Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

(08-17-2023 09:45 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 07:28 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 10:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 11:47 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Actually, those X messages are not correct. What she laid out what the President, Mark Meadows and others did in the state of Georgia, and she is throwing the book at them for the crimes in the state of Georgia. That was not an official act by the president. That was abusing his power to act like a Mob Boss against people, and he is being charged with the Rico Riot Act which she have brought up against people on the left like the gangster rappers in Atlanta.

Please stop talking.

Lolz. Whining at its best.... lol.

Don’t get triggered just because your “facts” can’t convince anyone here but DavidSt, Tommie Boi, Elvis and Mensa. Like your mom should have told you, you are judged by the company you keep.
Defend garbage like Hack Smith, Weiss and Fanni Mae and you’ll get ridicule. Pretty simple for most.

Only an 8 on the ignorant stick your fingers in your ears and whine scale. You can (anddo) do better.

Keep it up. Yep, zero substance above, pretty much zero attempt. Why am I notsurprised.... lolz.

(08-16-2023 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:59 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 05:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest reading the Eastman memo. And the Cheesboro memo.

Eastman specifically detailed to simply throw out 84 electoral votes, and have Pence declare a victory for Trump after tossing thow 84 votes with *no* consideration by the states.

The Cheeseboro memo amplified that. And came up with the shitbird idea to emphasize simply recognizing the 'alternate electors' by fiat.

So no -- your rhetoric is incomplete and incorrect.

Further, each of the plans to delay were always capped off with 'and then we end up in the courts', and end with "we will lose 9-0 in SCOTUS".

And, as an additional cherry on top, Eastman himself described even the delay as a violation of US law in an email to Pence at 11:44 pm Jan 6 where he is begging Pence to delay the session more.


Fact 1: Trump had lost 3 different suits in Ga.
Fact 2: The Trump clown posse had petitioned the Ga legislature 3 different times to intervene.
Fact 3: On Jan 4, with the above already in thae bag, Trump himself begged the Sec State to 'find [him]' the votes to go over. He threatened that Sec State with criminal culpability in that same phone call, mind you.

Against that backdrop, the claims you make above are just shallow. The issue was settled in Georgia. End story. Period.

Yet the item in 3 goes ahead notwithstanding, *and* Trump explicitly petitions Mike Pence on the 5th and 6th to explicitly deny the Georgie electoral votes.

Just as I thought. You actually believe this silly "theory" and apparently are for the creative use of the law to attack political opponents as long as its someone you dislike. Despite your wild flailing about, nothing about this case is common, typical, reasonable, or with any historical precedent---and you know it.

From where I sit, all Trump did is try to convince people that he was correct that fraud existed and he wanted the Georgia officials to help him get the time to check for it as well as help investigating for fraud. We call that free speech and politics. Frankly, Im all but certain there was fraud. Was it enough to swing the election? Who knows. Even to this date there has still been no labor intensive attempt to verify the authenticity of a large batch of mail in ballots in the suspicious districts.

That might be an explanation if the Eastman plan and Cheeseboro memo werent around that detailed that it was not.

But please ignore them in their entirety. Yay.

Damn facts, I guess.

As for the bolded, that was *not* what he asked Pence to do, nor was it what he begged/ asked/ threatened/ cajoled Raffensberger to do.

There is no 'you have to get me time' in the Raffensberger phone call. None, zero, zilch, nada. There *was* 'find me 11,780 votes', and there was the threat of criminal action by Trump to the Ga. Sec State.

And again -- a direct quote from Pence: "Frankly, the day before January 6, [the President and his lawyers] ..... said, ‘We want you to reject votes' outright. They were asking me to overturn the election. I had no right to overturn the election.”

But please make some more stuff up to make your point. Any more facts you want to ignore in lieu of empty rhetorical comments?

And it is not horribly creative to employ fraud law to describe those attempts, nor the attempts to use non-official documentation to violate civil rights. Nor creative to employ many of the other laws in the blatant attempts to get state officials to employ extralegal means to wipe out not just electoral votes directly, but the votes of the underlying citizens.

This Mr Magoo level crap is kind of like me drawing up a transfer deed to my neighbor's house in crayon and presenting it as valid. Then trying to threaten or talk the county clerk into accepting an obvious forgery that has *no* indication of any official state action as the real deal. Then trying to talk the county into simply 'holding off' making a further determination of the matter.

It is really that simple. Notwithstanding all the wing flapping.

What planet did you come from?

So let me see here, you are stating that anything written on a piece of paper makes it a Fact.

Nope. Things that are written by the parties detailing what they want to do are facts of what they want to do. And the steps in those memos are backed by other actions that are in the record. Interesting, isnt it?

Quote:Do I have that right ?

Nope.

