Other way around:
"So, Paul, you’re 68. "
“This thing goes to trial and you’re convicted, you’re looking at 10, 20 years in the federal pen. Might never see the outside again. Might die of old age in your cell.”
“Or, you could share what you know with us, testify as needed, maybe get three years at Club Fed, and you’re out at 71 or so.”
“Your choice, Paul.”
Two bucks.
(Probably crinkled up to where they’ll never get accepted by the vending machines at work unless you iron them first.)
Well, he only has to pay $1M and if he doesn’t show for court, Dog the Bounty Hunter goes after him.
Depending on whose money is being laundered, polonium poisoning might be one of the potential outcomes.
I heard via a friend that six more indictments have been issued today. Can anyone verify that?
Hotair. Make of it what you will.
Pure speculation at this point.
“Trump’s Russian Laundromat
How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House.”
The. Election. Is. Over! She. Literally. Cannot. Be. Running. She can’t run for an office that is already filled, and she has not announced that she is running for any other office, and that is the point when we say someone is running for office. Trump didn’t run in 2012, even though he did investigate running.
Clinton is not running for any office right now.
You seem to have misunderstood my post. I wasn’t posting in GD where I actually wanted to know an answer. I was calling these guys idiots for beinging up Clinton. It appeals to their base, who do have that irrational hatred for her. But the rest of us know she is not running, and thus bringing her up is pointless. We can tell that it is obvious spin. So I was calling them stupid for doing it.
Finally, we are very much investigating the Trump campaign and its ties with Russia. There was an argument this wasn’t about Trump, but that was ruined the second Trump fired someone to stop the investigation. The two people who we talked about today are both Trump campaign officials.
Make no mistake, we are in fact going after Trump about this. He is the guy who is important, because he is in power. If he colluded, then he is not legitimately president. That’s a bit more important than a stupid decades long grudge.
You can’t say “But Hillary” forever. The time when that was useful ended on November 8, 2016. That’s the end of her relevance. She was already investigated, and that investigation is over.
I do not get why people think talking about Clinton is going to help in any way. It’s just transparent spin. The only ones who buy it are the people who would have bought any lie you told, so why not pick one that might actually convince some moderates or anti-Trump conservatives?
Tell that to the idiots on various liberal websites (I’m thinking of one in particular) that spent all sorts of time coming up with some way to shoehorn Clinton into the Presidency as a result of a Trump impeachment and removal. And if it wasn’t Clinton, it was Pelosi.
Was it an actual legitimate liberal site or some unknown dumbfuck you dug up somewhere?
You could link to it, you know.
… or, better, if it is an “idiot” site of any stripe, just don’t bring the idiocy here. Thoughts?
I’m wondering if the release of the Papodopoulous news means that Mueller got what he needed from him and no longer needs GP as an informant?
I’ll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency. It’s not really worth finding the one-offs on that site whose random writers showed no understanding of politics, law, or the Constitution in an attempt to shove Clinton in.
The Republicans should give up on Clinton. They won’t, because they’re desperate to deflect and they don’t have anything else. It’s been a while since I’ve seen any real “magical Clinton presidency” thinking, but I won’t be surprised if it kicks up again with these initial indictments.
How is this “shoving” Pelosi into the presidency? Shoving implying that it’s nefarious, underhanded or unconstitutional. Sheesh, it’s a fantasy that the Democratic Party wins a majority in the House and Senate at the mid-terms, then Trump and Pence are successfully impeached, thus making Pelosi speaker of the house President. Possible but pretty unlikely. :dubious:
What’s so stupid about it? Besides the fact it’s pretty much impossible, it is a legitimate way to do it. That’s the actual order of succession.
The only “if” is whether the Pres. and VP can be impeached simultaneously.
Let’s not be too hasty about not knowing the Constitution. Take a look at Trump and tell me with a straight face that knows anything beyond the 2nd. Amendment.
That’s one person, you said various liberal sites. Link 'em up. Show it’s a prevalent view among liberals in general.
In the context it is clear that there was something dumb there, not from Moulistas but from a astorian that found that indeed that article was not about Clinton and had to add Pelosy, that was not mentioned by BigT, just to cover his dumb ass.
Fine, shoving was a poor choice of verb. You’re right, if the stars aligned it’s exactly the way the process would work and would be totally legitimate. But I think any such Presidency, even with a cooperating Congress, would prove to be very weak (especially since you’re likely talking closer to effectively one year) and a likely Republican win in the following election. The idea was bandied about in 2006/2007 as well and was just as bad an idea then.
Fine, you got me. I don’t have enough examples that aren’t random people on DKos. And I haven’t seen much, if any, of it in the last six months. But Clinton still comes up a lot on the left for someone who is pretty much a political non-entity at this point.
First, I think astorian should be insulted by the confusion. Second, yes, Pelosi was not mentioned by BigT. I brought her up initially specifically because I had seen several wishful-thinking essays to somehow get either Clinton (usually by somehow forcing her as a replacement VP or by naming her Speaker) or Pelosi into the Presidency. So, when asked, I linked to the owner of DKos instead of one of the random essays on the website, which was for getting Pelosi in.
Nobody’s got Clinton derangement like the Republicans. There definitely isn’t a whole network of cable and internet sites on the left desperate to deflect by any means necessary from the news like we’ve seen from the right. But I think there are definitely some on the left who won’t let go of trying to get Clinton into the Presidency, either by some wacky impeachment method or by simply running in 2020. It’s an obsession that’s less helpful than it is for the Republicans because at least the Republicans can reliably fire up their base with the Clinton not-really-a-scandal du jour.
Not to pile on or anything but I would have to strongly disagree with that last sentence.
The ONLY people talking about Clinton are Trump and the whatabout chorus.
Edit. I see that you addressed that in your next post.
The Democrats are not going to run Clinton again unless literally every other candidate had died. She lost to Trump.
It is pretty hard to wash that stink off. 