The Mother Of All Indictments

[Agent Zero]

Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.

[Agent Zero]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/29/1830697/-Key-Senate-Democrat-suggests-Trump-Jr-and-others-could-face-indictments-for-lying-to-Congress

[Safety]

I'll believe it when I see it. If that is the case, then everyone better stock up on prepper supplies because the POTUS will go into meltdown mode.

[alexa]

He's just a low level hanger on, a gofer

[Chris]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/29/1830697/-Key-Senate-Democrat-suggests-Trump-Jr-and-others-could-face-indictments-for-lying-to-Congress

"Key Senate Democrat suggests Trump Jr. and others could face indictments for lying to Congress"

Not exactly your OP: "Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday."


And trolls of a feather...

[alexa]

Glad that Sergeant Ad Hom took some time out of his busy schedule to be here.

He doesn't seem that interested in accuracy when the OP suits his needs, though.

[Chris]

https://i.postimg.cc/TY0sf7vw/giphy-2.gif

[Dr. Who]

https://i.postimg.cc/TY0sf7vw/giphy-2.gif

I love puppies. That gif makes me smile every time you post it, regardless of why you post it.

[Chris]

I love puppies. That gif makes me smile every time you post it, regardless of why you post it.

Because it's funny is why I post it. Alexa's constant trolling and sniping is funny. Trolls come and go but life goes on. Oops, need a comma between go and but!

[Ethereal]

Doesn't Trump Jr. know that only James Clapper is allowed to lie to congress and get away with it?

[hanger4]

Doesn't Trump Jr. know that only James Clapper is allowed to lie to congress and get away with it?And Comey and Brennan and McCabe, who lied to OIG investigators and FBI agents, and Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin when they told the FBI they didn't know HRC was using a private email server, just to name a few.

[Safety]

The whataboutism force is strong in this thread....

[hanger4]

The whataboutism force is strong in this thread....Lying to Congress is lying to Congress Safety, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Common]

The op says,

Quote
The Mother Of All Indictments


Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.




The actual link provided to the article says

Key Senate Democrat suggests Trump Jr. and others could face indictments for lying to Congress

lol

[Common]

The whataboutism force is strong in this thread....
The fullofshitism is all thats in this thread title and story

[DGUtley]

This is why some people have so little credibility: The Mother of all Indictments

35195

35196

35197

35198

35199

[Safety]

Lying to Congress is lying to Congress Safety, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


The op says,

Quote
The Mother Of All Indictments


Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.




The actual link provided to the article says

Key Senate Democrat suggests Trump Jr. and others could face indictments for lying to Congress

lol


The fullofshitism is all thats in this thread title and story


This is why some people have so little credibility: The Mother of all Indictments

LoL, ya’ll sound worried.

[DGUtley]

LoL, ya’ll sound worried.

C'mon now. If you interpreted my statement as "sound worried" you need to come in from the cold. I take the "it is what it is" approach. You have to admit that it was an egregiously misleading post based on the article -- hence our reaction. If he indicts Jr. (which he may or may not) I'm sure they'll deal with it -- or Trump Sr will pardon him on the way out the door.

[Safety]

C'mon now. If you interpreted my statement as "sound worried" you need to come in from the cold. I take the "it is what it is" approach. You have to admit that it was an egregiously misleading post based on the article -- hence our reaction. If he indicts Jr. (which he may or may not) I'm sure they'll deal with it -- or Trump Sr will pardon him on the way out the door.

And if he pardons Jr., what will you think of it?

[Hoosier8]

FTA “The racist in chief”

CLick bait for the useful idiots.

[hanger4]

LoL, ya’ll sound worried.What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is sounding worried ?? That doesn't make sense Safety, I've simply stated lying to Congress prosecutions should be conducted fairly across the board.

[Common]

And if he pardons Jr., what will you think of it?
Ill think its wonderful, only thing could be better is if he got hillary indicted for all her crimes

[Common]

This is why some people have so little credibility: The Mother of all Indictments

So little ? you mean None right

[alexa]

This is why some people have so little credibility: The Mother of all Indictments
Yeah, it reminds me of "New York legalized late-term abortions, and celebrated like it won the Super Bowl"






I'm sure that's very different, isn't it?

[Chris]

Yeah, it reminds me of "New York legalized late-term abortions, and celebrated like it won the Super Bowl"






I'm sure that's very different, isn't it?


Yes, different.

The title here is "The Mother Of All Indictments" and the OP "Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday." Which is false and misleading when the linked article is "Key Senate Democrat suggests Trump Jr. and others could face indictments for lying to Congress"

Dave's title was true. Some just don't like it.

[Tahuyaman]

The Mother Of All Indictments? That's actually funny.


What happens to this thread when Friday passes and this indictment doesn't take place?

[Peter1469]

If you are a person who is facing questioning by federal authorities, to include Congress, my advise is to exercise your rights for every question, even what your name is.

I am ashamed to admit that my brotherhood in the legal bar now uses anything that you say as a sword against those they want to harm.

I prosecuted military offenses for years. I was a military magistrate for a time. And I have never seen the corruption from the government that I see now.

If asked by authority, exercise your rights. Say nothing.

[Tahuyaman]

Yeah, it reminds me of "New York legalized late-term abortions, and celebrated like it won the Super Bowl"






I'm sure that's very different, isn't it?

That title was true. Maybe the "celebrated like they won the Super Bowl" was a little over the top. They did have a pretty festive celebration over that though.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll believe it when I see it. If that is the case, then everyone better stock up on prepper supplies because the POTUS will go into meltdown mode.
Agreed on believe when I see it, but it's not an unreasonable expectation. As for POTUS, he can't just target some Americans. Any tantrum would hurt most middle class Americans and that would create a massive blowback on him.

[Tahuyaman]

If you are a person who is facing questioning by federal authorities, to include Congress, my advise is to exercise your rights for every question, even what your name is.

I am ashamed to admit that my brotherhood in the legal bar now uses anything that you say as a sword against those they want to harm.

I prosecuted military offenses for years. I was a military magistrate for a time. And I have never seen the corruption from the government that I see now.

If asked by authority, exercise your rights. Say nothing.
It is to the point that it's basically out of control. It's also to the point that drastic measures are required to get it back under control.

[DGUtley]

And if he pardons Jr., what will you think of it?

Well, I am generally against pardons. I recognize that it is the President's (and governor's) prerogative but I am generally against them.

[DGUtley]

If you are a person who is facing questioning by federal authorities, to include Congress, my advise is to exercise your rights for every question, even what your name is. I am ashamed to admit that my brotherhood in the legal bar now uses anything that you say as a sword against those they want to harm. I prosecuted military offenses for years. I was a military magistrate for a time. And I have never seen the corruption from the government that I see now. If asked by authority, exercise your rights. Say nothing.

I agree. Say nothing.

[Tahuyaman]

Well, I am generally against pardons. I recognize that it is the President's (and governor's) prerogative but I am generally against them.


I am against them if a person actually committed a crime. I favor them if a person was targeted for political purposes.

[Don]

The mother of all indictments would be when members of congress are charged with lying to the American people. No statute of limitations.

[hanger4]

I am against them if a person actually committed a crime. I favor them if a person was targeted for political purposes.What about lying about a possible crime that wasn't committed ?? Just askin

[Tahuyaman]

What about lying about a possible crime that wasn't committed ?? Just askin

If a person otherwise committed no criminal act, but was set-up by a corrupt government official, I would favor a pardon.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah, it reminds me of "New York legalized late-term abortions, and celebrated like it won the Super Bowl"I'm sure that's very different, isn't it?Bu..bu...but that is different!!!! LOLGotta love hypocrites.

[DGUtley]

Yeah, it reminds me of "New York legalized late-term abortions, and celebrated like it won the Super Bowl" I'm sure that's very different, isn't it?

Different only in the sense that the NY legislature did celebrate the right to kill babies late term -- and celebrated like they'd won the super bowl. Nice try though.

[Captdon]

LoL, ya’ll sound worried.

Worried about what? The "smoking gun" illness you suffer from. It's never there.

It's just a thread to talk about.

[Captdon]

The Mother Of All Indictments? That's actually funny.


What happens to this thread when Friday passes and this indictment doesn't take place?

There's always next Friday.

[MisterVeritis]

This is why some people have so little credibility: The Mother of all Indictments
We have to believe him. He works at the State Department.

[Captdon]

That title was true. Maybe the "celebrated like they won the Super Bowl" was a little over the top. They did have a pretty festive celebration over that though.

It was pretty close.

[MisterVeritis]

It is to the point that it's basically out of control. It's also to the point that drastic measures are required to get it back under control.
It will take winning a civil war.

[Captdon]

Bu..bu...but that is different!!!! LOLGotta love hypocrites.

Murdering a baby even during cervical dilation is not comparable to anything else. Don't be an ass.

[DGUtley]

It was pretty close.

We've not won a SB, so I was guessing that's what it'd be like.....

[Tahuyaman]

Different only in the sense that the NY legislature did celebrate the right to kill babies late term -- and celebrated like they'd won the super bowl. Nice try though. Your thread title was accurate. They legalized late term abortions and celebrated. They even illuminated the new World Trade Center, or wherever it's called today, in pink. When championships are won, buildings are lighted in team colors and such. Using the World Trade Center to celebrate an act which takes an innocent human life is extremely offensive.

[Tahuyaman]

It will take winning a civil war.
We can correct the problem without going that far.

[Tahuyaman]

The first time I heard anyone use the term "the mother of all ______" was Saddam Heussein's "mother of all battles" just prior to his army getting their ass handed to them during the first gulf war.

One should resist using that term as it is generally identified now with an epic failure.

[Safety]

Different only in the sense that the NY legislature did celebrate the right to kill babies late term -- and celebrated like they'd won the super bowl. Nice try though.

You mean like the indictment of Donald Trump Jr. would be the mother of all indictments? In other words, a distinction without a difference.

[Tahuyaman]

How would that be one of the greatest indictments of all time? It would be one of the single most politically motivated indictments of all time.

[Max Rockatansky]

The first time I heard anyone use the term "the mother of all ______" was Saddam Heussein's "mother of all battles" just prior to his army getting their ass handed to them during the first gulf war.

