Where's the line in the sand?

[grean]

I'm perfectly willing to say that's that, if Mueller reports that there was nothing found.

What would it take him to report for those seemingly "Forever " Trump supporters to turn away?

Again, I'm not saying there will be anything. I'm just curious to know where the line is that will make people say they've had enough.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

So far Mueller has some convictions that have nothing to do the election or much of anything in the last decade. We do know that laws were broken by the Justice Department, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, Rosenstein, Stryck, and too many in the resistance to name.

[grean]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

So far Mueller has some convictions that have nothing to do the election or much of anything in the last decade. We do know that laws were broken by the Justice Department, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, Rosenstein, Stryck, and too many in the resistance to name.

That wasn't the question. The question was what would Mueller have to report for Trump supporters to stop supporting him.

I'm not suggesting anything will be found. I'm just questioning what would need to be in order to stop supporting him.

[filbone]

For me, Trump would have to do something more serious than the usual suspects that the_real_Barleycorn mentioned did, and then wait in line for his turn to be prosecuted. The report would also have to explain why the investigation climbed so high into the tree for the fruit, while there was low-hanging fruit to be nabbed with little effort.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by filbone

For me, Trump would have to do something more serious than the usual suspects that the_real_Barleycorn mentioned did, and then wait in line for his turn to be prosecuted. The report would also have to explain why the investigation climbed so high into the tree for the fruit, while there was low-hanging fruit to be nabbed with little effort.

+1

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

So far Mueller has some convictions that have nothing to do the election or much of anything in the last decade. We do know that laws were broken by the Justice Department, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, Rosenstein, Stryck, and too many in the resistance to name.

For me, the fact most of those convictions came via info gleened from the fisa warrants, WHICH WERE ISSUED based on lies told to the judge, should instantly overturn the convictions, due to "fruits of the poisonous tree"..
So without those convictions propping him up, and the fact there's NOTHING there proving trump's collusion, it would seem to ME that the probe should be shut down.

[grean]

Originally Posted by garhkal

For me, the fact most of those convictions came via info gleened from the fisa warrants, WHICH WERE ISSUED based on lies told to the judge, should instantly overturn the convictions, due to "fruits of the poisonous tree"..
So without those convictions propping him up, and the fact there's NOTHING there proving trump's collusion, it would seem to ME that the probe should be shut down.

Again, none of that withstanding, what could Mueller report that would cause you to stop supporting Trump?

[Tsmokies]

Grean, they already know trump and nothing will change ignorant support of him. Muller has so much chit he can't stop. It's not like when ken starr went on for years and finally found a conspiracy for a willing blow job. Trumps chit is way passed his penis and up to his fake neck. He can't ban all the free press

[Jackie S]

What would Mueller have to report?

If he found, with credible evidence, that President Trump had conversations or meetings with Russian Operatives in order to implement a plan of attack, based on falsehoods, that would destroy the Clinton Campaign. In return, President Trump would grant special favors in any area under his control as President.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

What would Mueller have to report?

If he found, with credible evidence, that President Trump had conversations or meetings with Russian Operatives in order to implement a plan of attack, based on falsehoods, that would destroy the Clinton Campaign. In return, President Trump would grant special favors in any area under his control as President.

What if he didn't himself, but later became privy that others in his campaign did, and then he tried to cover it up? Would that too, be enough, or only if he himself is guilty of the actual crime, not the cover up?

[grean]

What if it was a cover up of a far lesser crime, similar to Nixon?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by grean

What if he didn't himself, but later became privy that others in his campaign did, and then he tried to cover it up? Would that too, be enough, or only if he himself is guilty of the actual crime, not the cover up?

Cover up to who? President Trump has not testified before any legal entity. In fact, the Administration has given the Special Cousel anything they wanted.

I am in the belief that no crime has been committed, so it's difficult to answer a bunch of hypotheticals.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by filbone

For me, Trump would have to do something more serious than the usual suspects that the_real_Barleycorn mentioned did, and then wait in line for his turn to be prosecuted. The report would also have to explain why the investigation climbed so high into the tree for the fruit, while there was low-hanging fruit to be nabbed with little effort.

This witch hunt is similar to Benghazi.

Exactly what was done to Bill Clinton.

But nothing criminal will come of it to Trump directly.

But that is not the point...the point is to brand him corrupt, just like they did the Clintons.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by garhkal

For me, the fact most of those convictions came via info gleened from the fisa warrants, WHICH WERE ISSUED based on lies told to the judge, should instantly overturn the convictions, due to "fruits of the poisonous tree"..
So without those convictions propping him up, and the fact there's NOTHING there proving trump's collusion, it would seem to ME that the probe should be shut down.

I am no attorney - yet I assume Cohen and Manafort had competent representation. If not considered, that defense would be reasonable cause for appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tigation-trump
The guardian is independent. From the article:Significantly, Manafort’s trial did not go to the heart of the Mueller investigation of the campaign’s Russia ties. Similarly, none of the Mueller indictments so far features an extensive exploration of those ties based on the testimony of the three known cooperating witnesses who worked on the campaign.
So far no sign of any "collusion" between Trump organization and the Russians to influence the election.

[Tsmokies]

Trump brings "corrupt" to a level like never seen before. He is an amusing cover it all up by diversion twit head though. Now he is attacking Michelle by talking chit about Obama. How the fk does twit head have time to be a credible potus? He spends all his time trying to cover his azz