The Biden Administration..V3

149,045 Views | 3158 Replies | Last: 22 min ago by TheStorm
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
Totally predictable. This is what happens when an ordinary citizen, albeit one with a billion bucks, who hasn't climbed the political ropes and "paid his dues", rises up to challenge the new world order.
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe I have suggested this action before, but today Charlie Cooke makes a strong case for the impeachment of Joe Biden. Like Obama and Trump before him, he has used executive order to usurp power from Congress. The escalation of spending taxpayer's money without the approval of Congress has increased by two orders of magnitude by the blatant transfer of student loan debt to our national debt.

Quote:

Last January, Congress should have used this power to impeach and convict President Trump for engaging in what Senator Ben Sasse appropriately described as "one of the most egregious Article II attacks on Article I in all of U.S. history." A decade ago, Congress should have used this power to impeach Barack Obama for relentlessly explaining that he wasn't an emperor, and then taking the very action he had deemed a usurpation of legislative authority. Today, Congress should use this power to remove Joe Biden from office for repeatedly breaking his oath in the most transparent way imaginable. And if we don't because it's too hard or too divisive or harrowing then we'll deserve the system we'll inevitably end up with, which, at this rate, seems destined to bear an uncanny resemblance to the system we once fought a revolution to pull apart.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.

A third obvious potential conclusion is that they investigate and end up with the exact same result they did with Hillary (and I think this is the likeliest outcome for Trump since it's the most common outcome of these cases generally).

Trump could be found to have been very careless and negligent with processes and document security, but not to the extent that warrant criminal charges.

In that case he and Hillary clearly did do many things wrong, but those things don't meet the bar for criminal charges.

GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://instagr.am/p/Ch7kuwUutsk
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden taunts 'brave right-wing Americans,' saying they'll need more than guns to fight the government - TheBlaze

A few of you characters on here have got your safe spaces. Hunker down there; not need to go into fetal position.................. as the rest of us plan to resist!
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

Biden taunts 'brave right-wing Americans,' saying they'll need more than guns to fight the government - TheBlaze

A few of you characters on here have got your safe spaces. Hunker down there; not need to go into fetal position.................. as the rest of us plan to resist!
So if Biden is conceding that per the 2A we have a legitimate right to defend the nation against armies (whether foreign or domestic), then isn't he actually making the argument that we DO need AR-15 types rifles, and weapons even more powerful than that?

If, as Brandon says, we're going to need some high powered weaponry to defend the nation, then that's an argument for letting us keep our AR-15s --and then go even further and supplement them with fully automatic machine guns, grenades, cannons, missiles, tanks, etc.

Hey Kid Sniffer Joe....that's is not a valid argument to support the government taking away our right to own semi-automatic rifles.

And, by the way, armed citizens CAN defend a nation against modern armies armed with little more than semi-automatic rifles. Has Dementia Joe ever and these other pansy Leftist clowns ever heard of the guerrilla armies in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for example? Armed with little more than rifles, they defeated the vast modern military power of the United States and Russia.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Former US military intelligence guy discusses current events.

https://rumble.com/v1haipb-can-i-get-a-fact-checker-on-this-please-thanks-brother-.html

CAN I GET A FACT CHECKER ON THIS PLEASE - THANKS BROTHER! : )

Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
I get the reason to distrust the source (cnn and/or justice dept), but the Justice Dept filing last night addresses some of your earlier questions, about why didn't they find more documents in June.
Also odd that the Trump lawyers wouldn't have claimed right away that these were de-classifed -- a statement which should have put a whole different light on this at that time.

Takeaways from the historic Justice Department court filing on the Mar-a-Lago search - CNNPolitics

No different than a month ago -- this still has to play out, and either/both sides could be misleading both the public and the courts....but IF true - ie, he hid / misled, this makes what Trump did every bit as bad as what that crook HRC did.

ETA: Saw the Fox article where Trump says this AM he had declassified all. Assuming he did, there should be very clear documentation of that, correct? Surely our declassification procedures require some level of documentation?
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have y'all seen those videos of the IRS training with AR-15s to raid homes?

Biden wants 87,000 more IRS agents armed with AR-15s storming homes, but wants to take your AR-15.

Why do Leftists foam at the mouth to confiscate AR-15s from private citizens, and at the same time relish having an armed police state with cops everywhere armed with AR-15s?