One should resist using that term as it is generally identified now with an epic failure.
We turned the term back on Hussain with the MOAB: Mother of All Bombs. The GBU-43/B. A 21,000+LB bomb which, when first developed, was the largest non-nuclear bomb in the arsenal. So large it has to be dropped by a C-130.

https://nfhsraiderwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RamyaRajaShouldWeHave.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs

[Max Rockatansky]

How would that be one of the greatest indictments of all time? It would be one of the single most politically motivated indictments of all time.
Why are you declaring him 100% innocent before you even know the charges or have seen the evidence?

[MisterVeritis]

We've not won a SB, so I was guessing that's what it'd be like.....
Super bowl. Is that a really large bowl?

[Safety]

Super bowl. Is that a really large bowl?

Yea, just like the rose bowl is made out of roses.

[Safety]

Why are you declaring him 100% innocent before you even know the charges or have seen the evidence?

It’s what partisan hacks do.

[DGUtley]

You mean like the indictment of Donald Trump Jr. would be the mother of all indictments? In other words, a distinction without a difference.

C'mon. You're better than that.

[MisterVeritis]

Yea, just like the rose bowl is made out of roses.
I occasionally wondered.

[Safety]

C'mon. You're better than that.

We all should be.

[Tahuyaman]

Why are you declaring him 100% innocent before you even know the charges or have seen the evidence?


Where did I do that?

[Tahuyaman]

C'mon. You're better than that.

We have to disagree on that. The evidence is going to support my side on this one.

[Common]

We all should be.
No actually its you that should be and the starter of this thread, that would be refreshing

[Max Rockatansky]

Where did I do that?Here:

How would that be one of the greatest indictments of all time? It would be one of the single most politically motivated indictments of all time.Did I misunderstand? Are you saying you are reserving judgment until the charges are filed and the evidence brought forth?

[Tahuyaman]

Here:
Did I misunderstand? Are you saying you are reserving judgment until the charges are filed and the evidence brought forth?


The charges have been shouted by the media for two years now. There's nothing that we don't know. C'mon. You know that if he's charged with anything, it is purely motivated by partisan politics.

[alexa]

Yes, different.

The title here is "The Mother Of All Indictments" and the OP "Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday." Which is false and misleading when the linked article is "Key Senate Democrat suggests Trump Jr. and others could face indictments for lying to Congress"

Dave's title was true. Some just don't like it.

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3949085/confetti.gif
:rofl:

[Safety]

No actually its you that should be and the starter of this thread, that would be refreshing

Once again you err. Leadership should be better and set the example for the environment of the board, gotta pay da cost to be da boss.

[Tahuyaman]

Once again you err. Leadership should be better and set the example for the environment of the board, gotta pay da cost to be da boss.
You didn't seem to believe in that when you were a moderator. That's why you are no longer on that team.

[Safety]

You didn't seem to believe in that when you were a moderator. That's why you are no longer on that team.

You are free to have an opinion about that, even if the facts do not support your assertion. I will say this...between you and I, which one had the chance to sit in that position? Which one just won the award for the biggest douchebag at tPF?

#sometimesitsjustbettertostayquiet

[Tahuyaman]

You are free to have an opinion about that, even if the facts do not support your assertion. I will say this...between you and I, which one had the chance to sit in that position? Which one just won the award for the biggest douchebag at tPF?

#sometimesitsjustbettertostayquiet
You sure don't like it when your hypocrisies are pointed out.

[alexa]

You sure don't like it when your hypocrisies are pointed out.

You'd make an excellent addition to the moderation here.

[Tahuyaman]

You'd make an excellent addition to the moderation here.


Better than you anyway

[alexa]

Better than you anyway

I'm not interested.

You, OTOH, seem to spend a lot of time channeling your inner hall monitor.

[Safety]

You sure don't like it when your hypocrisies are pointed out.

When you point out one, it will be your first.

[Tahuyaman]

When you point out one, it will be your first.

I just did and it made you go into hyper troll mode.

It doesn't take much to trigger that.

[Safety]

I just did and it made you go into hyper troll mode.

It doesn't take much to trigger that.

Provide the post #.

[Tahuyaman]

No actually its you that should be and the starter of this thread, that would be refreshing




Once again you err. Leadership should be better and set the example for the environment of the board, gotta pay da cost to be da boss.


You didn't seem to believe in that when you were a moderator. That's why you are no longer on that team.



You are free to have an opinion about that, even if the facts do not support your assertion. I will say this...between you and I, which one had the chance to sit in that position? Which one just won the award for the biggest douchebag at tPF?

#sometimesitsjustbettertostayquiet


You sure don't like it when your hypocrisies are pointed out.


When you point out one, it will be your first.


I just did and it made you go into hyper troll mode.

It doesn't take much to trigger that.


Provide the post #.

See the above.....

[Max Rockatansky]

The charges have been shouted by the media for two years now. There's nothing that we don't know. C'mon. You know that if he's charged with anything, it is purely motivated by partisan politics.
So you have pre-judged the situation and declared Junior innocent. Why were you so shy earlier?



Why are you declaring him 100% innocent before you even know the charges or have seen the evidence?Where did I do that?

[Tahuyaman]

I don't see anything which demonstrates that Inhave declared him 100% innocent of anything.

What I have said is accurate. If he's charged with anything, it is motivated by partisan politics. I don't know how anyone could deny that and keep a straight face.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't see anything which demonstrates that Inhave declared him 100% innocent of anything.

What I have said is accurate. If he's charged with anything, it is motivated by partisan politics. I don't know how anyone could deny that and keep a straight face.
Of course you don't. You don't seem much of anything that you don't want to see. OTOH, I think most sane, intelligent and unbiased American members of this forum can see everything posted here very clearly.

LOL. You're doing it again. It's like Trump said, if I lose the election is rigged. If I win, it's an honest system. ROFL

[Captdon]

We've not won a SB, so I was guessing that's what it'd be like.....

I compared it to an NBA championship.

[Captdon]

We can correct the problem without going that far.

I think some violence may be needed.

[Tahuyaman]

I think some violence may be needed.
A war of ideas doesn't always require acts of violence.

[MisterVeritis]

We can correct the problem without going that far.
Once, perhaps. No longer.

[MisterVeritis]

A war of ideas doesn't always require acts of violence.
We had our chance for a nonviolent solution. We chose not to have a convention of states to propose amendments.

[hanger4]

I have a question you ya Bad Bob What crime did Roger Stone lie about ?? I figure since you wouldn't answer the same question about Flynn you might answer the question concerning Stone.

[Tahuyaman]

...We chose not to have a convention of states to propose amendments.


When was the last sincere effort made to do that?

[Max Rockatansky]

I have a question you ya @Bad Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3005) What crime did Roger Stone lie about ?? I figure since you wouldn't answer the same question about Flynn you might answer the question concerning Stone.
I did answer about Flynn. It's a matter of record. Just because you have conspiracy theories doesn't mean those silly theories are true. As for Stone, my understanding is that there are similar charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

For those old enough to remember, and I'm sure you aren't, both Nixon and Clinton were busted on the cover-up, not what they really did. If they'd been up front and honest, they'd have taken some heat, but moved on. Instead, they lied about it, tried to hide it and got burned for it. It appears many of these folks in the Trump administration are guilty of the same thing.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think some violence may be needed.Who do you plan to commit violence against? Lemme guess, you don't. Not your style. You're the type to sit at home and advocate others commit violence/murder against opposing protestors. Amirite?

[Tahuyaman]

I did answer about Flynn. It's a matter of record. Just because you have conspiracy theories doesn't mean those silly theories are true. As for Stone, my understanding is that there are similar charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

For those old enough to remember, and I'm sure you aren't, both Nixon and Clinton were busted on the cover-up, not what they really did. If they'd been up front and honest, they'd have taken some heat, but moved on. Instead, they lied about it, tried to hide it and got burned for it. It appears many of these folks in the Trump administration are guilty of the same thing.


Nixon was never charged with any crime. He didn't get "busted", he resigned. Had he dealt with Liddy and the boys the way he should have, he'd be considered a great former president by many.


Clinton was not guilty of covering up a crime. Nor did he attempt a cover up. He simply perjured himself.

[Tahuyaman]

We had our chance for a nonviolent solution. We chose not to have a convention of states to propose amendments.
What constitutional amendment(s) would you propose?

[Max Rockatansky]

Nixon was never charged with any crime. He didn't get "busted", he resigned. Had he dealt with Liddy and the boys the way he should have, he'd be considered a great former president by many.


Clinton was not guilty of covering up a crime. Nor did he attempt a cover up. He simply perjured himself.No shit. Why do you think he resigned if he wasn't guilty? Because he knew he'd be impeached if he didn't resign?...or do you have a conspiracy theory about how Nixon was really innocent but set up by the same people who murdered JFK and started 9/11?

[Max Rockatansky]

We had our chance for a nonviolent solution. We chose not to have a convention of states to propose amendments.Translation: Democracy isn't working for the Alt-Right, so I advocate violent overthrow of the US government.


More proof that, even if you did serve, you are violating your oath and may even have been discharged over such violations.

[MisterVeritis]

When was the last sincere effort made to do that?
We started five years ago. Where have you been?
Have you demanded your state legislature petition the Congress for an Article V convention of State?. I did. Alabama responded. Has Washington State?

[MisterVeritis]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Captdon http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2523612#post2523612)
I think some violence may be needed.

Who do you plan to commit violence against? Lemme guess, you don't. Not your style. You're the type to sit at home and advocate others commit violence/murder against opposing protestors. Amirite?
There is that pink again.

[Tahuyaman]

No $#@!. Why do you think he resigned if he wasn't guilty? Because he knew he'd be impeached if he didn't resign?...or do you have a conspiracy theory about how Nixon was really innocent but set up by the same people who murdered JFK and started 9/11?


He may or may not have been impeached and it may or may not have ended up with him being removed from office. I believe he resigned for his stated reason. He didn't want to put the country through that. Bill Clinton was too selfish and void of a conscience to do the same.

I have never ever communicated any support of any conspiracy theory surrounding Nixon, JFK or 9/11. I don't know why you went there. Can you explain why?

[MisterVeritis]

What constitutional amendment(s) would you propose?
Don't divert. You have not done a damned thing.

