A cac is a cac is a cac is a cac... All of a sudden the MAGA in you is showing;
Mueller will testify Trump committed Obstruction.[UPDATE-5/10 Committe Testimony]
- Thread starter dasmybikepunk
- Start date
The Democrats could get rid of Nancy Pelosi tomorrow and not lose a step.
Can the Republicans say the same thing about Trump?
What Nancy Pelosi just did is genius
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/nancy-pelosi-genius-just-did/17783/
Even as House Democrats are preparing to definitely hold William Barr in contempt tomorrow, and possibly Steve Mnuchin as well, while also scheduling public testimony from Robert Mueller, large chunks of the media are busy pushing the “Democrats aren’t going to do anything” false narrative – because those kinds of scare tactics are great for ratings. Now Nancy Pelosi has turned that narrative on its head.
Nancy Pelosi just told the New York Times that she’s worried that if Donald Trump loses in 2020 by a small margin, he’ll try to declare himself the winner and remain in office for another term anyway. Nothing magically works that way, as the courts would affirm that Trump lost, and in that moment he’d no longer be president, meaning government agents would instantly go from protecting him to dragging him out of the White House on his ass. So why is Pelosi saying something like this?
In reality, Donald Trump could try to cause trouble on his way out the door after a loss, but the bottom line is that it would really be a matter of how much trouble he wanted to cause for himself. As things now stand, as soon as Trump is out of office, SDNY and the New York Attorney General will be fighting over who gets to arrest Trump first. If he refuses to leave after he loses, it’ll merely result in his arrest coming even sooner.
But Pelosi smartly understands because Trump could try to cause trouble after losing, the best way to prevent that from happening is to make sure that he loses big. In turn, the best way to make sure he loses big is to motivate everyone to go vote against him in the largest numbers possible. In other words, her message to you is that if you think he’s going to lose by five points, you should spend the next year and a half helping to register voters so he’ll lose by ten points instead. That way, even if the Russians try to cheat again, or if some idiot sends a misleading last minute letter again, the Democratic candidate’s margin of victory will be large enough to absorb that.
As for the rest of what Nancy Pelosi supposedly said to the New York Times, it serves as a reminder that if you use the mainstream media to get your message out, the media will go ahead and spin your words into whatever delivers the best ratings. The NYT article in question has a misleading headline reading “Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results.” Near the end of the article, it acknowledges that Pelosi is actually “pursuing center-left policies.”
The center-left isn’t the center, and the NY Times should retract this headline. But that part is less important, because Nancy Pelosi has consistently shown that she doesn’t really care what anyone on either side thinks about her, she only cares about the end result. She managed to get across her primary message, which is that people need to turn out to vote against Trump in as large of numbers as possible in 2020.
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/nancy-pelosi-genius-just-did/17783/
Even as House Democrats are preparing to definitely hold William Barr in contempt tomorrow, and possibly Steve Mnuchin as well, while also scheduling public testimony from Robert Mueller, large chunks of the media are busy pushing the “Democrats aren’t going to do anything” false narrative – because those kinds of scare tactics are great for ratings. Now Nancy Pelosi has turned that narrative on its head.
Nancy Pelosi just told the New York Times that she’s worried that if Donald Trump loses in 2020 by a small margin, he’ll try to declare himself the winner and remain in office for another term anyway. Nothing magically works that way, as the courts would affirm that Trump lost, and in that moment he’d no longer be president, meaning government agents would instantly go from protecting him to dragging him out of the White House on his ass. So why is Pelosi saying something like this?
In reality, Donald Trump could try to cause trouble on his way out the door after a loss, but the bottom line is that it would really be a matter of how much trouble he wanted to cause for himself. As things now stand, as soon as Trump is out of office, SDNY and the New York Attorney General will be fighting over who gets to arrest Trump first. If he refuses to leave after he loses, it’ll merely result in his arrest coming even sooner.