The communist Left are authoritarians. They want to disarm the people, while at the same time making the government ever more powerful and repressive.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MUH DEMOCRACY!!!

https://instagr.am/p/Ch7tTawPTmV
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.


Which takes it to point 2.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
I get the reason to distrust the source (cnn and/or justice dept), but the Justice Dept filing last night addresses some of your earlier questions, about why didn't they find more documents in June.
Also odd that the Trump lawyers wouldn't have claimed right away that these were de-classifed -- a statement which should have put a whole different light on this at that time.

Takeaways from the historic Justice Department court filing on the Mar-a-Lago search - CNNPolitics

No different than a month ago -- this still has to play out, and either/both sides could be misleading both the public and the courts....but IF true - ie, he hid / misled, this makes what Trump did every bit as bad as what that crook HRC did.

ETA: Saw the Fox article where Trump says this AM he had declassified all. Assuming he did, there should be very clear documentation of that, correct? Surely our declassification procedures require some level of documentation?


Explain how any of that answers my questions that I've had other than he said he said argument?? This piece reads just like anything CNN puts out regarding Trump.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.


Which takes it to point 2.
I could see a path to politically motivated prosecution. But I still feel like I don't have a great idea of what the violations are. I feel like we're getting the information that the DOJ wants us to see. This still seems like a game of chicken that escalated
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.


Which takes it to point 2.
I could see a path to politically motivated prosecution. But I still feel like I don't have a great idea of what the violations are. I feel like we're getting the information that the DOJ wants us to see. This still seems like a game of chicken that escalated


I can see that.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
I get the reason to distrust the source (cnn and/or justice dept), but the Justice Dept filing last night addresses some of your earlier questions, about why didn't they find more documents in June.
Also odd that the Trump lawyers wouldn't have claimed right away that these were de-classifed -- a statement which should have put a whole different light on this at that time.

Takeaways from the historic Justice Department court filing on the Mar-a-Lago search - CNNPolitics

No different than a month ago -- this still has to play out, and either/both sides could be misleading both the public and the courts....but IF true - ie, he hid / misled, this makes what Trump did every bit as bad as what that crook HRC did.

ETA: Saw the Fox article where Trump says this AM he had declassified all. Assuming he did, there should be very clear documentation of that, correct? Surely our declassification procedures require some level of documentation?


Explain how any of that answers my questions that I've had other than he said he said argument?? This piece reads just like anything CNN puts out regarding Trump.
LOL, Fox had an article that said the same exact things, except it included his comments this morning.

Look you've been claiming Trump's approach was different (or may be different, pending the whole story being told).
Well, the Feds seem to disagree, at least as per their filing to the court. That could be smoke...time will tell, but IF it is true, isn't he just as guilty as her of trying to subterfuge the investigation by misleading and hiding.

And again, clearly it is a big IF, but it is what the Feds are saying in their court filing, not in a leak to the media.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.

A third obvious potential conclusion is that they investigate and end up with the exact same result they did with Hillary (and I think this is the likeliest outcome for Trump since it's the most common outcome of these cases generally).

Trump could be found to have been very careless and negligent with processes and document security, but not to the extent that warrant criminal charges.

In that case he and Hillary clearly did do many things wrong, but those things don't meet the bar for criminal charges.




I'm not sure what type of statute is there for record keeping process. I'm sure there should be a process, outlined by the each administration; however, I'm not sure the process has been set in law.
The Administrative State - Rise of the Fourth Reich!!
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
7 years of smoke........what's one or two more. Do we ever take the time to consider WHY? Is it mean tweets or locker room talk?

"Well, the Feds seem to disagree, at least as per their filing to the court. That could be smoke...time will tell, but IF it is true, isn't he just as guilty as her of trying to subterfuge the investigation by misleading and hiding."
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.

A third obvious potential conclusion is that they investigate and end up with the exact same result they did with Hillary (and I think this is the likeliest outcome for Trump since it's the most common outcome of these cases generally).

Trump could be found to have been very careless and negligent with processes and document security, but not to the extent that warrant criminal charges.

In that case he and Hillary clearly did do many things wrong, but those things don't meet the bar for criminal charges.




I'm not sure what type of statute is there for record keeping process. I'm sure there should be a process, outlined by the each administration; however, I'm not sure the process has been set in law.
But surely any admin should be able to quickly and readily demonstrate when, where and how the POTUS declared documents non-con, right?
And the inability to do so, should reflect poorly on whomever the POTUS is.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.


