Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Russian Probe Indictments Predictions

Russian Probe Indictment Predictions  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following Trump Campaign members/allies do you think could get indicted, along with Manafort and Gates?

    • Michael Flynn
    • Jared Kushner
    • Donald Trump, Jr.
    • Corey Lewandowski
    • Steve Bannon
    • Jeff Sessions
    • Kellyanne Conway
    • Hope Hicks
    • David Bossie
    • Jason Miller
    • Sam Clovis
    • Roger Stone
    • George Papadopolous
    • Joseph Keith Kellogg
    • Carter Page
    • Doug Davenport
    • Ivanka Trump
    • Mike Pence
    • Donald Trump
    • None of these
  2. 2. Which of the following Clinton Campaign members/allies do you think could get indicted, consider Mueller is investigating the Podesta Group, run by John Podesta's brother?

    • John Podesta
    • Robby Mook
    • Joel Benenson
      0
    • Huma Abedin
    • Jennifer Palmieri
    • Jake Sullivan
      0
    • Cheryl Mills
    • Bill Clinton
    • Hillary Clinton
    • None of these.
  3. 3. If there is enough evidence for Trump to be indicted by Mueller's probe, do you think Pres. Trump should resign or face impeachment?



Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, vcczar said:

New Poll

I admit, I am a bit appalled that 3 of 11 people who've voted say that EVEN if there is enough evidence to impeach Trump, he should still NOT be impeached. I'm wondering the justification here. Why should the head of a Constitutional Representative Republic whose mandate is empowered by the will of the people have the same immunity from suffering legal consequences for actual, serious wrongdoing? The kind of immunity more typical of monarchs, theocrats, and dictators. Can someone, preferably one of the ones who voted such, explain this logic to me please? It's something that disturbs me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I admit, I am a bit appalled that 3 of 11 people who've voted say that EVEN if there is enough evidence to impeach Trump, he should still NOT be impeached. I'm wondering the justification here. Why should the head of a Constitutional Representative Republic whose mandate is empowered by the will of the people have the same immunity from suffering legal consequences for actual, serious wrongdoing? The kind of immunity more typical of monarchs, theocrats, and dictators. Can someone, preferably one of the ones who voted such, explain this logic to me please? It's something that disturbs me.

Yeah, I am, too. If Clinton had won and was in the same place, I'd definitely support an impeachment process against her. The same would have gone for Obama. I don't understand the blanket immunity that many Conservatives hold for their leaders. I'd like to know @Conservative Elector 2 @Dallas and @Kingthero's rationale for not thinking that Trump should resign or be impeached if Mueller has the evidence to indict Trump. Clearly, if he were Clinton, they'd be for her impeachment or resignation, and wouldn't be defending her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its more that this whole Russia thing is a lot of speculation more than me wanting Trump to stay. If solid evidence of a truly illegal deed were uncovered, than I would support impeachment; however, this scandal is more of people just resigning due to speculation with some hard evidence,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

Its more that this whole Russia thing is a lot of speculation more than me wanting Trump to stay. If solid evidence of a truly illegal deed were uncovered, than I would support impeachment; however, this scandal is more of people just resigning due to speculation with some hard evidence,

But the question was a hypothetical IF such evidence were found. It's in the question's wording. It doesn't ask "should Trump be impeached on what's known right now?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

But the question was a hypothetical IF such evidence were found. It's in the question's wording. It doesn't ask "should Trump be impeached on what's known right now?"

The question simply stated if the evidence was enough for him to be indicted; whether or not its a large compilation of speculation or legitimate hard evidence. I would have to evaluate the situation at the time when and if it did happen. I can't just throw support blindly for something without all the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kingthero said:

The question simply stated if the evidence was enough for him to be indicted; whether or not its a large compilation of speculation or legitimate hard evidence. I would have to evaluate the situation at the time when and if it did happen. I can't just throw support blindly for something without all the facts.

The thing is, the impeachment relieves him of his duties so a trial can happen. The trial, like with most private citizens, is where the evidence for and against is typically (and ideally) presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I am, too. If Clinton had won and was in the same place, I'd definitely support an impeachment process against her. The same would have gone for Obama. I don't understand the blanket immunity that many Conservatives hold for their leaders. I'd like to know @Conservative Elector 2 @Dallas and @Kingthero's rationale for not thinking that Trump should resign or be impeached if Mueller has the evidence to indict Trump. Clearly, if he were Clinton, they'd be for her impeachment or resignation, and wouldn't be defending her. 

In the event that such evidence would be manufactured in an attempt to throw the Trump regime out of office, I believe it is nowhere near enough to sway the election to his favor. I cannot imagine President Trump going to Russia and saying, "I need you to create fake votes"and enough votes to win the election. The majority of the voting issues reported had more to do with Republican votes being switched to Democrat votes. In fact, the USA has one of the most sufficient and highly equipped cyber security measures in the world. To suggest that a country such as Russia, would be able to breach such security measures does not make sense. I have never thought of Russia to meet the technological and security advances of the USA. My vote is based on the likely possibility of evidence being manufactured in an attempt to push President Trump out of office. And this very well could be borderline conspiracy theory, but with consistent reports of "deep state" measures attempting to take Trump out...I think it is reasonable to consider such a possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dallas said:

In the event that such evidence would be manufactured in an attempt to throw the Trump regime out of office, I believe it is nowhere near enough to sway the election to his favor. I cannot imagine President Trump going to Russia and saying, "I need you to create fake votes"and enough votes to win the election. The majority of the voting issues reported had more to do with Republican votes being switched to Democrat votes. In fact, the USA has one of the most sufficient and highly equipped cyber security measures in the world. To suggest that a country such as Russia, would be able to breach such security measures does not make sense. I have never thought of Russia to meet the technological and security advances of the USA. My vote is based on the likely possibility of evidence being manufactured in an attempt to push President Trump out of office. And this very well could be borderline conspiracy theory, but with consistent reports of "deep state" measures attempting to take Trump out...I think it is reasonable to consider such a possibility. 

What do you think Trump should do if there is proof of him colluding with Russia in the election, even if it had no impact on the election? Isn't that enough for anyone--regardless of party--to be rightfully condemned? Would you not expect Clinton to resign or get impeached had she won, and if evidence came out against her? Remember, this is a hypothetical question asking if proof was given. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dallas said:

In fact, the USA has one of the most sufficient and highly equipped cyber security measures in the world. To suggest that a country such as Russia, would be able to breach such security measures does not make sense. I have never thought of Russia to meet the technological and security advances of the USA.

This is why the U.S. is being actually SURPRISED by technological innovations "out of nowhere" by nations like Russia, China, India, and even North Korea and Iran. This attitude sums it up perfectly. The U.S. is complacent and resting on it's laurels on technological superiority and regarding it as a "law of nature" that the U.S. is, and always will be, the top technological power in the word. I'm not at all saying U.S. technological innovation, research, and advancement, or even slowed much, but many other countries are just so intrinsically underestimated in the areas of technological innovation and advancement that, by this attitude, the U.S. could realistically easily be overtaken by being blindsided because of smug attitude that technological superiority is an "entitlement."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...