Quote:Because if you are your whole Case is built on what someone wrote down on a memo.

There are far more of them. Maybe make an effort to learn about the facts in the issue instead of empty rhetorical comments like above. Or not.

So it all depends who writes something down on a piece of paper for it to be a fact. That's what you're trying to tell me.
Have you seen these memo ? If so could you Post a Link.

You keep stating the word Fact. Where are you getting your Facts from that you keep talking about. You said I need to make an effort to learn the Facts for this issue. Can you point me in that direction?

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

(08-16-2023 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:59 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That might be an explanation if the Eastman plan and Cheeseboro memo werent around that detailed that it was not.

But please ignore them in their entirety. Yay.

Damn facts, I guess.

As for the bolded, that was *not* what he asked Pence to do, nor was it what he begged/ asked/ threatened/ cajoled Raffensberger to do.

There is no 'you have to get me time' in the Raffensberger phone call. None, zero, zilch, nada. There *was* 'find me 11,780 votes', and there was the threat of criminal action by Trump to the Ga. Sec State.

And again -- a direct quote from Pence: "Frankly, the day before January 6, [the President and his lawyers] ..... said, ‘We want you to reject votes' outright. They were asking me to overturn the election. I had no right to overturn the election.”

But please make some more stuff up to make your point. Any more facts you want to ignore in lieu of empty rhetorical comments?

And it is not horribly creative to employ fraud law to describe those attempts, nor the attempts to use non-official documentation to violate civil rights. Nor creative to employ many of the other laws in the blatant attempts to get state officials to employ extralegal means to wipe out not just electoral votes directly, but the votes of the underlying citizens.

This Mr Magoo level crap is kind of like me drawing up a transfer deed to my neighbor's house in crayon and presenting it as valid. Then trying to threaten or talk the county clerk into accepting an obvious forgery that has *no* indication of any official state action as the real deal. Then trying to talk the county into simply 'holding off' making a further determination of the matter.

It is really that simple. Notwithstanding all the wing flapping.

What planet did you come from?

So let me see here, you are stating that anything written on a piece of paper makes it a Fact. Do I have that right ? Because if you are your whole Case is built on what someone wrote down on a memo.

You are starting to get the point. Yes, writing down your illegal plan to interrupt the transfer of power (documenting it for the prosecutors) is generally considered “bigly bad” in the legal world.

These aren’t memos that people wrote about the trump team, these are their internal documents that are evidence about the intent of their actions and their knowledge that they were illegal when they did them.

Have you seen this or those memos ? Something tells me no, you have not seen anything.

"Yes, writing down your illegal plan" are you saying that President Trump wrote the memos ?

Both of them are available in the record.

Do you have a Link to this record you speak of ?

(08-17-2023 10:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

I'm more astonished at the level of ignorant vitriol, to be honest.

And hate to tell, absolutely have dealt with removal and with the issue of Federal sovereign immunity. Please keep whining.

I've even told you above the questions that underlie those issues. You don't really even try even a 5th grade attempt to answer them opting to do your shitbird nothing but ad hom crap above.

Good job jr.

(08-17-2023 10:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

I'm more astonished at the level of ignorant vitriol, to be honest.

And hate to tell, absolutely have dealt with removal and with the issue of Federal sovereign immunity. Please keep whining.

I've even told you above the questions that underlie those issues. You don't really even try even a 5th grade attempt to answer them opting to do your shitbird nothing but ad hom crap above.

Good job jr.

Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

(08-17-2023 10:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:59 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  So let me see here, you are stating that anything written on a piece of paper makes it a Fact. Do I have that right ? Because if you are your whole Case is built on what someone wrote down on a memo.

You are starting to get the point. Yes, writing down your illegal plan to interrupt the transfer of power (documenting it for the prosecutors) is generally considered “bigly bad” in the legal world.

These aren’t memos that people wrote about the trump team, these are their internal documents that are evidence about the intent of their actions and their knowledge that they were illegal when they did them.

Have you seen this or those memos ? Something tells me no, you have not seen anything.

"Yes, writing down your illegal plan" are you saying that President Trump wrote the memos ?

Both of them are available in the record.

Do you have a Link to this record you speak of ?

Jr.

Google 'Eadtman memo'. It's all over.

Google 'Chesebro memo'. It's also available but not as much as the above.

If you want the cliffs notes on them, simply pop to the Smith J6 indictment or the new Fulton Co indictment for the summary versions.

(08-16-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:34 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 12:16 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The reason I stated "A county district attorney just indicted a former POTUS." a few weeks ago. I failed to mention in my statement "for something he is accused of doing WHILE POTUS". Went right over the hateful Leftists' heads that reside here.

If a POTUS murdered his wife while POTUS but while in New Mexico, nothing would prevent New Mexico from indicting and trying the former President for that murder.