[Max Rockatansky]

He may or may not have been impeached and it may or may not have ended up with him being removed from office. I believe he resigned for his stated reason. He didn't want to put the country through that. Bill Clinton was too selfish and void of a conscience to do the same.

I have never ever communicated any support of any conspiracy theory surrounding Nixon, JFK or 9/11. I don't know why you went there. Can you explain why?
Of course you do. Yes, Clinton was a selfish-assclown. Which path do you think Trump will take?

[MisterVeritis]

We had our chance for a nonviolent solution. We chose not to have a convention of states to propose amendments.

Translation: Democracy isn't working for the Alt-Right, so I advocate violent overthrow of the US government.

More proof that, even if you did serve, you are violating your oath and may even have been discharged over such violations.
There is that pink again. It makes your tough-guy rhetoric a bit ridiculous.

[Tahuyaman]

What constitutional amendment(s) would you propose?


Don't divert. You have not done a damned thing.

I was asking you a reasonable question. What was your problem with it?

[MisterVeritis]

I was asking you a reasonable question. What was your problem with it?
You are diverting. You haven't done your duty, have you?

[Tahuyaman]

I have promised others that I will no longer respond to coments which are obviously only meant to troll a thread. I may ask for a clarification of a borderline comment at times. If that response is a snarky troll comnent I'll take that to mean that person has no intent to discuss the issue.

I just saw that happen.

[hanger4]

I did answer about Flynn. It's a matter of record. Just because you have conspiracy theories doesn't mean those silly theories are true. As for Stone, my understanding is that there are similar charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI. For those old enough to remember, and I'm sure you aren't, both Nixon and Clinton were busted on the cover-up, not what they really did. If they'd been up front and honest, they'd have taken some heat, but moved on. Instead, they lied about it, tried to hide it and got burned for it. It appears many of these folks in the Trump administration are guilty of the same thing.1) Flynn; As I recall you made some assumptions about the actual conversations Flynn had with the Ambassador and seeing as how Mueller knew what those conversations were and no charges stemming from said conversations, then no you never answered. But I'd be more than happy to review your supposed answer if you'd supply the link. ............ 2) Nixon; an actual crime had been committed (Watergate break in) in which the perpetrators were caught which led to Nixon. ............... 3) Clinton; Yes if BC had been truthful before the Grand Jury and not perjured himself and suborned perjury in his attempt to cover up his sexual harassment (the crime) of Paula Jones then he probably wouldn't have been impeached. ............ You see Bob both of your examples were actual crimes being covered up. So I ask again, What crime did Flynn and Stone lie about ?? ........... And yes Bob I remember Nixon's down fall well, I was mostly in HS, I'll be 65 in May.

[Tahuyaman]

1) Flynn; As I recall you made some assumptions about the actual conversations Flynn had with the Ambassador and seeing as how Mueller knew what those conversations were and no charges stemming from said conversations, then no you never answered. But I'd be more than happy to review your supposed answer if you'd supply the link. ............ 2) Nixon; an actual crime had been committed (Watergate break in) in which the perpetrators were caught which led to Nixon. ............... 3) Clinton; Yes if BC had been truthful before the Grand Jury and not perjured himself and suborned perjury in his attempt to cover up his sexual harassment (the crime) of Paula Jones then he probably wouldn't have been impeached. ............ You see Bob both of your examples were actual crimes being covered up. So I ask again, What crime did Flynn and Stone lie about ?? ........... And yes Bob I remember Nixon's down fall well, I was mostly in HS, I'll be 65 in May.


I also believed Nixon when he said that he resigned because he did not want to put the country through an impeachment. He certainly wasn't a selfish man who had no conscience like someone else who had no concerns about what an impeachment could do to the nation.

[hanger4]

I also believed Nixon when he said that he resigned because he did not want to put the country through an impeachment. He certainly wasn't a selfish man who had no conscience like someone else who had no concerns about what an impeachment could do to the nation.I believe hia reasons also, I also believe, with the evidence presented he would have been found guilty and removed from office. Of course I also believed BC's perjury and obstruction of justice (subornation of perjury) was grounds for conviction also.

[Max Rockatansky]

I believe hia reasons also, I also believe, with the evidence presented he would have been found guilty and removed from office. Of course I also believed BC's perjury and obstruction of justice (subornation of perjury) was grounds for conviction also.
Common ground. Agreed on all points.

[Max Rockatansky]

1) Flynn; As I recall you made some assumptions about the actual conversations Flynn had with the Ambassador and seeing as how Mueller knew what those conversations were and no charges stemming from said conversations, then no you never answered. But I'd be more than happy to review your supposed answer if you'd supply the link. ............ 2) Nixon; an actual crime had been committed (Watergate break in) in which the perpetrators were caught which led to Nixon. ............... 3) Clinton; Yes if BC had been truthful before the Grand Jury and not perjured himself and suborned perjury in his attempt to cover up his sexual harassment (the crime) of Paula Jones then he probably wouldn't have been impeached. ............ You see Bob both of your examples were actual crimes being covered up. So I ask again, What crime did Flynn and Stone lie about ?? ........... And yes Bob I remember Nixon's down fall well, I was mostly in HS, I'll be 65 in May.
1) I made no assumptions. I posted the charges and his plea. Unlike some on this forum, I go by the facts, not political allegiance.

2) Nixon's problem was his participation in the cover-up. I don't think he authorized the actual break-in, but that could be what the 18 minutes of tape were all about.

3) Agreed on Clinton. In your rush to attack me you've overlooked what I've actually said. I mentioned charges and opinions of guilt, but only Flynn has pled guilty. Stone's guilt is as unproven as Hillary Clinton's.

[hanger4]

1) I made no assumptions. I posted the charges and his plea. Unlike some on this forum, I go by the facts, not political allegiance. 2) Nixon's problem was his participation in the cover-up. I don't think he authorized the actual break-in, but that could be what the 18 minutes of tape were all about. 3) Agreed on Clinton. In your rush to attack me you've overlooked what I've actually said. I mentioned charges and opinions of guilt, but only Flynn has pled guilty. Stone's guilt is as unproven as Hillary Clinton's.1) The Flynn charges make no mention of a crime he lied about. .............. 2) Yup and there was an actual crime he was covering up. ................. 3) Nixon and Clinton were covering up crimes committed and you have still haven't answered what crime Flynn or Stone were lying about and it doesn't matter if Flynn pled guilty or Stone's guilt is unproven. It's really a simple and pertinent question.

[Max Rockatansky]

1) The Flynn charges make no mention of a crime he lied about. .............. 2) Yup and there was an actual crime he was covering up. ................. 3) Nixon and Clinton were covering up crimes committed and you have still haven't answered what crime Flynn or Stone were lying about and it doesn't matter if Flynn pled guilty or Stone's guilt is unproven. It's really a simple and pertinent question.
1) Great. So what charges did Flynn plead guilty?

2) As we know from history.

3) This isn't that hard, kid. What charges are filed against them? What charges have they pled to, if any? What is the judgement of the courts? In both Flynn's and Stone's cases we don't know yet but you seem to want to declare them innocent of all charges. Why? Based on what evidence?

[hanger4]

1) Great. So what charges did Flynn plead guilty? 2) As we know from history. 3) This isn't that hard, kid. What charges are filed against them? What charges have they pled to, if any? What is the judgement of the courts? In both Flynn's and Stone's cases we don't know yet but you seem to want to declare them innocent of all charges. Why? Based on what evidence?1) Flynn pled guilty to lying about having conversations with the Russian Ambassador during the transition, which isn't a crime. ................... 2) Indeed, we know crimes committed, they were being investigated and they covered them up. .................. 3) The charges are lying to Federal investigators and lying to Congress, what crime did they lie about ?? .......... *yet but you seem to want to declare them innocent of all charges. Why? Based on what evidence? * ..... I've done no such thing Bob, stop making things up, I've simply asked you over and over and over again, what crimes did they lie about.

[Max Rockatansky]

1) Flynn pled guilty to lying about having conversations with the Russian Ambassador during the transition, which isn't a crime. ................... 2) Indeed, we know crimes committed, they were being investigated and they covered them up. .................. 3) The charges are lying to Federal investigators and lying to Congress, what crime did they lie about ?? .......... *yet but you seem to want to declare them innocent of all charges. Why? Based on what evidence? * ..... I've done no such thing Bob, stop making things up, I've simply asked you over and over and over again, what crimes did they lie about.

1) Then why did he, as you admitted, plead "guilty"? Was it because he lied about that conversation?

2) Common ground. All crimes or suspected crimes should be investigated.

3) Another reason why I think you are either young or naive; lying to the FBI or under oath to Congress is a crime in itself. It doesn't matter what the lie was about. It could be about what you had for breakfast. The lie itself is the crime. I'm truly sorry but not surprised you don't understand this concept but as you grow older and mature, I think you are smart enough to do so.

[hanger4]

1) Then why did he, as you admitted, plead "guilty"? Was it because he lied about that conversation? 2) Common ground. All crimes or suspected crimes should be investigated. 3) Another reason why I think you are either young or naive; lying to the FBI or under oath to Congress is a crime in itself. It doesn't matter what the lie was about. It could be about what you had for breakfast. The lie itself is the crime. I'm truly sorry but not surprised you don't understand this concept but as you grow older and mature, I think you are smart enough to do so.Your getting close to answering Bob. We all know lying to investigators is a crime, I've never said otherwise. What crime did they commit that they lied about. .......... Your ad hom snark is dismissed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Your getting close to answering Bob. We all know lying to investigators is a crime, I've never said otherwise. What crime did they commit that they lied about. ..........
SMH

Your ad hom snark is dismissed.

[hanger4]

SMHYour ad hom snark is dismissed.You're still avoiding the question Bob.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're still avoiding the question Bob.
Scroll up. I didn't. Remove the scales from your eyes.

[hanger4]

Scroll up. I didn't. Remove the scales from your eyes.No you haven't Bob, you have not once stated the crime/s Flynn and Stone committed and lied about.

[hanger4]

I missed "The Mother Of All Indictments" Agent Zero did you ??

[Max Rockatansky]

No you haven't Bob, you have not once stated the crime/s Flynn and Stone committed and lied about.
I did. Scroll up. You're just angry I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. No matter.

Let's wait for sentencing , the inevitable appeals and the results of both. In the meantime, I'm curious to see if Donnie Jr. is given not just the Mother of All Indictments,but the Mother of All Sentences. I'm guessing that if he goes to prison, he'll end up kneeling to the Mother of All Hairy Dicks. LOL


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/be/9a/7bbe9a1993e5c148f4d28c7e2f58454a.jpg

[hanger4]

I did. Scroll up. You're just angry I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. No matter.Let's wait for sentencing , the inevitable appeals and the results of both. In the meantime, I'm curious to see if Donnie Jr. is given not just the Mother of All Indictments,but the Mother of All Sentences. I'm guessing that if he goes to prison, he'll end up kneeling to the Mother of All Hairy Dicks. LOLhttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/be/9a/7bbe9a1993e5c148f4d28c7e2f58454a.jpgAgain, no you didn't, all you've said is their lying is the crime. What crime/s were committed that Flynn and Stone lied about ??

[Max Rockatansky]

Again, no you didn't, all you've said is their lying is the crime. What crime/s were committed that Flynn and Stone lied about ??Oooh dude, you don't know that lying to the FBI, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and other "process crimes" are actual crimes? Good thing you're not in government,eh? LOL

[Tahuyaman]

Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.

Oops.

Maybe next Friday.

[Peter1469]

Oooh dude, you don't know that lying to the FBI, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and other "process crimes" are actual crimes? Good thing you're not in government,eh? LOL

I don't believe anyone claimed that process crimes are not actual crimes.

[hanger4]

Oooh dude, you don't know that lying to the FBI, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and other "process crimes" are actual crimes? Good thing you're not in government,eh? LOLI've never said, implied or alluded to any such thing, stop making things up Bob. What crime/s did Flynn and Stone lie about Bad Bob ??

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't believe anyone claimed that process crimes are not actual crimes.Several have implied it. Otherwise why do they keep whining with "these are only process crimes"?

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never said, implied or alluded to any such thing, stop making things up Bob. What crime/s did Flynn and Stone lie about Bad Bob ??AFAIK, none. Obviously the investigation isn't completed yet.

[Peter1469]

Several have implied it. Otherwise why do they keep whining with "these are only process crimes"?

Incorrect.

We are talking about process crimes that arose only because of a politically motivated investigation.

That should clear up you understanding problem here.

[Max Rockatansky]

Incorrect.
We are talking about process crimes that arose only because of a politically motivated investigation.

That should clear up you understanding problem here.
You have no problem with the Russians interfering with our elections? Hacking our political parties? Is there any doubt they hacked the Republicans too?

Regardless of the motivation, a "process crime" is still a crime. Why did Flynn lie about the meetings? They were legal, weren't they? So why lie to the FBI?

[Common]

You have no problem with the Russians interfering with our elections? Hacking our political parties? Is there any doubt they hacked the Republicans too?

Regardless of the motivation, a "process crime" is still a crime. Why did Flynn lie about the meetings? They were legal, weren't they? So why lie to the FBI?

I certainly have a problem with russians interfering in our elections and have said so many times.

The real question is why dont liberals care about Illegal immigrants registering to vote and voting all over the country and democrats running illegal voter registration rings to register them falsely.

There should be a special council about that

[Peter1469]

You have no problem with the Russians interfering with our elections? Hacking our political parties? Is there any doubt they hacked the Republicans too?

Regardless of the motivation, a "process crime" is still a crime. Why did Flynn lie about the meetings? They were legal, weren't they? So why lie to the FBI?
I am unsure how you came to your conclusions.

I am on the record here as saying that the Russians and the Soviets before them have always interfered in our elections. Just as we have theirs.

I don't think Flynn lied. Neither do the FBI agents who first interviewed him.

[Max Rockatansky]

I certainly have a problem with russians interfering in our elections and have said so many times.

The real question is why dont liberals care about Illegal immigrants registering to vote and voting all over the country and democrats running illegal voter registration rings to register them falsely.

There should be a special council about that
I'm good with it. Let them investigate. I'm on record advocating legislation and enforce over a wall. Deny federal money to sanctuary cities. Start locking up any employers or renters to assist illegal aliens.

The Republicans have full control of the government for two years yet they didn't even try any of this. Their excuse? "Wah! The Democrats wouldn't let us!!!" Good grief.

[Max Rockatansky]

I am unsure how you came to your conclusions.

I am on the record here as saying that the Russians and the Soviets before them have always interfered in our elections. Just as we have theirs.

I don't think Flynn lied. Neither do the FBI agents who first interviewed him.

So "whataboutism" is your reasoning for not investigating Russian interference of the 2016 election? I disagree. As our intelligence leaders have repeatedly announced, cyber-war by hostile countries is a major threat to the Free World.

Then the charges won't stick and Flynn will win on appeal. Kinda odd that he took a plea though. If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.

Not a lawyer, but doesn't taking a plea negate a person's chances of appeal?

[Admiral Ackbar]

Several have implied it. Otherwise why do they keep whining with "these are only process crimes"?

Here is why..

1. No one is saying these are not crimes. However these crimes only come into being due to the existence of a Special Investigaiton based on.. well lies told to the FBI.. (see Steele Dossier)

2. These crimes are portrayed as a smoking gun on the real basis of the Special Investigation, when in fact they have 100% nothing to do with the issue at hand. The media gets in an uproar, but really this is nothing.

3. Life lesson, never talk to the FBI or the even testify in Congress, You can take the 5th there too and many have

4.These crimes are selectively prosecuted and people like Eric Holder, Clapper, Brennan, Hillary Clinton have lied to Congress and Investigators with impunity

5. Due to #4 many see these as using the judicial system as a political tool to persecute certain people for their political beliefs(Soviet style)

6. The reality of a DC Special Investigation is that it is designed for Political Theater. No convictions or finds to the core issue ever come out. There needs to be a few of these process crimes so that the Special Counsel can show they did something.

The real aim is spend millions of dollars, show boat, go for book deals and government postings and lobbying positions for the Counsel and his staff after it is shut down. Very DC Swamp like

[MMC]

I'm good with it. Let them investigate. I'm on record advocating legislation and enforce over a wall. Deny federal money to sanctuary cities. Start locking up any employers or renters to assist illegal aliens.

The Republicans have full control of the government for two years yet they didn't even try any of this. Their excuse? "Wah! The Democrats wouldn't let us!!!" Good grief.


When did the Repubs have a Supermajority in the Senate in those two years, again?

[MMC]

So "whataboutism" is your reasoning for not investigating Russian interference of the 2016 election? I disagree. As our intelligence leaders have repeatedly announced, cyber-war by hostile countries is a major threat to the Free World.

Then the charges won't stick and Flynn will win on appeal. Kinda odd that he took a plea though. If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.

Not a lawyer, but doesn't taking a plea negate a person's chances of appeal?

Russians have been interfering in US Elections since the 30s.

Although the leftness sure didn't say to much about the Russians hacking into the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the WH while Democrats were running things. Didn't say a whole lot about the Chinese breaching the Office of the OPM while giving up the Greatest Intel disaster in US history. Nor did they say much about about the Russians using State Dept own computers to hack into the WH.


Sure the Lame Stream reported on it.....but hurried up and moved onto others issues not wanting that focus on Democrats.

[hanger4]

AFAIK, none. Obviously the investigation isn't completed yet.*AFAIK, none.* .............. Correct, they lied about a crime that wasn't committed.

[hanger4]

(1) You have no problem with the Russians interfering with our elections? Hacking our political parties? (2) Is there any doubt they hacked the Republicans too? (3) Regardless of the motivation, a "process crime" is still a crime. Why did Flynn lie about the meetings? They were legal, weren't they? So why lie to the FBI?1) Why do you continue to make things up Bob ?? .............. 2) Yes there is doubt, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-evidence-trump-rnc-successfully-hacked-2017-1 ............... 3) Ask Flynn.

[hanger4]

So "whataboutism" is your reasoning for not investigating Russian interference of the 2016 election? I disagree. As our intelligence leaders have repeatedly announced, cyber-war by hostile countries is a major threat to the Free World. Then the charges won't stick and Flynn will win on appeal. Kinda odd that he took a plea though. If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored. Not a lawyer, but doesn't taking a plea negate a person's chances of appeal?*If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.* ................ You have that kind of money Bob ??

[Max Rockatansky]

When did the Repubs have a Supermajority in the Senate in those two years, again?
ROFL. So I'm right. Awesome. When did the Democrats have a supermajority in both Houses along with the WH?

Sorry, dude, but now you know why I'm not a Republican anymore; they're all pussies. Not the staunch men of Goldberg's era. I'd never be a fucking Democrat, so I'm happy to be an Independent.

[Max Rockatansky]

Russians have been interfering in US Elections since the 30s.
...Awesome. So yours is another whataboutism vote that it's okay for the Russians to interfere in our elections because 1) they'be been doing it "since the 30s" and 2) We do it too. I disagree.

[Max Rockatansky]

*If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.* ................ You have that kind of money Bob ??
Translation: I'm poor and would give up.

Sorry, not my style. There are plenty of Republican lawyers who'd defend Flynn. What they can't defend is a guilty client. Why did Trump fire Flynn? Because he lied.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is why..

1. No one is saying these are not crimes. However these crimes only come into being due to the existence of a Special Investigaiton based on.. well lies told to the FBI.. (see Steele Dossier)

2. These crimes are portrayed as a smoking gun on the real basis of the Special Investigation, when in fact they have 100% nothing to do with the issue at hand. The media gets in an uproar, but really this is nothing.

3. Life lesson, never talk to the FBI or the even testify in Congress, You can take the 5th there too and many have

4.These crimes are selectively prosecuted and people like Eric Holder, Clapper, Brennan, Hillary Clinton have lied to Congress and Investigators with impunity

5. Due to #4 many see these as using the judicial system as a political tool to persecute certain people for their political beliefs(Soviet style)

6. The reality of a DC Special Investigation is that it is designed for Political Theater. No convictions or finds to the core issue ever come out. There needs to be a few of these process crimes so that the Special Counsel can show they did something.

The real aim is spend millions of dollars, show boat, go for book deals and government postings and lobbying positions for the Counsel and his staff after it is shut down. Very DC Swamp like

Great list, but it has nothing to do with the fact that Flynn lied and pled guilty to lying. The old conspiracy theory that only Democrats can get away with crimes worked when it was Democrat President, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House, but when it's been a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House, the excuse wears out. You are saying the Democrats, even when they aren't in power, are all powerful and the Republicans are a bunch of incompetent, spineless wimps.

[Captdon]

I'm good with it. Let them investigate. I'm on record advocating legislation and enforce over a wall. Deny federal money to sanctuary cities. Start locking up any employers or renters to assist illegal aliens.

The Republicans have full control of the government for two years yet they didn't even try any of this. Their excuse? "Wah! The Democrats wouldn't let us!!!" Good grief.

Ah, know I get it. You don't know how our government works. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring a bill to the floor. The Republicans only had 51. 60-51=9. You don't seem to understand language so I thought I'd try math.

[Admiral Ackbar]

*If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.* ................ You have that kind of money Bob ??

Good point. Remember the point of this investigation is to dissuade people from becoming involved with Trump Administration or 2020 campaign. The goal of the FBI and the Special Counsel is to break people financially to get to tell them what they want to hear. The irony is that they charge them with lying to get them to tell more lies. The only difference being the lies they tell after they cry uncle to the financial extortion are state sanctioned lies.

It really is fantastic when you think about it.

Again and I can not stress this enough. Never Ever talk to the FBI or any Investigator

[Captdon]

A war of ideas doesn't always require acts of violence.

But sometimes it does.

[Max Rockatansky]

Ah, know I get it. You don't know how our government works. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring a bill to the floor. The Republicans only had 51. 60-51=9. You don't seem to understand language so I thought I'd try math.
Translation: I agree with you, Bob. The Republicans are wimpish idiots who can't do a damn thing even when they have the WH, the Senate and the House.

Yup.

[Captdon]

Who do you plan to commit violence against? Lemme guess, you don't. Not your style. You're the type to sit at home and advocate others commit violence/murder against opposing protestors. Amirite?

Pink, you don't know me and don't know what I might do.Your the kind that uses pink for emphasis. We know the code that is.

[Captdon]

So "whataboutism" is your reasoning for not investigating Russian interference of the 2016 election? I disagree. As our intelligence leaders have repeatedly announced, cyber-war by hostile countries is a major threat to the Free World.

Then the charges won't stick and Flynn will win on appeal. Kinda odd that he took a plea though. If I were innocent, I'd fight tooth and nail every day until my honor and freedom were restored.

Not a lawyer, but doesn't taking a plea negate a person's chances of appeal?

Not if the charges were false.

[Captdon]

ROFL. So I'm right. Awesome. When did the Democrats have a supermajority in both Houses along with the WH?

Sorry, dude, but now you know why I'm not a Republican anymore; they're all $#@!. Not the staunch men of Goldberg's era. I'd never be a $#@!ing Democrat, so I'm happy to be an Independent.

2009-2011. Geez, it wasn't that long ago.

[Max Rockatansky]

Pink, you don't know me and don't know what I might do.Your the kind that uses pink for emphasis. We know the code that is.
ROFL. Kid, your words define you. What might you do? Commit violence? I doubt it. Your kind runs and hides. That's why you act tough behind your anonymous keyboard and use a brawny he-man avatar, so you look tough. You ain't. That's why the color pink offends you so much: you're afraid everyone will think it fits you.

[Captdon]

Translation: I agree with you, Bob. The Republicans are wimpish idiots who can't do a damn thing even when they have the WH, the Senate and the House.

Yup.

Math didn't work. Maybe this will: non captiosus satis.

[Captdon]

ROFL. Kid, your words define you. What might you do? Commit violence? I doubt it. Your kind runs and hides. That's why you act tough behind your anonymous keyboard and use a brawny he-man avatar, so you look tough. You ain't. That's why the color pink offends you so much: you're afraid everyone will think it fits you.

No, everyone knows pink is you. That's not a problem. Bad Bob is just a name you use for a joke. We all laugh but let it slide. People like you go on about things you don't know about. It's ignorance. That's worse than stupid. Stupid can't be cured but information is out there.

It isn't hard to come by like it was in the 50-60's.We actually had to learn it. We actually did. That's why we know so much more than you. We still do. We do get tired of dumbing down for your kind. You hear something and forget it a second later.

[Max Rockatansky]

2009-2011. Geez, it wasn't that long ago.
No, it wasn't. Obviously your definition of "supermajority" and mine are different. The Democrats lost seats in the 2010 Senate elections (down from 57 to 51) and lost the House forcing Pelosi to step down (down from 256 seats to 193), neither of which are a "supermajority" before or after.

In 2016 the Republicans lost seats in the House but still owned it 241 to the Democrats 194 and also lost seats in the Senate but retained control 52 to 46. You're claiming that even though Republicans controlled all three branches of government (yes, SCOTUS too), they are powerless against the smarter, more powerful Democrats. LOL Good grief.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, everyone knows pink is you. That's not a problem. Bad Bob is just a name you use for a joke. We all laugh but let it slide. People like you go on about things you don't know about. It's ignorance. That's worse than stupid. Stupid can't be cured but information is out there.

It isn't hard to come by like it was in the 50-60's.We actually had to learn it. We actually did. That's why we know so much more than you. We still do. We do get tired of dumbing down for your kind. You hear something and forget it a second later.
Awww, geez. It was funnier when you threatened me. Using "we" is just lame ass kid stuff.

[Bo-4]

Don "Guido" Drumpf Junior is definitely my prediction for next shoe to drop

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/don-jr-going-indicted-mueller-will-use-leverage-get-trump-ex-prosecutor/

[Max Rockatansky]

Don "Guido" Drumpf Junior is definitely my prediction for next shoe to drop

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/don-jr-going-indicted-mueller-will-use-leverage-get-trump-ex-prosecutor/
If true, cutting a deal to keep him out of jail might be worth it to Trump to resign.

[Bo-4]

If true, cutting a deal to keep him out of jail might be worth it to Trump to resign.

Your lips to God's ear my friend. America has had it with Dotard's reality TeeVee shit show. :rollseyes:

[countryboy]

Don "Guido" Drumpf Junior is definitely my prediction for next shoe to drop

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/don-jr-going-indicted-mueller-will-use-leverage-get-trump-ex-prosecutor/

Rawrstory....wow....I guess that settles it. Lol.....

[Bo-4]

Rawrstory....wow....I guess that settles it. Lol.....

Well, pick a source that pleases you CB

mcconnell wars trump about emergency declaration (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=mcconnell+wars+trump+about+emergency+declaration&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

[Captdon]

No, it wasn't. Obviously your definition of "supermajority" and mine are different. The Democrats lost seats in the 2010 Senate elections (down from 57 to 51) and lost the House forcing Pelosi to step down (down from 256 seats to 193), neither of which are a "supermajority" before or after.

In 2016 the Republicans lost seats in the House but still owned it 241 to the Democrats 194 and also lost seats in the Senate but retained control 52 to 46. You're claiming that even though Republicans controlled all three branches of government (yes, SCOTUS too), they are powerless against the smarter, more powerful Democrats. LOL Good grief.

A super majority is 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate and vote on a bill Your definition is wrong, whatever it is. What I just wrote is what it means.

I explained that the Republicans never had 60 voted to cut off the Democratic debate, Raffi. I didn't claim anything. I taught you what a super majority meant. You failed to learn. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.

I think you probably are cute when you all dolled up as "Pretty in Pink."

You have given yourself away. Your style of writing and taking both sides as you go along is there for everyone to see. I don't care myself. You're still not very smart.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, pick a source that pleases you CB

mcconnell wars trump about emergency declaration (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=mcconnell+wars+trump+about+emergency+declaration&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)A good example of why I like to use RW sources for RWNJs and LW sources for LWLs; there's always going to be some lame-brained idiot who will shoot the messenger and disregard all of the facts.

[Captdon]

Awww, geez. It was funnier when you threatened me. Using "we" is just lame ass kid stuff.

I didn't threaten you. I did say you would be on someone's list. Yes, we is the proper term. Pink is the proper color for you.

You aren't the boyz in the hood.
You are the pink guy in the woods.

[Captdon]

If true, cutting a deal to keep him out of jail might be worth it to Trump to resign.

Yea, and this isn't even Friday.

[Max Rockatansky]

A super majority is 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate and vote on a bill Your definition is wrong, whatever it is. What I just wrote is what it means.

I explained that the Republicans never had 60 voted to cut off the Democratic debate, Raffi. I didn't claim anything. I taught you what a super majority meant. You failed to learn. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.

I think you probably are cute when you all dolled up as "Pretty in Pink."

You have given yourself away. Your style of writing and taking both sides as you go along is there for everyone to see. I don't care myself. You're still not very smart.
LOL. Obviously you do care. Otherwise why would you have threatened me? Non-partisans, non-RWNJs and non-LWLs can see that I'm against the extremes of both sides, that I'm a centrist. People like you believe that anyone left of your far right position is a Lefty and anyone who is an extremist LW loony thinks anyone to the right of their far left position is a Righty. Most people can see that the world isn't as black and white as people like you want everyone to believe...and they don't have to make threats to do it.

https://i.imgflip.com/2srckp.jpg

[Captdon]

Well, pick a source that pleases you CB

mcconnell wars trump about emergency declaration (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=mcconnell+wars+trump+about+emergency+declaration&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

What has this to do with anything? You better check your marble collection.

[Common]

Theres a possibility TrumpJr will be indicted, of course Mueller and the democrat house would love a trump jr indictment and im sure they are scrutinizing ways to make that happen.

We will have to wait and see, if its going to happen it will be very soon

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't threaten you. I did say you would be on someone's list. Yes, we is the proper term. Pink is the proper color for you.

You aren't the boyz in the hood.
You are the pink guy in the woods.It was a cowardly threat, but still a threat just like the statement that I'm on "someone's list". "We"? As in you and your wee-wee? You and a pack of kids? You and a flock of cowards? Kid, you keep making lame-brained threats and it makes you appear weak.


Pink, you don't know me and don't know what I might do.Your the kind that uses pink for emphasis. We know the code that is.