But Pelosi smartly understands because Trump could try to cause trouble after losing, the best way to prevent that from happening is to make sure that he loses big. In turn, the best way to make sure he loses big is to motivate everyone to go vote against him in the largest numbers possible. In other words, her message to you is that if you think he’s going to lose by five points, you should spend the next year and a half helping to register voters so he’ll lose by ten points instead. That way, even if the Russians try to cheat again, or if some idiot sends a misleading last minute letter again, the Democratic candidate’s margin of victory will be large enough to absorb that.
As for the rest of what Nancy Pelosi supposedly said to the New York Times, it serves as a reminder that if you use the mainstream media to get your message out, the media will go ahead and spin your words into whatever delivers the best ratings. The NYT article in question has a misleading headline reading “Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results.” Near the end of the article, it acknowledges that Pelosi is actually “pursuing center-left policies.”
The center-left isn’t the center, and the NY Times should retract this headline. But that part is less important, because Nancy Pelosi has consistently shown that she doesn’t really care what anyone on either side thinks about her, she only cares about the end result. She managed to get across her primary message, which is that people need to turn out to vote against Trump in as large of numbers as possible in 2020.
Tripe.
we'll see, I'm just the messenger
How could they not? He's done a terrible job, his approval ratings are in the toilet and most of the dirty tricks that got him into office won't work twice. look at how many of his Republican underlings have been fired or forced to resign because they refused to carry out his insane orders.
So discussing my enemy's possible political strategy makes me a red hat racist? Please explain yourself because that doesn't make any sense at all.
IMO the fact he is donnys opposite is the reason he is unelectable.
Trump has catered to and moved his base due to his hubris and his hypocrisy.
Nothing stimulates the religious right more than a sinner/wolf wrapping himself in the clothing of a savior.
What turns off a religious zealot?
Someone more holy than themselves.
what if he wins and the Republicans take the Congress?
Nah, Blue Wave coming. Keep a close eye on Virginia. It will be much stronger than the midterms.
I'm going to put out a wild theory out there. When Trump is ousted out of office it's been stated many times he's going to get arrest(noted in this article).
Here's the wild theory. It goes without saying he would serve time......Trump DEFECTS to Russia!
what if the Democrats send another dummy like Hilary
You bring up a good point. Evangelicals are some of the most gullible people in the country by far.
However, the problem with Donald Trump is that he is only good at summiting HIS base. The people who voted for him as a form of protest are gone. The Latino vote is gone. The youth vote is mostly gone. Even most die-hard Republicans want nothing to do with him. All he has really has left are the people who show up at his rallies. That's not going to be near enough to win.
Worst of all, the Democrats have had nearly 3 years to investigate and advertise all of his lies, infidelities, obstructions, acts of treason, human rights violations, and so forth. At this point the attack ads pretty much write themselves.
Like I said in an earlier post, Trump would literally have to catch a North Korean nuclear missile with his teeth before he would have a chance of winning 2020
Fuck this shit. He's floating it out there. Pelosi just mentioned in an interview the idea that he'll contest the election/not leave
Sarah Kendzior has BEEN saying this and she's been batting 1.000 on Trump predictions
By that logic the Republicans owe Obama 8 more years.
These pee tapes need to drop after Mueller testifies.
This shit is exhausting.
Also, shouldn't the tentative date in the thread title read 5/15?
Also, shouldn't the tentative date in the thread title read 5/15?
Michael Cohen Press Conference Tomorrow!
He's not going to talk about shit....
Him going to prison, maybe how sorry he is!
Older blacks on here should know better if they think these white folks gonna do Trump in...
He's an outspoken racist. That's the ultimate white man to whites!
Raw story
Raw story
This is how American get their news.
Raw story. Palmerreport. Fox. Breitbart. Huffpost. Facebook. Twitter. That's the biggest problem moving forward.
What is he hiding..?
gene cisco™ brand false equivalencyThis is how American get their news.
This is how American get their news.
No it ain't. CNN, MSNBC and Fox aren't and shouldn't be the only places Americans are getting their news.
Breaking: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal...
Source: Washington Post
...prosecutors assert.
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.88291579aa6a
Source: Washington Post
...prosecutors assert.
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.88291579aa6a
Similar threads
