the Democrat Party has taken for granted for decades.  SO... what's the next big crisis?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 minutes ago, and then said:

I've been wondering about this and thought it might make an entertaining "what if" exercise.  The election is less than 9 months away, the Democrats are in disarray and looking very weak at present so I believe they will continue to attack Trump, possibly even attempt to Impeach again.  What say you all?  What do you think they'll attempt next? 

Will there be another leaker that acts as a whistleblower or will they try something else?  They have to be extremely angry and frustrated that even with near total media negativity for 3 years, they haven't touched his popularity.  He is actually improving the outlook of millions of Americans and is slowly gaining ground with groups whose support the Democrat Party has taken for granted for decades.  SO... what's the next big crisis?

By definition a leak is a consequence of built up pressure compromising an fault designed to contain it.

Can’t have a leak without without a fault.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
12 minutes ago, and then said:

..the Democrats are in disarray and looking very weak at present so I believe they will continue to attack Trump, possibly even attempt to Impeach again.. What do you think they'll attempt next? 

They'll probably make the ridiculous claim that he's a space alien and therefore not constitutionally entitled to hold the Presidency, haha..:D

Oh wait-

trump-borg.jpg

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
25 minutes ago, and then said:

I've been wondering about this and thought it might make an entertaining "what if" exercise.  The election is less than 9 months away, the Democrats are in disarray and looking very weak at present so I believe they will continue to attack Trump, possibly even attempt to Impeach again.  What say you all?  What do you think they'll attempt next? 

Will there be another leaker that acts as a whistleblower or will they try something else?  They have to be extremely angry and frustrated that even with near total media negativity for 3 years, they haven't touched his popularity.  He is actually improving the outlook of millions of Americans and is slowly gaining ground with groups whose support the Democrat Party has taken for granted for decades.  SO... what's the next big crisis?

I’m thinking “contempt of democrscy” when he refuses to have any debates.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

By definition a leak is a consequence of built up pressure compromising an fault designed to contain it.

Can’t have a leak without without a fault.

See, I'd disagree with this.  It's another example of how perceptions and biases are being created and used against all concerned.  Vindman is a likely source for Ciaramella's whistleblowing.  He was working within the Trump Whitehouse in a role on the NSC.  If he succumbed to "pressure" and reported the cause of the pressure he felt to an outsider then why did his message contain only an accusation that proved totally unreliable and obviously biased?  I mean, at what point do these accusations require actual consensus to be found valid?  

Remember, the first we heard of the whistleblower's concerns, he was quoted as saying he was concerned and IIRC, "extremely disturbed" by what he heard on the call.  When the whole dog and pony show was completed, we heard from 17 so-called witnesses and not one would answer under direct questioning that they heard, or were aware of, Trump demanding anything, engaging in bribery, OR a quid pro quo.  Not one.  The only witness that was actually on the call, Sondland, first said Trump asked for a QPQ then had to admit that it was an assumption.  He even admitted that Trump stated he "wanted nothing, no QPQ, just that Zelinsky do the right thing"  

So... in that instance we have proof (for reasonable people) that the leak was caused by political gamesmanship.  Had Trump reacted as they expected and refused to set the precedent of publicly revealing a private call between leaders in Ukraine and America, this story would have taken him down.  He wouldn't have been able to make his case.

SO... they've tried what I consider to be a knife in his back, what's next?

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’m thinking “contempt of democrscy” when he refuses to have any debates.

Can you really imagine that he'd refuse the opportunity to destroy an opponent on national TV?  He LIVES for chances like that.  Trump doesn't care about the haters, in fact he seems to draw energy from them.  It's uncanny and it drives the Left CRAZY.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Well he does still have over a dozen active investigations...... Everything from Bank fraud, Insurance fraud, paying Stormy for the sex, Emoluments, to defamation suits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-investigations/

And of course the Russia and Ukraine stuff isn't over (or ever will be).