[Captdon]

LOL. Obviously you do care. Otherwise why would you have threatened me? Non-partisans, non-RWNJs and non-LWLs can see that I'm against the extremes of both sides, that I'm a centrist. People like you believe that anyone left of your far right position is a Lefty and anyone who is an extremist LW loony thinks anyone to the right of their far left position is a Righty. Most people can see that the world isn't as black and white as people like you want everyone to believe...and they don't have to make threats to do it.

https://i.imgflip.com/2srckp.jpg

Saying I threatened you is a lie and, therefore, you are a liar. How can an anonymous poster threaten another anonymous poster? This should go to the mods. It is a clear violation. It won't because you're lying about it.

Your signature line is funny. You'd take slavery every time, Raffi. The mods will catch on to you eventually and you'll be gone again.

[Max Rockatansky]

...The mods will catch on to you eventually and you'll be gone....
No doubt. Then you and the other RWNJs can go back to jerking each other off in peace. Meanwhile, there are plenty of centrist forums online.

[countryboy]

Well, pick a source that pleases you CB

mcconnell wars trump about emergency declaration (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=mcconnell+wars+trump+about+emergency+declaration&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

I assume you meant, "warns", so, I searched it. Thanks for demonstrating my point. All leftwing rags. Not even the MSM (the propaganda arm of the DNC) is reporting this, lol.

First page of your google search:
The Hill, Huffpo, WaPo, Axios, Hotair.....

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rest my case.

[Captdon]

Theres a possibility TrumpJr will be indicted, of course Mueller and the democrat house would love a trump jr indictment and im sure they are scrutinizing ways to make that happen.

We will have to wait and see, if its going to happen it will be very soon

Mueller won't be able to break him financially to get a plea. I doubt Mueller will want to try that. He picks on the ones who have no money or nothing he can lose on.

[Captdon]

No doubt. Then you and the other RWNJs can go back to jerking each other off in peace. Meanwhile, there are plenty of centrist forums online.

Yet, here you are all pretty in pink.

[Captdon]

I assume you meant, "warns", so, I searched it. Thanks for demonstrating my point. All leftwing rags. Not even the MSM (the propaganda arm of the DNC) is reporting this, lol.

First page of your google search:
The Hill, Huffpo, WaPo, Axios, Hotair.....

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rest my case.

Not fair. You were handed this one.

[Peter1469]

Don "Guido" Drumpf Junior is definitely my prediction for next shoe to drop

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/don-jr-going-indicted-mueller-will-use-leverage-get-trump-ex-prosecutor/

Use your big boy words.

[Peter1469]

Your lips to God's ear my friend. America has had it with Dotard's reality TeeVee shit show. :rollseyes:

Get use to it. It looks like the dems are going to be handing Trump another win in 2020 with the hacks they are considering.

[MMC]

Awesome. So yours is another whataboutism vote that it's okay for the Russians to interfere in our elections because 1) they'be been doing it "since the 30s" and 2) We do it too. I disagree.

Wrong, I didn't say that its okay for the Russians to interfere in our elections. I said they have been doing so since the 30s.

Moreover the Demos weren't so concerned about it in 2012 with BO the peeps re-election. Yet now want to go with the whinefest about the Russians and 2016.

[MMC]

ROFL. So I'm right. Awesome. When did the Democrats have a supermajority in both Houses along with the WH?

Sorry, dude, but now you know why I'm not a Republican anymore; they're all pussies. Not the staunch men of Goldberg's era. I'd never be a fucking Democrat, so I'm happy to be an Independent.

LMAO the Demos had a Supermajority the first 2 years of BO the Peeps Presidency. BO care was more important, remember.

[countryboy]

Not fair. You were handed this one.
Nuh uhhh, Imma certified Rocket Surgeon. Bo's a crafty feller.

[Common]

Stop the trolling increased moderation will follow

[Max Rockatansky]

Get use to it. It looks like the dems are going to be handing Trump another win in 2020 with the hacks they are considering.
I'd bet against it. IMO, a more likely prospect is the Democrats (to use big boy words ;) ) will be handing Pence a win in 2020, but that requires the Republicans to have their act together by the beginning of 2020.

[Max Rockatansky]

LMAO the Demos had a Supermajority the first 2 years of BO the Peeps Presidency. BO care was more important, remember.
You mean more than half? Yes, just like the Republicans have now in the Senate and had in the House until they screwed it up.

If you mean 60%, no. They had 57 Senators (57%) and 255 Democrat Representatives (58%) after the 2008 elections. https://ballotpedia.org/111th_United_States_Congress

[Max Rockatansky]

Wrong, I didn't say that its okay for the Russians to interfere in our elections. ...
Then why are you against the investigation of the election and keep supporting whataboutism to defend the Russian actions? Or derailing to rant about the fucking Democrats?

Example:
Russians have been interfering in US Elections since the 30s.

Although the leftness sure didn't say to much about the Russians hacking into the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the WH while Democrats were running things. Didn't say a whole lot about the Chinese breaching the Office of the OPM while giving up the Greatest Intel disaster in US history. Nor did they say much about about the Russians using State Dept own computers to hack into the WH.


Sure the Lame Stream reported on it.....but hurried up and moved onto others issues not wanting that focus on Democrats.

[Dr. Who]

Good point. Remember the point of this investigation is to dissuade people from becoming involved with Trump Administration or 2020 campaign. The goal of the FBI and the Special Counsel is to break people financially to get to tell them what they want to hear. The irony is that they charge them with lying to get them to tell more lies. The only difference being the lies they tell after they cry uncle to the financial extortion are state sanctioned lies.

It really is fantastic when you think about it.

Again and I can not stress this enough. Never Ever talk to the FBI or any Investigator
They charged them with more than just lying. They aren't just perjurors, they are crooks who are being convicted of actual crimes. IIRC they ultimately convicted Al Capone of tax evasion - we all know that he was a Mafia Crime boss, but tax evasion was the only thing that they could make stick. It didn't make him innocent of the thousands of other crimes that other people went down for in his stead.

If anything, this should dissuade any other bent individuals from trying to profit from the Trump administration and for any honest people to give him a wide berth.

[Common]

They charged them with more than just lying. They aren't just perjurors, they are crooks who are being convicted of actual crimes. IIRC they ultimately convicted Al Capone of tax evasion - we all know that he was a Mafia Crime boss, but tax evasion was the only thing that they could make stick. It didn't make him innocent of the thousands of other crimes that other people went down for in his stead.

If anything, this should dissuade any other bent individuals from trying to profit from the Trump administration and for any honest people to give him a wide berth.
But they didnt convict Bill Clinton, didnt even investigate hillary

This is a setup that has gone far off its original scope, its was a fishing expedition to stop trump from being successful, getting anything done and hoping to end his presidency.

If Obamas admin was scrutinized like this with the same bad lying press dozens would be in prison

[Peter1469]

I'd bet against it. IMO, a more likely prospect is the Democrats (to use big boy words ;) ) will be handing Pence a win in 2020, but that requires the Republicans to have their act together by the beginning of 2020.

Pence might not be able to win. He appeals to a more narrow group of voters than Trump.

[Max Rockatansky]

Pence might not be able to win. He appeals to a more narrow group of voters than Trump.
Then if Trump resigned, you'd support another Republican running in 2020? Who do you like?

[Max Rockatansky]

...This is a setup that has gone far off its original scope, its was a fishing expedition to stop trump from being successful, getting anything done and hoping to end his presidency....
Set up by a Republican Senate and a Republican House with a Republican appointed to investigate?

[MMC]

Then why are you against the investigation of the election and keep supporting whataboutism to defend the Russian actions? Or derailing to rant about the fucking Democrats?

Example:

We already know the Russians interfered in the election. We also Know that the Demos used Russian bots in the Roy Moore Special Election. So your deflection over whataboutism is nothing more than an excuse to shutdown looking into the Demos giving access to the Russians for all our Top branches of government. Knowing damn well that if the Russians hacked into our Top Branches of government then their access to those that oversee the Election. Would be compromised. Just as the Democrat Party is and has been.

Just why don't you want that talked about nor investigated? What.....afraid that it will show just how incompetent that Democrats truly are, huh? Or how Democrats said fuck the rules, protocols, and procedures to prevent such actions by the Russians and Chinese. (despite other countries that also hacked into our Government).


Moreover, did you forget what DHS stated about the Russians hacking into the election? Did you forget what BO the Peep stated?

[Cannons Front]

Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.

Well it seems that you are wrong again........

[MMC]

You mean more than half? Yes, just like the Republicans have now in the Senate and had in the House until they screwed it up.

If you mean 60%, no. They had 57 Senators (57%) and 255 Democrat Representatives (58%) after the 2008 elections. https://ballotpedia.org/111th_United_States_Congress


No, I mean the Demos had a Supermajority after Franken won. I tied it to 2008. Coleman Conceded in 2009.

The Democratic Supermajority: What Does It Mean?.... Apr 28, 2009



Assuming Al Franken is seated in the U.S. Senate, the Democratic Party will now have what it coveted and failed to attain in the 2008 election: a 60-seat supermajority in the upper chamber, and the ability to pass legislation without a single Republican vote, unfettered by filibusters and free to put its consensus directly on President Obama's desk.....snip~

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/the-democratic-supermajority-what-does-it-mean/16799/


When did Democrats hold a super majority of both houses of ... (https://www.quora.com/When-did-Democrats-hold-a-super-majority-of-both-houses-of-Congress-and-the-President-at-that-time-was-a-Democrat)

https://www.quora.com/When-did-Democrats-hold-a-super-majority-of...
Oct 28, 2016 · The last time the Senate had an effective super majority was in 2009. Staring on September 25, 2009, there were 58 Democrats and 2 Independents (Sanders and Lieberman, who caucused with the Democrats and thus were essentially Democrats in all but name).



What’s So Super About a Supermajority? - nytimes.com (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html)

https://www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com)/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html
Jul 02, 2009 · The Democrats will be the first party in 30 years to have a 60-vote majority in the Senate. Now comes the hard part.



Coleman concedes race to Franken - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/story/2009/06/coleman-concedes-race-to-franken-024383)

https://www.politico.com (http://www.politico.com)/story/2009/06/coleman-concedes-race-to...
Democrats get a dominant supermajority in the Senate. ... 06/30/2009 02:14 PM EDT ... races in American history and clearing the way for Democrats to hold a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate. …



Now tell us how the Demos didn't have a Supermajority again! Especially embellish on that part about how their Supermajority is like what the Repubs have now.

[DGUtley]

Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.

