Wow! Have not thought about this. Now THIS is multi-dimensional chess. If true, that is. Just a theory but it is about the most original theory I have heard all year.

This is a damn good read, folks. It might take a few minutes to read it, then digest it, and then re-read it but after it "clicks", you'll have an "A-HA!" moment.

Quote:Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert and popular political prognosticator, floated a theory of “mutually assured destruction” on Sunday morning: if prosecutors pursue President Donald Trump, he will make sure that Hillary Clinton and her allies go to jail.

Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign.

The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies:

Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out.

Read more about this interesting theory here...

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION ON THE POTOMAC (sounds like the name of a noir novel, lol....)

You will never get the votes in the senate to remove Trump. Some of the democrats are in heavily pro-Trump states.

Some of the nutcases on here are still under the impression that Hillary will become president if Trump is booted. Its really quite precious.

(08-27-2018 08:27 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You will never get the votes in the senate to remove Trump. Some of the democrats are in heavily pro-Trump states.

Some of the nutcases on here are still under the impression that Hillary will become president if Trump is booted. Its really quite precious.

Yes, I agree. Impeachment/Indictment/Prison, etc... is just red meat for people who can't govern their emotions.

You know, liberals would really make for lousy Vulcans, lol....

(08-27-2018 08:19 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Wow! Have not thought about this. Now THIS is multi-dimensional chess. If true, that is. Just a theory but it is about the most original theory I have heard all year.

This is a damn good read, folks. It might take a few minutes to read it, then digest it, and then re-read it but after it "clicks", you'll have an "A-HA!" moment.

Quote:Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert and popular political prognosticator, floated a theory of “mutually assured destruction” on Sunday morning: if prosecutors pursue President Donald Trump, he will make sure that Hillary Clinton and her allies go to jail.

Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign.

The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies:

Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out.

Read more about this interesting theory here...

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION ON THE POTOMAC (sounds like the name of a noir novel, lol....)

There are a lot of Democrat politicians and bundlers in New York and probably Florida that are getting very nervous the feds are looking into the Trump organization.

(08-27-2018 08:30 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  There are a lot of Democrat politicians and bundlers in New York and probably Florida that are getting very nervous the feds are looking into the Trump organization.

Damn good point; haven't thought of that. Remember, he had dealings with prominent Democrats in NY and in South Florida for decades.

Remember what he said about Gillibrand ?

Yep. +3.

(08-27-2018 08:19 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Wow! Have not thought about this. Now THIS is multi-dimensional chess. If true, that is. Just a theory but it is about the most original theory I have heard all year.

This is a damn good read, folks. It might take a few minutes to read it, then digest it, and then re-read it but after it "clicks", you'll have an "A-HA!" moment.

Quote:Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert and popular political prognosticator, floated a theory of “mutually assured destruction” on Sunday morning: if prosecutors pursue President Donald Trump, he will make sure that Hillary Clinton and her allies go to jail.

Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign.

The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies:

Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out.

Read more about this interesting theory here...

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION ON THE POTOMAC (sounds like the name of a noir novel, lol....)

There's the rub. The Dems would block any pro-"Hillary prosecutors" in the senate conformation hearings.

(08-27-2018 08:19 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Wow! Have not thought about this. Now THIS is multi-dimensional chess. If true, that is. Just a theory but it is about the most original theory I have heard all year.

This is a damn good read, folks. It might take a few minutes to read it, then digest it, and then re-read it but after it "clicks", you'll have an "A-HA!" moment.

Quote:Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert and popular political prognosticator, floated a theory of “mutually assured destruction” on Sunday morning: if prosecutors pursue President Donald Trump, he will make sure that Hillary Clinton and her allies go to jail.

Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign.

The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies:

Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out.

Read more about this interesting theory here...

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION ON THE POTOMAC (sounds like the name of a noir novel, lol....)

Pretty much what I've been saying all along. The establishment is desperately trying to hang something over Trump to stop him from cleaning house. Trump has them at checkmate.

(08-27-2018 08:27 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You will never get the votes in the senate to remove Trump. Some of the democrats are in heavily pro-Trump states.

Some of the nutcases on here are still under the impression that Hillary will become president if Trump is booted. Its really quite precious.

Who is under the impression that HRC would become President if DJT was convicted? Not I.

Conviction of Trump is unlikely. Even if the Dems take the House and manage to gain Senate control. Probably need a minimum of 16 Senate votes from GOP Senators to convict.

I think that IF impeachment is sent to the Senate, and the Senate even takes it up, that its odds on that every Democratic Senator votes for conviction if the evidence is there. Remember, 2020 is a FAR different Senate election cycle than 2018. And there are plenty of Republicans up for reelection in states where Trump isn't likely to get 50 percent of the vote (and they'd be running with Trump if Conviction fails). That being said, not sure any GOPers vote to convict, no matter if he killed Pope Francis on Fifth Avenue.

But back to the OP. Hillary has faced 1000000000x more scrutiny than Trump, has released all her financial records and her taxes, has testified before Congress, never taken the Fifth. Whatever mistakes HRC has made, and she's made them, weren't enough to warrant prosecution. So HRC went ahead and cooperated. DJT's? Who knows. But he certainly is acting like he can't withstand scrutiny.

Lets apply the same transparency to Trump that we have to Clinton, and then see where that information leads us.

And if Clinton broke the law (and did so deliberately, not incidentally) then let the chips fall where they may. She certainly was a sloppy campaigner, losing to Obama in the 2008 primary via sheer incompetence and losing the EC vote to Trump through bad luck, collusion, and bad political strategy. But no, we shouldn't even look at Clinton, unless Trump faces the same scrutiny FIRST. He's sitting in the Oval Office.

Adams has certainly proven himself a smart predictor and has an admirable record of being right.

But I struggle in understanding why taking down Clinton would be Trump's goal. She's nothing, now.

(08-27-2018 09:40 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  But I struggle in understanding why taking down Clinton would be Trump's goal. She's nothing, now.

Putting HRC in jail, rightly or wrongly, just INCREASES the pressure on DJT. And would do so exponentially. But at the end of the day, HRC has faced questioning, hasn't pleaded the fifth, has cooperated, and has been far more transparent than DJT.

Does anyone really think that the Dems are going to protect HRC at the cost of retaining DJT? Don't think HRC needs protecting, because whatever they have on her is probably nowhere near as comprehensive as what they have on the Trumps.

Yea. Not like she'd lie cause she wasn't recorded or under oath.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...sworn-oath

Tom, this is bigger than GOP v Dem. This is why all your posts about how Muller is Republican etc etc is irrelevant. The institutional GOP want Trump out just as much as if not more than the Dems. The institutional GOP Muller, Comey, etc do not want to ever be in this situation again. What they are doing to the President is not only trying to ruin him but also to send a message to any potential outsider candidates like him.

These people have the power to ruin your life via the process of investigation and accusation. The outcome is irrelevant, the process is the punishment. Not many people are in a position to stand up against them and even fewer actually would do so if confronted.

The fact that the President is willing and continues to fight this witch hunt gives me a tremendous amount of respect for him

(08-27-2018 09:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But back to the OP. Hillary has faced 1000000000x more scrutiny than Trump, has released all her financial records and her taxes, has testified before Congress, never taken the Fifth. Whatever mistakes HRC has made, and she's made them, weren't enough to warrant prosecution. So HRC went ahead and cooperated. DJT's? Who knows. But he certainly is acting like he can't withstand scrutiny.

Are you going to try to convince us that the most serious investigative threat Cankles faced, the one conducted by the FBI, was thorough and unbiased? Good luck with that one.

(08-27-2018 09:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And if Clinton broke the law (and did so deliberately, not incidentally) then let the chips fall where they may. She certainly was a sloppy campaigner, losing to Obama in the 2008 primary via sheer incompetence and losing the EC vote to Trump through bad luck, collusion, and bad political strategy. But no, we shouldn't even look at Clinton, unless Trump faces the same scrutiny FIRST. He's sitting in the Oval Office.

Link for the bolded part, please.

It is amazing that many here are giddy with the possibility of Hillary going down, and she should if the evidence supports it. But she only goes down, according to the posted article, if Trump goes down. In this scenario the history books would be all about Trump, the President, and not the Clinton, the footnote who lost the election.

Donald is not going anywhere.

(08-27-2018 11:17 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  It is amazing that many here are giddy with the possibility of Hillary going down, and she should if the evidence supports it. But she only goes down, according to the posted article, if Trump goes down. In this scenario the history books would be all about Trump, the President, and not the Clinton, the footnote who lost the election.

I struggle to see any other interpretation.

(08-27-2018 08:27 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Some of the nutcases on here are still under the impression that Hillary will become president if Trump is booted. Its really quite precious.

Name them...with a link to their impression please.

Thanks.

(08-27-2018 11:09 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 09:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And if Clinton broke the law (and did so deliberately, not incidentally) then let the chips fall where they may. She certainly was a sloppy campaigner, losing to Obama in the 2008 primary via sheer incompetence and losing the EC vote to Trump through bad luck, collusion, and bad political strategy. But no, we shouldn't even look at Clinton, unless Trump faces the same scrutiny FIRST. He's sitting in the Oval Office.

Link for the bolded part, please.

Maybe he means she lost via her own collusion to throw the primaries in her favor? Just takin' a stab.

I wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton to run a lemonade stand, but I'll believe there's something to nail her to the wall with when I see it. She has left a trail of smoke everywhere she goes, but no one has been able to find the fire yet.