Bannon: Trump like an 11 year-old child and Javanka is everything wrong with the WH

Thing1 said:
If he's right, then they really wouldn't be able to impeach.

They'll only impeach if it is determined that he obstructed justice in some way, or organized a cover-up.
Click to expand...

You’re missing it.

The investigation could be totally misguided [aka witch hunt] and Trump could still be found guilty of obstruction under the law. I think an obstruction case is weak for several reasons but we’re speculating here.

And if the investigation was pointless Trump would have nothing to cover up and his intentions would have been to get rid of Comey for political reasons. Both scenarios are entirely plausible if not highly likely. Trump wanted Comey to publicly state he wasn’t a subject of investigation. Trump firing Comey for political reasons is not a crime or grounds for impeachment.

The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. Trump has authority to fire the Director for wearing the wrong color tie.

But Trump could still be impeached because he would be guilty [technically, at least] of obstruction.

I think that scenario has trouble written all over it for The Resistance.
 
Darth Omar said:
You’re missing it.

The investigation could be totally misguided [aka witch hunt] and Trump could still be found guilty of obstruction under the law. I think an obstruction case is weak for several reasons but we’re speculating here.

And if the investigation was pointless Trump would have nothing to cover up and his intentions would have been to get rid of Comey for political reasons. Both scenarios are entirely plausible if not highly likely. Trump wanted Comey to publicly state he wasn’t a subject of investigation. Trump firing Comey for political reasons is not a crime or grounds for impeachment.

The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. Trump has authority to fire the Director for wearing the wrong color tie.

But Trump could still be impeached because he would be guilty [technically, at least] of obstruction.

I think that scenario has trouble written all over it for The Resistance.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is a big deal. I'm sure that the more rabid element of the Democrat party would push for it no matter what, as they are today. But there is a pragmatic side to the party - I believe that if the case is weak, they wouldn't even try it. It really all comes down to what comes out of the investigation. If the extent of obstruction is a few offhand comments to Comey or knowing Flynn lied, they'd really be crazy to push for impeachment, and I think the more rational minds in the DNC will realize that. I think it would be a non-starter.

And that's assuming that Dems take control of Congress, which is possible but probably a longshot in '18 given the #'s.
 
Thing1 said:
Impeachment is a big deal. I'm sure that the more rabid element of the Democrat party would push for it no matter what, as they are today. But there is a pragmatic side to the party - I believe that if the case is weak, they wouldn't even try it. It really all comes down to what comes out of the investigation. If the extent of obstruction is a few offhand comments to Comey or knowing Flynn lied, they'd really be crazy to push for impeachment, and I think the more rational minds in the DNC will realize that. I think it would be a non-starter.

And that's assuming that Dems take control of Congress, which is possible but probably a longshot in '18 given the #'s.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

The fly in the ointment for democrats is Comey. If Comey brings an obstruction indictment congressional democrats are going to feel some significant pressure to bring impeachment charges—-regardless of whether most democrats in congress think it’s a good idea or not.

Many of their constituents want Trump gone—-they don’t care how it’s done.
 
The ironic thing here is Hillary is the only one who got paid for playing with Russia.

Hillary, Comey, and it sounds like maybe even Mueller are the ones that are going to go down, and all thanks to their efforts to bring down Trump

aint life grand
 
noise said:
there was an offer and an acceptance -nowhere was there a solicitation ,and especially no solicitation for a quid pro quo.

You'd have to cite the election law,,and where you see a solitictation..
Click to expand...

I've cited and defined for you morons until the cows come home. Your willful ignorance is your choice.

Donnie agreed to a meeting and invited (solicited) the Russians after hearing about them from Goldstone. Quid pro quo is not a criterion. Again, your ignorance is showing.
 
Yaya said:
Notice how you bolded the word "accepted".

Now tell us how that fits the definition of solicit.

You won't, because you don't know.
Click to expand...

Answered numerous times Otuse, Lying Illiterate.

One has to have a grasp of the English language first, cretin. You have demonstrated the lack thereof.
 
domer76 said:
I've cited and defined for you morons until the cows come home. Your willful ignorance is your choice.

Donnie agreed to a meeting and invited (solicited) the Russians after hearing about them from Goldstone. Quid pro quo is not a criterion. Again, your ignorance is showing.
Click to expand...

I thought that was called ‘opposition research’ now lol.

Mueller has nothing with Meeting Gate.
 
No way. Almost nobody likes Bannon. Not the left and not even the right. He gets hate from both sides and the middle.
 
blackascoal said:
Steve Bannon Blasts ‘Javanka’ As Everything Wrong With The White House
And the president is “like an 11-year-old child,” he tells Vanity Fair.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has attacked President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner as the “railhead of all bad decisions” in the White House.

Bannon picked apart the problems of the White House and derided the couple as “Javanka” in a wide-ranging interview with Vanity Fair published Thursday. He said Ivanka was a “fount of bad advice during the campaign,” and claimed he once called her to her face “the queen of leaks.”

Vanity Fair also reported Bannon considers Kushner an elitist with no political experience who is in over his head and is out of touch with Trump’s constituency.

“He doesn’t know anything about the hobbits or the deplorables,” Bannon said. “The railhead of all bad decisions is the same railhead: Javanka.”

He said it was Kushner who encouraged Trump to fire FBI director James Comey. “It’s the dumbest political decision in modern political history, bar none,” Bannon insisted, calling it a “self-inflicted wound of massive proportions.”

Bannon didn’t exactly gush about his old boss, either.

“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” he told writer Gabriel Sherman, and reportedly told a friend last month that he believes the president has “lost a step.” He joked to Vanity Fair that Trump is “like an 11-year-old child.”

Bannon has reportedly said in private conversations that he believes Trump only has a 30 percent chance of finishing his term because he may be impeached or removed from office under the 25th Amendment.

Bannon doesn’t let himself off easy, either. “I realize in hindsight I was just a staffer, and I’m not a good staffer,” he said. “I had influence, I had a lot of influence, but just influence.” Now, outside of the White House and back at Breitbart, Bannon said, he feels more powerful.

“I have power. I can actually drive things in a certain direction,” he said.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...e16e4b0b0e5a7a29a12?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Personally, I think this is just a ploy to 'distance' Trump and Bannon before the midterms.
Click to expand...

Just look at the people who liked this. Didn't you, just a short time ago, agree that Bannon is a racist bigoted nutcase? Amazing
 
noise said:
gawd damn you are dumb.
bringing up "illegal gain" when there was none.
Click to expand...

There didn't need to be an actual gain;
intent is all that is required and intent was proven by e-mails.
You may want to reconsider whom you call stupid...as BAC said you are not illustrating much intelligence.
 
Rune said:
There didn't need to be an actual gain;
intent is all that is required and intent was proven by e-mails.
You may want to reconsider whom you call stupid...as BAC said you are not illustrating much intelligence.
Click to expand...

Ironic post is ironic.

Prove intent is all that matters. Cite the law or STFU.
 
Rune said:
he solicited dirt on Hillary as proven by his email. He didn't need to receive anything since intent is all that is required.
Click to expand...

We’ll ignore the offer/solicit distinction because I don’t want to waste bandwidth on it with you.

What manner of logical contortions exempts Hillary’s campaign from the same charge? Why is it criminal ‘solicitation’ when Trump attempts it but ‘opposition research’ when Hillary actually does it—-AND pays for it, for crying out loud.

Or is it like Comey’s ‘extreme carelessness’ rewrite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top