It is Monday, February 4, 2019. No indictment. No SJW Halftime show. Maybe it depends on what "this Friday" means.

[MMC]

Well it seems that you are wrong again........


Oh was he wrong again. Imagine that.

Bookmark that!

[Ransom]

I'll believe it when I see it. If that is the case, then everyone better stock up on prepper supplies because the POTUS will go into meltdown mode.
Agent Zero throws out the manure, the sheep Safety and alexa graze away

:biglaugh:

[Max Rockatansky]

We already know the Russians interfered in the election. We also Know that the Demos used Russian bots in the Roy Moore Special Election. So your deflection over whataboutism is nothing more than an excuse to shutdown looking into the Demos giving access to the Russians for all our Top branches of government. Knowing damn well that if the Russians hacked into our Top Branches of government then their access to those that oversee the Election. Would be compromised. Just as the Democrat Party is and has been.

Just why don't you want that talked about nor investigated? What.....afraid that it will show just how incompetent that Democrats truly are, huh? Or how Democrats said $#@! the rules, protocols, and procedures to prevent such actions by the Russians and Chinese. (despite other countries that also hacked into our Government).


Moreover, did you forget what DHS stated about the Russians hacking into the election? Did you forget what BO the Peep stated?

Investigate the Democrats. Who is saying they shouldn’t be investigated? I’ve repeatedly pointed out the Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government and all I’ve heard is lame complaints about the fucking Democrats. All corruption and hostile acts should be investigated, but it’s the Alt-Righties on this forum who keep defending the Russians and whining about the fucking Democrats.

[Tahuyaman]

Donald Jr to be indicted by Mueller this Friday.

still waiting.

[MMC]

Investigate the Democrats. Who is saying they shouldn’t be investigated? I’ve repeatedly pointed out the Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government and all I’ve heard is lame complaints about the fucking Democrats. All corruption and hostile acts should be investigated, but it’s the Alt-Righties on this forum who keep defending the Russians and whining about the fucking Democrats.

No one is defending Russians thats just some lame ass leftist bullshit. Republicans Senate and House have been investigating. Did you miss that with the Lame Stream Media barely reporting on that. Now its the Demos in the House that pick up those investigations. Or did you miss FullofSchiff only trying to focus on Trump rather than investigate into those fuck ups by the Demos.

Naturally you know the Demos aren't going to look at their own deviates. DHS already put out their report. So who else did you expect a report from. Oh that's Right Mueller. Waiting on the final word from that one now. When that report disappoints you and those Demos. Then what will the Demos cry and whine about? Just what will the whinefest be from the leftness. What talk about the process crimes again?

[Tahuyaman]

Pence might not be able to win. He appeals to a more narrow group of voters than Trump.

I believe you are right. His strongest support comes from a single issue element of the voting bloc.

[DGUtley]

25233

[Max Rockatansky]

No one is defending Russians thats just some lame ass leftist bull$#@!. ...
Disagreed for several reasons, but mainly because not being a brown-nosing TDSer doesn't make a person a "leftist". It just makes them left of an Alt-Right nutjob.

[Captdon]

I'd bet against it. IMO, a more likely prospect is the Democrats (to use big boy words ;) ) will be handing Pence a win in 2020, but that requires the Republicans to have their act together by the beginning of 2020.

You say so much about government and know so little. Pence isn't going to primary Trump. The Democrats will roll out the "double your taxes" health insurance. Trump will say that all day long until the Democratic nominee starts crying.

Trump won without the Establishment Republicans. They have held him back. They will pay a price in Republican strongholds.

[Tahuyaman]

One more day and no indictment. What Friday are we supposed to expect this?

[Captdon]

You mean more than half? Yes, just like the Republicans have now in the Senate and had in the House until they screwed it up.

If you mean 60%, no. They had 57 Senators (57%) and 255 Democrat Representatives (58%) after the 2008 elections. https://ballotpedia.org/111th_United_States_Congress

So, you didn't know what a super majority is. Half is not a super majority. This is a super majority:

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure) that allows the United States Senate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority) normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_order) that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Officer_of_the_United_States_Senate) denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The super majority is the 60 votes to cut off debate.

[Captdon]

Then if Trump resigned, you'd support another Republican running in 2020? Who do you like?

Trump isn't going anyplace so "what if" is dumb.

[hanger4]

One more day and no indictment. What Friday are we supposed to expect this?Well he did say "this Friday" on the preceding Tuesday 1/29, so that pretty much narrows it down.

[Captdon]

Set up by a Republican Senate and a Republican House with a Republican appointed to investigate?

Set up by Rod Rosenstein. He appointed Mueller, who promptly appointed 14 Democrats as his team. Jesus, pay attention. You're pitiable as a political source.
The library can be your friend.

[Captdon]

I believe you are right. His strongest support comes from a single issue element of the voting bloc.

Nikki Haley will run against Lindsey Graham for the Senate in 2020. If Trump doesn't, she could clean the clocks of any Democrat. She a true conservative, a woman, an India heritage and a former Governor and Ambassador to the UN.

[Captdon]

Disagreed for several reasons, but mainly because not being a brown-nosing TDSer doesn't make a person a "leftist". It just makes them left of an Alt-Right nutjob.

You should know that you left a o out of your screen name.

[Captdon]

Well he did say "this Friday" on the preceding Tuesday 1/29, so that pretty much narrows it down.

Maybe if they changed the day of the indictment...

[Tahuyaman]

Nikki Haley will run against Lindsey Graham for the Senate in 2020. If Trump doesn't, she could clean the clocks of any Democrat. She a true conservative, a woman, an India heritage and a former Governor and Ambassador to the UN.


I doubt she can beat Graham. Identity politics doesn't work on the right. That's a left wing thing.

[MMC]

Disagreed for several reasons, but mainly because not being a brown-nosing TDSer doesn't make a person a "leftist". It just makes them left of an Alt-Right nutjob.

You keep saying members here are defending the Russians. Can you link that up. As I haven't seen not one member defending the Russians. Show us a statement by a member that is defending the Russians.

[Max Rockatansky]

You keep saying members here are defending the Russians. Can you link that up. As I haven't seen not one member defending the Russians. Show us a statement by a member that is defending the Russians.
When they condemn the investigation or pooh-pooh Russian interference with whataboutism, they are defending the Russians regardless if you see it or not.

It's the same thing as when someone brings up Hillary's history of dirty campaign tricks and a liberal says "well, Nixon, Bush II and Trump did it too!!!" Would you not see that as defending Hillary's dirty tactics?

[Ransom]

When they condemn the investigation or pooh-pooh Russian interference with whataboutism, they are defending the Russians regardless if you see it or not.

"defending the Russians?" :biglaugh: and "if you see it or not".....you are entertaining Bob, do some more.


It's the same thing as when someone brings up Hillary's history of dirty campaign tricks and a liberal says "well, Nixon, Bush II and Trump did it too!!!" Would you not see that as defending Hillary's dirty tactics?

Your vote two Novembers ago for Hillary was defending her tactics, Bob. Lecturing cause you're in denial doesn't look good here. Ok?

[MMC]

When they condemn the investigation or pooh-pooh Russian interference with whataboutism, they are defending the Russians regardless if you see it or not.

It's the same thing as when someone brings up Hillary's history of dirty campaign tricks and a liberal says "well, Nixon, Bush II and Trump did it too!!!" Would you not see that as defending Hillary's dirty tactics?

What.....condemning the Muller investigation is suppose to mean they are defending Russians. After it was proven by investigations by DHS, the House, the Senate, The Intel Community, that the Russians meddled in our election. That doesn't even make sense.

[Captdon]

I doubt she can beat Graham. Identity politics doesn't work on the right. That's a left wing thing.

She will beat his ass. She is the most popular person down here. I think she will run against him. She has been in politics a long time. I don't think she has retired.

[Max Rockatansky]

"defending the Russians?" :biglaugh: and "if you see it or not".....you are entertaining Bob, do some more.


Your vote two Novembers ago for Hillary was defending her tactics, Bob. Lecturing cause you're in denial doesn't look good here. Ok?

Your tacit support of the fucking Russians is interesting Ransom. Say after me: Vlad Putin is a cocksucking dictator who abuses the Russian people. Can you say it or are you prevented some how?

I didn't vote for Hillary and never have voted for a Clinton, so you are now a low-life liar IMO.

[Max Rockatansky]

What.....condemning the Muller investigation is suppose to mean they are defending Russians. After it was proven by investigations by DHS, the House, the Senate, The Intel Community, that the Russians meddled in our election. That doesn't even make sense.
Yes. Why else condemn investigation of the Russian interference in our election? Why else use whataboutism to defend their actions as you've done several times?

[Peter1469]

The Russian people largely support Putin.

However, trying to link the Trump campaign to Russia is pure TDS.

[Safety]

Your tacit support of the fucking Russians is interesting Ransom. Say after me: Vlad Putin is a cocksucking dictator who abuses the Russian people. Can you say it or are you prevented some how?

I didn't vote for Hillary and never have voted for a Clinton, so you are now a low-life liar IMO.

Nailed it.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Russian people largely support Putin.

However, trying to link the Trump campaign to Russia is pure TDS.Ever wonder why?

Disagreed. OTOH, if you said that those who say Trump purposely seeks to commit treason against the USA are wrong, I'd agree with you 100%. He's a narcissistic business guy who only cares about money, not taking down the US or supporting Russia other than to make a profit.

[Tahuyaman]

I haven't followed the news today. Did this indictment happen?

[Max Rockatansky]

I haven't followed the news today. Did this indictment happen?
Nope. Are you saying it can never happen or will never happen? Are you saying the Don Jr. could never be guilty of such a thing despite present evidence?

[Ransom]

Your tacit support of the $#@!ing Russians is interesting Ransom. Say after me: Vlad Putin is a $#@!sucking dictator who abuses the Russian people. Can you say it or are you prevented some how?

I didn't vote for Hillary and never have voted for a Clinton, so you are now a low-life liar IMO.

Bet you have a shirt entitled I'm With Her. You lost, get f'n over it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Bet you have a shirt entitled I'm With Her. You lost, get f'n over it.
You'd lose the bet, but I'm sure you are used to being a loser. The entire country lost when the most deplorable candidates in history were nominated for President. Although I didn't vote for either (another reason why are you are a liar) I am glad Trump beat Hillary since she was definitely the greater danger to the country.

A dumbass criminal being President is bad, but having a smart and powerful criminal as President is far worse.

[Tahuyaman]

Nope. Are you saying it can never happen or will never happen? Are you saying the Don Jr. could never be guilty of such a thing despite present evidence?
There is no evidence of any crime. Unless communicating with a business partner is a crime.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is no evidence of any crime. Unless communicating with a business partner is a crime.
It's truly awesome that you have a copy of the report. What else does it say besides "There is no evidence of any crime"?

[Tahuyaman]

It's truly awesome that you have a copy of the report. What else does it say besides "There is no evidence of any crime"?
It was made public that the supposed justification for Trump Jr’s pending indictment was fiction. Keep dreaming.

[Peter1469]

Ever wonder why?

Disagreed. OTOH, if you said that those who say Trump purposely seeks to commit treason against the USA are wrong, I'd agree with you 100%. He's a narcissistic business guy who only cares about money, not taking down the US or supporting Russia other than to make a profit.
The Russian people see Putin as returning Russia to (or at least towards) its rightful place on the global stage.

[Max Rockatansky]

It was made public that the supposed justification for Trump Jr’s pending indictment was fiction. Keep dreaming.
What does that have to do with your post claiming there is no evidence of any crime? Did you mean there's no evidence that's been released or that there is no evidence at all?

There is no evidence of any crime. Unless communicating with a business partner is a crime.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Russian people see Putin as returning Russia to (or at least towards) its rightful place on the global stage.
Of course they do. Most have lived under Soviet domination for the majority of their lives and believe the BS that has been fed to them by the Evil Empire.

What does that have to do with the Russophiles on this forum?

[Tahuyaman]

What does that have to do with your post claiming there is no evidence of any crime? Did you mean there's no evidence that's been released or that there is no evidence at all?


The fact that there's no evidence of any crime is in fact evidence there is no crime.

Sheesh.

[DGUtley]

Bet you have a shirt entitled I'm With Her. You lost, get f'n over it.

You'd lose the bet, but I'm sure you are used to being a loser. The entire country lost when the most deplorable candidates in history were nominated for President. Although I didn't vote for either (another reason why are you are a liar) I am glad Trump beat Hillary since she was definitely the greater danger to the country. A dumbass criminal being President is bad, but having a smart and powerful criminal as President is far worse.

WARNING Ransom and Bad Bob, please refrain from off thread discussion, name-calling and insults.

[Ransom]

You'd lose the bet, but I'm sure you are used to being a loser. The entire country lost when the most deplorable candidates in history were nominated for President. Although I didn't vote for either (another reason why are you are a liar) I am glad Trump beat Hillary since she was definitely the greater danger to the country.

A dumbass criminal being President is bad, but having a smart and powerful criminal as President is far worse.

Criminals have been convicted of a crime, would you like to list the crimes Trump has been convicted of?
Won the majority of the popular vote and yet...…..no one today can hardly admit to voting for her. Amazing.

Bob....may I ask then who did you vote for in 2016 for potus?

This should be good.

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that there's no evidence of any crime is in fact evidence there is no crime.

Sheesh.Sheesh. Obviously they are not teaching critical thinking in schools these days.

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Open investigations don't release their evidence or discuss the investigation until the investigation is completed and charges are filed.

3. Fox News reports there is evidence of multiple crimes: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-the-russia-probe-so-far
Richard PinedoRichard Pinedo, a California man who sold bank accounts to Russians meddling in the election, pleaded guilty (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html) in February 2018 to using stolen identities to set up the accounts. He was sentenced in October to six months in prison, six months in home confinement and two years of supervised release.
The U.S. government said Pinedo did not know that he was dealing with Russians when he sold the accounts. Since his arrest, Pinedo has provided investigators with "significant assistance" in identity theft probes, prosecutors said.
During his sentencing, Pinedo told the judge he took "full responsibility" and understood "there needs to be consequences" for his actions. Federal sentencing guidelines called for Pinedo to serve between 12 and 18 months behind bars, but prosecutors did not recommend a particular sentence, noting his cooperation with officials.
13 Russian nationalsA grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html) in February 2018 for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election. In the case, Mueller detailed a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” on the U.S.
The indictment was the first to be brought against Russian nationals in Mueller's investigation.
However, the Justice Department said the indictment does not allege that the interference changed the outcome of the election.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity," said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe.
12 Russian intelligence officersThe Justice Department in July 2018 announced that 12 Russian intelligence officers (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-12-russian-intel-officers-indicted-in-special-counsels-probe.html) were indicted for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 election.
All 12 are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency.

[hanger4]

Sheesh. Obviously they are not teaching critical thinking in schools these days.1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.2. Open investigations don't release their evidence or discuss the investigation until the investigation is completed and charges are filed. 3. Fox News reports there is evidence of multiple crimes: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-the-russia-probe-so-farRichard PinedoRichard Pinedo, a California man who sold bank accounts to Russians meddling in the election, pleaded guilty (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html) in February 2018 to using stolen identities to set up the accounts. He was sentenced in October to six months in prison, six months in home confinement and two years of supervised release.The U.S. government said Pinedo did not know that he was dealing with Russians when he sold the accounts. Since his arrest, Pinedo has provided investigators with "significant assistance" in identity theft probes, prosecutors said.During his sentencing, Pinedo told the judge he took "full responsibility" and understood "there needs to be consequences" for his actions. Federal sentencing guidelines called for Pinedo to serve between 12 and 18 months behind bars, but prosecutors did not recommend a particular sentence, noting his cooperation with officials.13 Russian nationalsA grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html) in February 2018 for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election. In the case, Mueller detailed a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” on the U.S.The indictment was the first to be brought against Russian nationals in Mueller's investigation.However, the Justice Department said the indictment does not allege that the interference changed the outcome of the election."There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity," said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe.12 Russian intelligence officersThe Justice Department in July 2018 announced that 12 Russian intelligence officers (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-12-russian-intel-officers-indicted-in-special-counsels-probe.html) were indicted for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 election.All 12 are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency.What has this ^^^^ got to do with Trump Jr ??

[Max Rockatansky]

What has this ^^^^ got to do with Trump Jr ??
Reread point number 2.

[hanger4]

Reread point number 2.So, nothing.

[Max Rockatansky]

So, nothing.
...Yet, if ever. I don't know and if anyone claims they know they either have an inside track to the investigation or they are talking out of their ass.

[Ransom]

...Yet, if ever. I don't know and if anyone claims they know they either have an inside track to the investigation or they are talking out of their ass.

I believe you claimed Trump was a criminal? What crime?

[Captdon]

This Friday Dom Deloni, a mob boss, is going to be indicted for trying to sell Trump to the Russians.

[Safety]

Criminals have been convicted of a crime, would you like to list the crimes Trump has been convicted of?
Won the majority of the popular vote and yet...…..no one today can hardly admit to voting for her. Amazing.

Bob....may I ask then who did you vote for in 2016 for potus?

This should be good.

:roflmao:

“Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up”

:biglaugh:

[Ransom]

At least Safety admits to voting for Hillary

[Common]

Well the Mother of all Indictments turned out to be the Mother of all Flatulence lol

[Max Rockatansky]

I believe you claimed Trump was a criminal? What crime?Wrong again. You erroneously read my posts, misremembered my posts or are just lying. I don't know which. Can you post the quote you are referencing?

[hanger4]

Wrong again. You erroneously read my posts, misremembered my posts or are just lying. I don't know which. Can you post the quote you are referencing?Actually, yes you did, Ransom's not wrong; ........
A dumbass criminal being President is bad, but having a smart and powerful criminal as President is far worse. ......... Last post on page 22 of this thread.

[Tahuyaman]

Still no indictment?

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually, yes you did, Ransom's not wrong; ........ ......... Last post on page 22 of this thread.
Dude, most intelligent and sane people can see that was a hypothetical. Do you agree it's better to have a dumbass criminal rather than "a smart and powerful criminal " as President or do you like your Presidents to be smart criminals? What are you trying to say here?

[hanger4]

Dude, most intelligent and sane people can see that was a hypothetical. Do you agree it's better to have a dumbass criminal rather than "a smart and powerful criminal " as President or do you like your Presidents to be smart criminals? What are you trying to say here?I'm not trying to say anything here, I just posted your words. You called the President a "dumbass criminal". Any intelligent and sane person can see that.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not trying to say anything here, I just posted your words. You called the President a "dumbass criminal". Any intelligent and sane person can see that.
Like I just told another poster, you are free to see what you want to see. I can't stop you nor desire to teach you basic English composition, the facts about paragraphs or anything else. If you want to believe it, you will.

[hanger4]

Like I just told another poster, you are free to see what you want to see. I can't stop you nor desire to teach you basic English composition, the facts about paragraphs or anything else. If you want to believe it, you will.Your posted words speak volumes Bad Bob, you can deny them, claim they were this or that, and even attack me as unintelligent and not sane, but the fact remains, you called the President a "dumbass criminal".

[Max Rockatansky]

Your posted words speak volumes Bad Bob...Agreed. So do yours. The same applies to those who cyberstalk others for four days then run off in a tiff claiming I was stalking them.

[hanger4]

Agreed. So do yours. The same applies to those who cyberstalk others for four days then run off in a tiff claiming I was stalking them.Do you really want to make your Private Messages public ?? And where did I run to Bad Bob, I'm still here and more than ready to respond to your PM's when you send them.

[Tahuyaman]

Dude, most intelligent and sane people can see that was a hypothetical. Do you agree it's better to have a dumbass criminal rather than "a smart and powerful criminal " as President or do you like your Presidents to be smart criminals? What are you trying to say here?


Id rather have a smart guy over a dumb guy. Seeing that Hillary wasn't elected, we don't have a criminal as our president. We haven't had one since Bill Clinton was found guilty of perjury.

[Max Rockatansky]

Id rather have a smart guy over a dumb guy. Seeing that Hillary wasn't elected, we don't have a criminal as our president. We haven't had one since Bill Clinton was found guilty of perjury.
Agreed on smart guy, but, as my question asked; would you rather have a smart criminal in charge or a dumb criminal?

Unknown. There are 17(?) open investigations. I don't have inside information on any of them. Do you?