Which takes it to point 2.

Not being politically expedient to prosecute isn't the same as politically motivated to pursue an investigation.

Trump is alleged to have had a bunch of privileged information that he couldn't or wouldn't return.

If true (and it is true unless the DOJ is completely fabricating evidence) there's a fairly obvious pragmatic need to figure out what exactly he has and why it wasn't returned when he left office OR in January 2022 when they turned over the first round of docs OR when he was subpoenaed in June of this year.

It's not hard to see the DOJ's practical need to understand what documents he still had and why he couldn't or wouldn't return them like he was supposed to and like his attorney stated on-record that he had in June.

It's also not hard to see how there could simultaneously be a need to know by the DOJ; malfeasance found; and still find that the malfeasance wasn't criminal.

The likeliest answer isn't that he's a spy or selling secrets, it's that as evidenced in so many other ways, when it comes to matters of administrative competence Trump is a moron. He had 18 months and made three unsuccessful attempts at returning the privileged docs, and also refused to allow the FBI access to his storage room in June, which could have potentially put the issue to bed without the raid, but instead didn't make the effort to complete the task adequately and with the security interests of the US in mind so the DOJ was forced to take action.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Switching topics, for you guys that lean to the right, I have a blind congressional candidate:

1. Fights for the forgotten little guy
2. Wants to bring/protect manufacturing jobs in America
3. Wants to bring back American Greatness and is America First
4. Is not an insider but is a hell raiser. Thinks that the establishment is ignoring his districts concerns.
5. Thinks there is over reach by the FBI
6. Is upset about the status of the Southern border
7. Is concerned about election integrity and thinks an election was stolen with illegal votes.

Would you vote for this guy?
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
I get the reason to distrust the source (cnn and/or justice dept), but the Justice Dept filing last night addresses some of your earlier questions, about why didn't they find more documents in June.
Also odd that the Trump lawyers wouldn't have claimed right away that these were de-classifed -- a statement which should have put a whole different light on this at that time.

Takeaways from the historic Justice Department court filing on the Mar-a-Lago search - CNNPolitics

No different than a month ago -- this still has to play out, and either/both sides could be misleading both the public and the courts....but IF true - ie, he hid / misled, this makes what Trump did every bit as bad as what that crook HRC did.

ETA: Saw the Fox article where Trump says this AM he had declassified all. Assuming he did, there should be very clear documentation of that, correct? Surely our declassification procedures require some level of documentation?


Explain how any of that answers my questions that I've had other than he said he said argument?? This piece reads just like anything CNN puts out regarding Trump.
LOL, Fox had an article that said the same exact things, except it included his comments this morning.

Look you've been claiming Trump's approach was different (or may be different, pending the whole story being told).
Well, the Feds seem to disagree, at least as per their filing to the court. That could be smoke...time will tell, but IF it is true, isn't he just as guilty as her of trying to subterfuge the investigation by misleading and hiding.

And again, clearly it is a big IF, but it is what the Feds are saying in their court filing, not in a leak to the media.


I don't read Fox either but thanks for the assumption. Show me where I said Trump handled things differently. I'm pretty sure my harping had been in the process in which the Feds have handled things. Go back and read my breakdown of the two scenarios and the results of where are at.

Both handed over materials they thought to be relevant. In both cases the Feds asked to see more. In one case, the rest of the evidence was destroyed and the feds decided there was nothing else to see. In the other case, they raided the house and are claiming they had an informant to do so.

As I said before, both are guilty of mishandling info. But, if you can't see the difference in the way the feds have handled, then I don't know what to tell you.

I will tell you there is a big difference in papers being locked in the house of a former president that is secured by the Secret Service. Versus thousands of emails in a private server on a personal computer using a personal email.

One more thing, if this is such a buttoned up investigation that is of the utmost high level of sensitivity, why is the NY Times getting info left and right and why is Liz Cheney and others showing pictures of top secret documents spread around the floor from the investigation? Do we usually put pics of top secrets documents on social media for everyone to see?
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.
there's a 3rd option and it's the option that Hillary got - it is not politically expedient to prosecute the wrong doing. Which is what I think will happen.


Which takes it to point 2.

Not being politically expedient to prosecute isn't the same as politically motivated to pursue an investigation.

Trump is alleged to have had a bunch of privileged information that he couldn't or wouldn't return.