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
50 minutes ago, and then said:

I've been wondering about this and thought it might make an entertaining "what if" exercise.  The election is less than 9 months away, the Democrats are in disarray and looking very weak at present so I believe they will continue to attack Trump, possibly even attempt to Impeach again.  What say you all?  What do you think they'll attempt next? 

Will there be another leaker that acts as a whistleblower or will they try something else?  They have to be extremely angry and frustrated that even with near total media negativity for 3 years, they haven't touched his popularity.  He is actually improving the outlook of millions of Americans and is slowly gaining ground with groups whose support the Democrat Party has taken for granted for decades.  SO... what's the next big crisis?

China. They will accuse Trump of working with China.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well he does still have over a dozen active investigations...... Everything from Bank fraud, Insurance fraud, paying Stormy for the sex, Emoluments, to defamation suits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-investigations/

And of course the Russia and Ukraine stuff isn't over (or ever will be).

Emoluments case was won by Trump, a day after impeachment was over. So mark that off your list.

Appeals Court Dismisses Emoluments Clause Lawsuit In Win For Trump

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
26 minutes ago, and then said:

See, I'd disagree with this.  It's another example of how perceptions and biases are being created and used against all concerned.  Vindman is a likely source for Ciaramella's whistleblowing.  He was working within the Trump Whitehouse in a role on the NSC.  If he succumbed to "pressure" and reported the cause of the pressure he felt to an outsider then why did his message contain only an accusation that proved totally unreliable and obviously biased?  I mean, at what point do these accusations require actual consensus to be found valid?  

Remember, the first we heard of the whistleblower's concerns, he was quoted as saying he was concerned and IIRC, "extremely disturbed" by what he heard on the call.  When the whole dog and pony show was completed, we heard from 17 so-called witnesses and not one would answer under direct questioning that they heard, or were aware of, Trump demanding anything, engaging in bribery, OR a quid pro quo.  Not one.  The only witness that was actually on the call, Sondland, first said Trump asked for a QPQ then had to admit that it was an assumption.  He even admitted that Trump stated he "wanted nothing, no QPQ, just that Zelinsky do the right thing"  

So... in that instance we have proof (for reasonable people) that the leak was caused by political gamesmanship.  Had Trump reacted as they expected and refused to set the precedent of publicly revealing a private call between leaders in Ukraine and America, this story would have taken him down.  He wouldn't have been able to make his case.

SO... they've tried what I consider to be a knife in his back, what's next?

Okay so what part of the whistleblower’s allegations were wrong. ? Trump changed his story half a dozen times until he’s lawyers settled on a toned down version of the original complaint. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well he does still have over a dozen active investigations...... Everything from Bank fraud, Insurance fraud, paying Stormy for the sex, Emoluments, to defamation suits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-investigations/

And of course the Russia and Ukraine stuff isn't over (or ever will be).

Emoluments got tossed, not adjudicated but I doubt they'll try that again, it was weak.

You realize that everything else you listed is about his actions prior to even running, right?  Can you name any other president that has been held to such a standard?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, Captain Risky said:

Okay so what part of the whistleblower’s allegations were wrong. ? Trump changed his story half a dozen times until he’s lawyers settled on a toned down version of the original complaint. 

Are you kidding?  Ciaramella tried to sell people on the idea that Trump demanded a QPQ and there was absolutely no evidence he did anything like that.  If you have something other than your opinion that he was wrong, please share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
7 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Emoluments case was won by Trump, a day after impeachment was over. So mark that off your list.

Appeals Court Dismisses Emoluments Clause Lawsuit In Win For Trump

What are your thoughts?  Do you think he's not profiting off of the Presidency?  I mean, you have Eric Trump saying it saves the secret service money by staying at Trump properties, because they charge $0-$50 for rooms, and then it comes out that the secret service is paying up to $650 per room at Trump properties.  That's what emoluments is...profiting off of the presidency.  No other President has charged the Secret Service for staying on their property...

