‘There was no attempted coup’: FBI’s former top lawyer defends Russia probe

Nov 2018
5,348
1,551
Bel Air, MD
#84
Who needs a coup when we have a total idiot like Don tRump as President. His own mouth will get rid of him.
Not working out for you, though. Trump is more popular than ever, and is likely to be re-elected. The Democrats have all clue-less candidates, who have stupid ideas requiring trillions of dollars we don't have to fund their pet projects.
 
Jul 2013
52,756
56,145
Nashville, TN
#85
Not working out for you, though. Trump is more popular than ever, and is likely to be re-elected. The Democrats have all clue-less candidates, who have stupid ideas requiring trillions of dollars we don't have to fund their pet projects.
I remember back in 2016 when I was as confident as your clueless ass is now.
 
Sep 2017
5,245
6,304
Massachusetts
#86
1- legitimate impeachment had Trump committed any crimes would not be a coup.
Agreed. But it's not responsive to my point. The point is that those who whine about this being an attempted coup would need to start with a serious worry that not only is there damning evidence of serious crimes against Trump, but that it's so overwhelming and the crimes so serious that even the Senate Republicans, whose manhoods and sense of honor are held in a blind trust by the Trump Organization, would vote to remove him from office. It's been obvious all along that there was just about a 0% chance of reaching them, so there was never a plan for this investigation to be a step towards removal from office, and thus characterizing it as an attempted coup is silly.

2- by "proving" the election results were fraud, it would remove the win from Trump.
We have already proven that the election results were influenced by a massive amount of illegal manipulation by a hostile foreign superpower. But that doesn't "remove the win," any more than the fact that a majority of voters preferred Clinton does. The only thing that would "remove the win" would be impeachment and removal from office, and with the GOP functioning effectively as a "hive mind" controlled by Trump, that wasn't going to happen.

3- ignoring evidence that does not exist is prudent, not crazy. It is crazier to suggest that in spite of there being no evidence to support the story.
In this case, the issue isn't an absence of evidence, but rather the political will to ignore the evidence.

4- this is something of spin...
As you implicitly acknowledge, you can't counter it.

I guess you also were not aware that Ken Starr's goal was to ensure that ONLY Bill got fingered.
Starr's goal was to rummage through absolutely every aspect of Bill and Hillary Clintons' lives, from a decades-old small-time land purchase, to up-to-the-minute details of their sex lives, looking for absolutely ANYTHING that might be used as a fig-leaf for the planned Republican impeachment effort -- and, in the meantime, to leak as many personal details to the press as possible, to damage the White House politically.
 
Likes: OldGaffer
Oct 2014
30,161
5,262
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#89
Agreed. But it's not responsive to my point. The point is that those who whine about this being an attempted coup would need to start with a serious worry that not only is there damning evidence of serious crimes against Trump, but that it's so overwhelming and the crimes so serious that even the Senate Republicans, whose manhoods and sense of honor are held in a blind trust by the Trump Organization, would vote to remove him from office. It's been obvious all along that there was just about a 0% chance of reaching them, so there was never a plan for this investigation to be a step towards removal from office, and thus characterizing it as an attempted coup is silly.
This doesnt make sense.

A coup is an illegal act, the concern for evidence is not required.


We have already proven that the election results were influenced by a massive amount of illegal manipulation by a hostile foreign superpower. But that doesn't "remove the win," any more than the fact that a majority of voters preferred Clinton does. The only thing that would "remove the win" would be impeachment and removal from office, and with the GOP functioning effectively as a "hive mind" controlled by Trump, that wasn't going to happen.
A) no, that's not proven.

B) you're mixing the legitimate and illegal methods as the same.


In this case, the issue isn't an absence of evidence, but rather the political will to ignore the evidence.
Wrong, it's a lack of evidence. The left especially has been frothing at the mouth to remove Trump. There was enough political will to impeach Trump, just not enough evidence to do it legally.



As you implicitly acknowledge, you can't counter it.



Starr's goal was to rummage through absolutely every aspect of Bill and Hillary Clintons' lives, from a decades-old small-time land purchase, to up-to-the-minute details of their sex lives, looking for absolutely ANYTHING that might be used as a fig-leaf for the planned Republican impeachment effort -- and, in the meantime, to leak as many personal details to the press as possible, to damage the White House politically.
That was the cover story, it had more to do with selling missile secrets to China.... except, had they pursued that there would have been somewhere around half of DC would have wound up swinging from ropes. Better to focus the energy only on Clinton, and sex stuff so that nobody else would get tied in.