If true (and it is true unless the DOJ is completely fabricating evidence) there's a fairly obvious pragmatic need to figure out what exactly he has and why it wasn't returned when he left office OR in January 2022 when they turned over the first round of docs OR when he was subpoenaed in June of this year.

It's not hard to see the DOJ's practical need to understand what documents he still had and why he couldn't or wouldn't return them like he was supposed to and like his attorney stated on-record that he had in June.

It's also not hard to see how there could simultaneously be a need to know by the DOJ; malfeasance found; and still find that the malfeasance wasn't criminal.

The likeliest answer isn't that he's a spy or selling secrets, it's that as evidenced in so many other ways, when it comes to matters of administrative competence Trump is a moron. He had 18 months and made three unsuccessful attempts at returning the privileged docs, and also refused to allow the FBI access to his storage room in June, which could have potentially put the issue to bed without the raid, but instead didn't make the effort to complete the task adequately and with the security interests of the US in mind so the DOJ was forced to take action.


Got it, so he would've been better off burning everything he had in a fire by the pool in his back yard. That way nothing further would've happened. Go it!
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Switching topics, for you guys that lean to the right, I have a blind congressional candidate:

1. Fights for the forgotten little guy
2. Wants to bring/protect manufacturing jobs in America
3. Wants to bring back American Greatness and is America First
4. Is not an insider but is a hell raiser. Thinks that the establishment is ignoring his districts concerns.
5. Thinks there is over reach by the FBI
6. Is upset about the status of the Southern border
7. Is concerned about election integrity and thinks an election was stolen with illegal votes.

Would you vote for this guy?

Need more information. Some of the most important issues not covered. Does he support the Second Amendment, or does he support the Left's gun ban agenda? For or against abortion? For or against the insane transgender agenda and drag queen shows for school children? For or against mandating the covid vaxx? For or against lockdowns during another fake pandemic? For or against massive debt and spending that is causing inflation?
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Quote:

The press secretary's comment likening Republicans to extremists comes as part of a wave of polarizing language from the White House. Last week, Biden compared the philosophy of MAGA Republicans to "semi-fascism."

Jean-Pierre defended Biden's comments as a press briefing on Friday, saying, "what MAGA Republicans have done…You look at the definition of fascism and you think about what they're doing in attacking our democracy, what they're doing in taking away our freedoms, taking away our rights, our voting rights. That is what that is."

Over the weekend, a local GOP office in Seminole County, Fla., was vandalized with a vulgar message reading "Eat sh** fascists," just days after Biden accused Republicans of "semi-fascism."
Way to go, President Unity!!
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I'm predicting SADS or her suicide.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?



US diplomat struck and killed by truck while riding bike
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-employee-fatally-struck-flatbed-truck-riding/story?id=88935019

ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-employee-fatally-struck-flatbed-truck-riding/story?id=88935019)
US diplomat struck and killed by truck while riding bike
Sarah Langenkamp is the second State Department employee to be struck and killed while biking this summer.


NOTHING TO SEE HERE.........now MOVE ALONG
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GuerrillaPack said:

hokiewolf said:

Switching topics, for you guys that lean to the right, I have a blind congressional candidate:

1. Fights for the forgotten little guy
2. Wants to bring/protect manufacturing jobs in America
3. Wants to bring back American Greatness and is America First
4. Is not an insider but is a hell raiser. Thinks that the establishment is ignoring his districts concerns.
5. Thinks there is over reach by the FBI
6. Is upset about the status of the Southern border
7. Is concerned about election integrity and thinks an election was stolen with illegal votes.

Would you vote for this guy?

Need more information. Some of the most important issues not covered. Does he support the Second Amendment, or does he support the Left's gun ban agenda? For or against abortion? For or against the insane transgender agenda and drag queen shows for school children? For or against mandating the covid vaxx? For or against lockdowns during another fake pandemic? For or against massive debt and spending that is causing inflation?
those are the top 7 issues for him. Seem like a viable candidate?
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:




Definitely don't want to be in a first or second degree of deportation with them. She should run again!
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.

A third obvious potential conclusion is that they investigate and end up with the exact same result they did with Hillary (and I think this is the likeliest outcome for Trump since it's the most common outcome of these cases generally).

Trump could be found to have been very careless and negligent with processes and document security, but not to the extent that warrant criminal charges.