Edited by Agent0range
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
2 minutes ago, and then said:

Emoluments got tossed, not adjudicated but I doubt they'll try that again, it was weak.

You realize that everything else you listed is about his actions prior to even running, right?  Can you name any other president that has been held to such a standard?

Can you name another President that charged $650 per room for his protection?  I've been on TDY for the government.  The most I've seen paid for a hotel room, the highest rate in the nation is like $130 a night in DC.  It takes a whole lotta hoops to jump through to get $650 approved.  No other President had to deal with this, because there was never this issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 minutes ago, and then said:

Are you kidding?  Ciaramella tried to sell people on the idea that Trump demanded a QPQ and there was absolutely no evidence he did anything like that.  If you have something other than your opinion that he was wrong, please share it.

Did Trump not urge the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden ? Yes he did.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

What are your thoughts?  Do you think he's not profiting off of the Presidency?  I mean, you have Eric Trump saying it saves the secret service money by staying at Trump properties, because the charge $0-$50 for rooms, and then it comes out that the secret service is paying up to $650 per room at Trump properties.  That's what emoluments is...profiting off of the presidency.  No other President has charged the Secret Service for staying on their property...

If you do a little research, you'll find that the Emoluments clause was really about keeping a president from accepting gifts from foreign leaders so that he might sell out the country.  Can you describe how renting rooms to SS details will meet that criteria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Trump originally said that EVERYTHING the whistleblower said was a lie. Then members of his own government agreed with the claims of the whistleblower. Trump changed his story and said that the call was “pitch perfect “

im I right so far?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Did Trump not urge the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden ? Yes he did.

Die on that hill if like but he had every right to do so within his duties and responsibilities. You can hate him and deny his legitimacy but it doesn't change the reality that his conversation with Ukraine's leader was completely legal and proper.  Opinions don't matter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
4 minutes ago, and then said:

Emoluments got tossed, not adjudicated but I doubt they'll try that again, it was weak.

You realize that everything else you listed is about his actions prior to even running, right?  Can you name any other president that has been held to such a standard?


The suit by the democrats got tossed.  That by no means ended the investigation.  The Court said that the democrats alone didn't constitute congress so all they have to do to continue is have Pelosi hold a vote over it.  And again, that is just for that particular suit not the overall investigation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 minute ago, and then said:

If you do a little research, you'll find that the Emoluments clause was really about keeping a president from accepting gifts from foreign leaders so that he might sell out the country.  Can you describe how renting rooms to SS details will meet that criteria?

It wasn't about accepting gifts!  It was about foreign leaders patronizing his hotels purposely to gain favor.  The SS is just another example of profiting.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, Captain Risky said:

Trump originally said that EVERYTHING the whistleblower said was a lie. Then members of his own government agreed with the claims of the whistleblower. Trump changed his story and said that the call was “pitch perfect “

im I right so far?

Re-litigating to convince me that your OPINION is the standard that must be met, is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 minute ago, and then said:

Die on that hill if like but he had every right to do so within his duties and responsibilities. You can hate him and deny his legitimacy but it doesn't change the reality that his conversation with Ukraine's leader was completely legal and proper.  Opinions don't matter.

Your country is corrupt!  Investigate corruption!  Ok, boomer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp

Trump will be accused of "weaponizing the truth" and using it to persecute and prosecute:

...traitors, seditionists, terrorists, racketeers, murderers, human traffickers, pedophiles, drug traffickers, globalist cabalists, satanists, propagandists...

...and other heroes of the political and ideological Left.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

The amusing thing is that every investigation ended so far with "not quite enough evidence to convict" instead of "the evidence complete exonerates Trump".

 

Edited by Gromdor
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The amusing thing so far is that every investigation ended so far with "not quite enough evidence to convict" instead of "the evidence complete exonerates Trump".

That has something to do with the old (really, really old) legal tenet of assuming one to be innocent until proven guilty.  Investigations and trials by their nature, never establish complete exoneration.  Innocence is implied.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.