The 'doing a crime while POTUS' statement is simply incorrect. End of story.

The issue isnt 'while POTUS', the issue is 'in performing the duty of POTUS in the act.'

There is no official duty as President that I am aware of murdering your wife.

Such as there is no official duty under the actions as President that I am aware of in trying to wipe out the votes of millions of people, nor trying to wipe out the specific votes of 16 specific people.

That seemingly kind of goes well beyond the official powers as President.

Dude, your law degree doesn't make you the genius you think it does, STFU and sit your ass down. You confirm your stupidity every time you opine on a topic. It's funny but also a bit sad. I initially thought you were someone completely different from who you have proven yourself to be time after time. It would be different if I was the only someone who felt that way about you but all one needs to do is look at the reactions you elicit from those among us with bigger brains than mine to see I'm right.

.
Anytime trump legal stuff comes up and you idiots cant even state facts, simply try to make it a monkey poo flinging fight.

Good job junior.

Grow the fk up.

Id say go back to your comic books, but that seems a serious stretch for you..... lolz.

You have a really bad habit of calling out others for name calling.....

post for post you are one of the worse people on this board at the name calling.

Not only that but you sound really pissed off and into your feelings.

(08-17-2023 10:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 06:59 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  So let me see here, you are stating that anything written on a piece of paper makes it a Fact. Do I have that right ? Because if you are your whole Case is built on what someone wrote down on a memo.

You are starting to get the point. Yes, writing down your illegal plan to interrupt the transfer of power (documenting it for the prosecutors) is generally considered “bigly bad” in the legal world.

These aren’t memos that people wrote about the trump team, these are their internal documents that are evidence about the intent of their actions and their knowledge that they were illegal when they did them.

Have you seen this or those memos ? Something tells me no, you have not seen anything.

"Yes, writing down your illegal plan" are you saying that President Trump wrote the memos ?

Both of them are available in the record.

Do you have a Link to this record you speak of ?

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=eastman+memo

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

This forum is not a Republican/Trump forum. This is an open politics forum.

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

I'm more astonished at the level of ignorant vitriol, to be honest.

And hate to tell, absolutely have dealt with removal and with the issue of Federal sovereign immunity. Please keep whining.

I've even told you above the questions that underlie those issues. You don't really even try even a 5th grade attempt to answer them opting to do your shitbird nothing but ad hom crap above.

Good job jr.

Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

Translated to : Stop muddying up our trump echo chamber with facts.

If you are only comfortable having people with the same opinion around you it’s a really good sign that your position is wrong.

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

I'm more astonished at the level of ignorant vitriol, to be honest.

And hate to tell, absolutely have dealt with removal and with the issue of Federal sovereign immunity. Please keep whining.

I've even told you above the questions that underlie those issues. You don't really even try even a 5th grade attempt to answer them opting to do your shitbird nothing but ad hom crap above.

Good job jr.

Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

Yes quite the response I have experience in the two. Maybe if you didn't exist solely on invective and pulling **** out of your ass and calling it gold that wouldn't be such a hard hitting response to you.

And the funny thing is I can actually live with, and don't go beserko on, differing viewpoints. I don't need the mental crutch that seems such a central part of your life you speak of above.

Watching a pinhead go berserk because of an objective recitation of legal issue seems yo be spectacle norm for most around this place. It is pretty amusing to watch.

Please continue. The issue seems to be instead of actually talking about issues, the jackasses run around and fling poo when they hear stuff that cuts across their Trump is God viewpoint. Just like you do above.

(08-17-2023 10:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to a real topic instead of the frothing above, the two aspects that will control in this are 1) what power does the President exercise in a) elections or b) the presidential electoral process; and b) is Trump (and by extension Meadows) acting as President or as a candidate in his own interest.

I'd suggest listening to the entire 1 hour 10 minute Raffensberger call prior to answering 2) above.

For Presidential elections, the answer to 1 above is a) not much; and b) not at all.

I'd also suggest reading the Ga Fed Cir Judge order for hearing other matter issued last night. The questions noted to Meadows are pretty pointed nature, going even deeper and implying more than I note above with the 2 questions.

But in balance against those questions is the precedent for liberal application of removal in the 11th Cir.

The questions underlying removal are pretty much the same questions for the idea that the states can't charge Federal officials... but removal won't be as strict an application.

Can't wait for the mealy mouth keyboard pounders to explode.

You blinded us with law!

Trouble is Clarence, you’re not the only lawyer. Others much more noted than your keyboard counselor self have weighed in with a different take. Many noted constitutional expert lawyers. Are you a constitutional law expert? Sure you are.

It really chaps you that you can’t change a single (non)damaged mind here doesn’t it. Do you go as whacko in court (if you’ve ever been in one) as you do here with people who don’t agree?