In that case he and Hillary clearly did do many things wrong, but those things don't meet the bar for criminal charges.




I'm not sure what type of statute is there for record keeping process. I'm sure there should be a process, outlined by the each administration; however, I'm not sure the process has been set in law.
But surely any admin should be able to quickly and readily demonstrate when, where and how the POTUS declared documents non-con, right?
And the inability to do so, should reflect poorly on whomever the POTUS is.
You would think…

That said, as I understand it, the President can "Wave his Hand" over a stack of documents and make them declassified. So, if the staff isn't keeping up with a process, then that's on them. I've said it before, this hs nothing to do with these documents. It's EXACTLY the same thing as the Russiagate ordeal!
The Administrative State - Rise of the Fourth Reich!!
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

GuerrillaPack said:

hokiewolf said:

Switching topics, for you guys that lean to the right, I have a blind congressional candidate:

1. Fights for the forgotten little guy
2. Wants to bring/protect manufacturing jobs in America
3. Wants to bring back American Greatness and is America First
4. Is not an insider but is a hell raiser. Thinks that the establishment is ignoring his districts concerns.
5. Thinks there is over reach by the FBI
6. Is upset about the status of the Southern border
7. Is concerned about election integrity and thinks an election was stolen with illegal votes.

Would you vote for this guy?

Need more information. Some of the most important issues not covered. Does he support the Second Amendment, or does he support the Left's gun ban agenda? For or against abortion? For or against the insane transgender agenda and drag queen shows for school children? For or against mandating the covid vaxx? For or against lockdowns during another fake pandemic? For or against massive debt and spending that is causing inflation?
those are the top 7 issues for him. Seem like a viable candidate?
Hokie, to answer your question… Yes, this person appears viable. Now, GP is correct with understanding more about the persons policies. So, yes, I like those points; however, tell us more…
The Administrative State - Rise of the Fourth Reich!!
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

GuerrillaPack said:

hokiewolf said:

Switching topics, for you guys that lean to the right, I have a blind congressional candidate:

1. Fights for the forgotten little guy
2. Wants to bring/protect manufacturing jobs in America
3. Wants to bring back American Greatness and is America First
4. Is not an insider but is a hell raiser. Thinks that the establishment is ignoring his districts concerns.
5. Thinks there is over reach by the FBI
6. Is upset about the status of the Southern border
7. Is concerned about election integrity and thinks an election was stolen with illegal votes.

Would you vote for this guy?

Need more information. Some of the most important issues not covered. Does he support the Second Amendment, or does he support the Left's gun ban agenda? For or against abortion? For or against the insane transgender agenda and drag queen shows for school children? For or against mandating the covid vaxx? For or against lockdowns during another fake pandemic? For or against massive debt and spending that is causing inflation?
those are the top 7 issues for him. Seem like a viable candidate?
Hokie, to answer your question… Yes, this person appears viable. Now, GP is correct with understanding more about the persons policies. So, yes, I like those points; however, tell us more…
Sure, you just elected 1984 James Anthony Traficant Jr. Congrats!
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Packchem91 said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

I guess it goes back to my question regarding Trumps rhetoric toward Hillary. It could be viewed as a political hit. If you don't think Trump will be brought up on charges, it only leaves 2 conclusions. 1. He did nothing wrong. 2. This is all politically motivated.

A third obvious potential conclusion is that they investigate and end up with the exact same result they did with Hillary (and I think this is the likeliest outcome for Trump since it's the most common outcome of these cases generally).

Trump could be found to have been very careless and negligent with processes and document security, but not to the extent that warrant criminal charges.

In that case he and Hillary clearly did do many things wrong, but those things don't meet the bar for criminal charges.




I'm not sure what type of statute is there for record keeping process. I'm sure there should be a process, outlined by the each administration; however, I'm not sure the process has been set in law.
But surely any admin should be able to quickly and readily demonstrate when, where and how the POTUS declared documents non-con, right?
And the inability to do so, should reflect poorly on whomever the POTUS is.
You would think…

That said, as I understand it, the President can "Wave his Hand" over a stack of documents and make them declassified. So, if the staff isn't keeping up with a process, then that's on them. I've said it before, this hs nothing to do with these documents. It's EXACTLY the same thing as the Russiagate ordeal!

Cary if Presidents aren't responsible for the actions of their staff then Hillary's not responsible for her staffer deleting the 30,000 emails.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.