BladeRunner
Footballguy
Houses? Only the little people and suckers live in houses. They live in mansions!So is this like the front fund for more houses for the BLM founders?
Last edited by a moderator:
Houses? Only the little people and suckers live in houses. They live in mansions!So is this like the front fund for more houses for the BLM founders?
Thanks @timschochet I have enjoyed your posts for some time. Look forward to some great conversations… there’s plenty to discuss in the world of politics. I declare this the Summer of George!Welcome to the Politics Forum @George Costanza! I’ve enjoyed your posts so far.
Just be wary of the shrinkage.Thanks @timschochet I have enjoyed your posts for some time. Look forward to some great conversations… there’s plenty to discuss in the world of politics. I declare this the Summer of George!
Is anyone claiming that? Seems all are saying nothing will come out of this...not because of lack of evidence mind you...but that he won't face charges from the DOJ.The walls are still closing in!!!
Have the usual suspects accused him of being an alias of a recently suspended poster? Or do they only do that to posters they disagree with?Welcome to the Politics Forum @George Costanza! I’ve enjoyed your posts so far.
My only alias is Art Vandelay... or Buck Naked... or Koko. But NOT T-Bone, unfortunately Your choice.Have the usual suspects accused him of being an alias of a recently suspended poster? Or do they only do that to posters they disagree with?
Because they don’t want to address the actual details of what Trump apparently did?So why a false narrative like this to mock others...or the other narrative that people only care because its Trump or a Republican and would not support justice against a Republican?
Sorry, I was inartful in my wording. I completely agree with you.Doing the right thing would improve my faith in our institutions, not erode it further. I don't care what anyone says, this should not be a "sides" thing. Any former President, from either side, who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felonious crimes should have charges brought and be convicted. Period.
Yet millions will still vote for him and support him.This is another branch of the same conspiracy to obstruct the certification proceeding that a federal judge found more likely than not existed between Trump and Eastman yesterday.
The log also indicates that Trump placed this mysterious call.
I mean, really…. If scumbags like Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Mike Flynn are still walking around scot-free, I wouldn’t get your hopes up that Trump will see any accountability…
But, at least their is enough “in your face” evidence that he committed crimes so that we ALL know the truth…
But does it bother you at all? Or, no big deal?I'm sure you got 'eem this time.
It's ok you don't have to answer.I'm sure you got 'eem this time.
So…just no real answer for any of it? Why is it that hard to comment in the actual allegations? Instead we get whataboutisms and comments like this portraying a sentiment nobody is proclaiming.I'm sure you got 'eem this time.
But does it bother you at all? Or, no big deal?
Uh……noThanks @timschochet I have enjoyed your posts for some time. Look forward to some great conversations… there’s plenty to discuss in the world of politics. I declare this the Summer of George!
So there shouldn’t be a rule, just an understanding. Like we had with the Supreme Court. Like we had with hiring your kids into the cabinet. Like we all pretty much understood Russia was an enemy?I doubt it.
1. The standard in a criminal court isn't "more likely than not," but "beyond a reasonable doubt."
2. Even if the DOJ thinks it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony, what's the likelihood that twelve jurors will think so? At least some of the jurors are likely to be MAGA people. If the DOJ is going to go through the circus of criminally indicting a former president (with aspirations to run again), it should arguably be sure not only that he's guilty, but that he'll be convicted.
While there should definitely not be a hard and fast rule against indicting former presidents (because nobody is above the law), I do think the political awkwardness should be a factor to consider. Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics. If it's a slam dunk case, fine, but charges that require proving intent will seldom be slam dunks.
It's unusual that there are no calls in the record for 7 hours while the mob of maga people were breaking into the Capitol building, no?It always bothers me when anyone is corrupt.
He’s so gleeful when I’m his side gets away with crimes. Disgusting.So…just no real answer for any of it? Why is it that hard to comment in the actual allegations? Instead we get whataboutisms and comments like this portraying a sentiment nobody is proclaiming.
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out. Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way. Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee. Pelosi didn't let them. she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk. this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt. remember Schiff on the Russian collusion? every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV. of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same. WE GOT HIM NOW. Schiff turned out to be nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation. this sniffs of the same thing.It's unusual that there are no calls in the record for 7 hours while the mob of maga people were breaking into the Capitol building, no?
We know he was in contact with numerous people that day.
But much of this isn’t Schiff…its Judges and prosecutors and now seeing a gaping hole in records produced.was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out. Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way. Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee. Pelosi didn't let them. she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk. this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt. remember Schiff on the Russian collusion? every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV. of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same. WE GOT HIM NOW. Schiff turned out to be nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation. this sniffs of the same thing.
over & out.
I don't see you in the Biden thread all fake outraged considering all the shady deals that we're going on in Ukraine with him and his son.He’s so gleeful when I’m his side gets away with crimes. Disgusting.
Yep!! 1000% .was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out. Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way. Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee. Pelosi didn't let them. she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk. this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt. remember Schiff on the Russian collusion? every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV. of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same. WE GOT HIM NOW. Schiff turned out to be nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation. this sniffs of the same thing.
over & out.
Because its his son and not him with shady deals. Have a federal judge claiming Biden likely committed a felony? And why not just comment on the thread…which has nothing to do with Biden? Why always trying to take shots at other posters?I don't see you in the Biden thread all fake outraged considering all the shady deals that we're going on in Ukraine with him and his son.
Disgusting.
I have appreciated your responses over the years as well. It is a fair point that Pelosi rejected Republican selections and went with her Republican choices. I believe that was in response to the Republicans filibustering the creation of an independent committee and so the wheel turns...was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out. Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way. Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee. Pelosi didn't let them. she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk. this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt. remember Schiff on the Russian collusion? every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV. of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same. WE GOT HIM NOW. Schiff turned out to be nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation. this sniffs of the same thing.
over & out.
The “Republican selections” that Pelosi overruled would have made a mockery of the committee. The Republicans have done everything they could to marginalize this committee, boycott it, vote against its existence. They did not act in good faith from the beginning.was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out. Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way. Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee. Pelosi didn't let them. she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk. this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt. remember Schiff on the Russian collusion? every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV. of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same. WE GOT HIM NOW. Schiff turned out to be nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation. this sniffs of the same thing.
over & out.
Do I need to get involved here?Uh……noThanks @timschochet I have enjoyed your posts for some time. Look forward to some great conversations… there’s plenty to discuss in the world of politics. I declare this the Summer of George!
Schiff made a mockery along with kinzinger trying to line up a good job after he got screwed by the dems who redrew his district even after trying to show what a good rino he is. And I'm not sure why darth Cheneys daughter decided to get tossed. But that's her business. Besides I don't care that much so whatever.The “Republican selections” that Pelosi overruled would have made a mockery of the committee. The Republicans have done everything they could to marginalize this committee, boycott it, vote against its existence. They did not act in good faith from the beginning.
I also strongly disagree with your characterization of Adam Schiff. From what I can see he was never once dishonest with the American people, and his role in President Trump’s first impeachment was masterful- his arguments at the time as to why Trump should be removed were dead on correct and never answered.
But even if I accepted all of your points and agreed with you that the committee is highly partisan and that Schiff is not to be trusted, it still doesn’t change anything: either the facts are going to show that Donald Trump committed crimes, including treason against the USA and the Constitution, or they won’t. At some point you’re going to have to respond to the facts rather than your skepticism over who is investigating them.
I have no idea what this has to do with my post.Schiff made a mockery along with kinzinger trying to line up a good job after he got screwed by the dems who redrew his district even after trying to show what a good rino he is. And I'm not sure why darth Cheneys daughter decided to get tossed. But that's her business. Besides I don't care that much so whatever.
He's a rino cuz he's a rino.I have no idea what this has to do with my post.
But I do find it both sad and amusing that your sole reason for regarding Kizinger as a “rino” is his opposition to Trump.
Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.He's a rino cuz he's a rino.
90% <> 100%Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.
Cheney voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.
If they are RINO's, please explain to me what it takes to be a Republican in more than name? Based on those numbers, it appears the only way to be a true Republican in your view is fealty, which as a country, we have historically frown upon.
Between the three of us, I think we've got this covered.Do I need to get involved here?
In previous times, Kinzinger and Cheney would both be far right Republicans. However in today's GOP, you must buy into and support the "stolen election" narrative. Kinzinger and Cheney however acknowledge what happened and see Trump for what he is. They're putting country over Party - so, RINO.Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.
Cheney voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.
If they are RINO's, please explain to me what it takes to be a Republican in more than name? Based on those numbers, it appears the only way to be a true Republican in your view is fealty, which as a country, we have historically frown upon.
He might. Not everyone is such a partisan all in for their "team" that they wouldn't draw the line at siding with a traitor. It won't take much support to fall away for the election to be out of his reach, he never won the popular vote anyway so losing any support around the edges in PA & WI in particular will sink his chances even further.Yeah, that's very bad. He'll lose even more support now.
& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked. Surprise! fake news again & again.It's unusual that there are no calls in the record for 7 hours while the mob of maga people were breaking into the Capitol building, no?
We know he was in contact with numerous people that day.
So what was the story here with the no calls on the record? I have read an article twice and it still makes no sense.& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked. Surprise! fake news again & again.
Link to said debunking?& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked. Surprise! fake news again & again.
It hasn't really been debunked. There is still that gap where calls to the president weren't recorded in the daily call log record for that specific day. Transparency and accountability are the issues at hand here. Two issues which reared their heads quite early in his administration.& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked. Surprise! fake news again & again.
Calls most definitely were made and received during the time frame in the official daily call log where none are shown. (We know this due to voluntary & forced disclosure of documents and phone records of individuals already being investigated by the J6 Commission, and their own sworn testimony.) The difference is that those calls made/received did not come through the White House Switchboard. They were made/received using other methods.So what was the story here with the no calls on the record? I have read an article twice and it still makes no sense.