I'm more astonished at the level of ignorant vitriol, to be honest.

And hate to tell, absolutely have dealt with removal and with the issue of Federal sovereign immunity. Please keep whining.

I've even told you above the questions that underlie those issues. You don't really even try even a 5th grade attempt to answer them opting to do your shitbird nothing but ad hom crap above.

Good job jr.

Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

Translated to : Stop muddying up our trump echo chamber with facts.

If you are only comfortable having people with the same opinion around you it’s a really good sign that your position is wrong.

Mat not be a sign if it being wrong.

A great sign of abject and intentional ignorance, though.

Look at the histrionics over removal. Or over the related issue ofFederal sovereign immunity. It's like the puddnhead got an electric cattle prod yo the nuts. Kind of fascinating in a morbid sense.

(08-17-2023 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

This forum is not a Republican/Trump forum. This is an open politics forum.

You can't ever read a room....



He SUJESTED that his blood pressure might be better in another forum. Not trying to force him from this board. No one other than you is going to take that post any different. Really you didn't understand this? Common sense must be lacking

(08-17-2023 10:36 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 07:34 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 12:16 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The reason I stated "A county district attorney just indicted a former POTUS." a few weeks ago. I failed to mention in my statement "for something he is accused of doing WHILE POTUS". Went right over the hateful Leftists' heads that reside here.

If a POTUS murdered his wife while POTUS but while in New Mexico, nothing would prevent New Mexico from indicting and trying the former President for that murder.

The 'doing a crime while POTUS' statement is simply incorrect. End of story.

The issue isnt 'while POTUS', the issue is 'in performing the duty of POTUS in the act.'

There is no official duty as President that I am aware of murdering your wife.

Such as there is no official duty under the actions as President that I am aware of in trying to wipe out the votes of millions of people, nor trying to wipe out the specific votes of 16 specific people.

That seemingly kind of goes well beyond the official powers as President.

Dude, your law degree doesn't make you the genius you think it does, STFU and sit your ass down. You confirm your stupidity every time you opine on a topic. It's funny but also a bit sad. I initially thought you were someone completely different from who you have proven yourself to be time after time. It would be different if I was the only someone who felt that way about you but all one needs to do is look at the reactions you elicit from those among us with bigger brains than mine to see I'm right.

.
Anytime trump legal stuff comes up and you idiots cant even state facts, simply try to make it a monkey poo flinging fight.

Good job junior.

Grow the fk up.

Id say go back to your comic books, but that seems a serious stretch for you..... lolz.

You have a really bad habit of calling out others for name calling.....

post for post you are one of the worse people on this board at the name calling.

Not only that but you sound really pissed off and into your feelings.

I absolutely do punch back.

When there is a non ad hom manner used, I for the vast vast mist part respond in that same level manner.

I would suggest you look at my action of name calling and link it back to the person I am responding to. Just saying.

One thing worth nothing is how impartial can a jury be when there are also other cases being tried simultaneously? Could that factor into some of the jury deliberations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-17-2023 10:49 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  You can't ever read a room....

always trying to interject your view on a post. Not only that but seem to think your mod duties give you some special rights to do just that.

He SUJESTED that his blood pressure might be better in another forum. No one other than you is going to take that post any different. Really you didn't understand this? Common sense must be lacking

I'll take that under advisement.

I stand by my post.

(08-17-2023 10:49 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 10:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Wow! That got a response. Maybe you should spend your time somewhere the popular viewpoint is in line with yours. Your blood pressure will thank you. And your ego will be stroked.

This forum is not a Republican/Trump forum. This is an open politics forum.

You can't ever read a room....

always trying to interject your view on a post. Not only that but seem to think your mod duties give you some special rights to do just that.

He SUJESTED that his blood pressure might be better in another forum. No one other than you is going to take that post any different. Really you didn't understand this? Common sense must be lacking

Maybe some should simply stop with a shallow defense.

I couldn't care less if a nothing but rhetorical ad hom howler monkey tries to impose *his viewpoint* solely on a forum or a thread.

That is a true mark of ignorance when one tries to use that shallow as **** rationale.

Of course the first sentence is merely a suggestion to copy the veneer thin mode. Just be honest as to what WA Soms is trying to whine his way to do. Or not. Your choice.

I know many people here think it’s a nothing burger, but the “electors swap” was so incredibly stupid.

That being said It’s obvious that this is a political witch hunt, but still Trump seemingly has hung himself.

I still believe that the DOJ has a vested interest in eliminating Trump because 2024 is next year and they are threatened by that. There is also unequal justice under the law as we’ve seen with Hillary, Biden, etc.

The long term damage from this will be so severe to the country that I don’t think it will ever be the same again, however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk