Did it come out that the so-called transaction happened in 2017? If true, how can this be election rigging?packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Are you sure the feds didn't just shelf a Trump indictment because he was a sitting president? What did Michael Cohen do 13 months in prison for, again? 4 years before Bragg was elected to office!packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:Trump was all like “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.” which is exactly how laws are supposed to work you dipshit
— Liam Nissan™ (@theliamnissan) June 1, 2024
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE CULTISTS IN THE BACK
So we can expect NY to go after Hilary next for funding the dossier and recording the funding as a legal expense. It was clearly intended to influence the 2016 federal election.
I've said a million times I do not care. Go after whoever you want.
Either they're crooked and we clean it up, or you look like idiots for repeatedly pursuing cases with weak or no good evidence and the legally spurious behavior corrects itself.
Neither of those outcomes harm America one iota.
You posted a tweet to take a dig at Trump and Republican supporters. Then you deflect with a bs reply when confronted with the fact the NY legal charges will not be brought against Clinton who did the same thing.
Who are you referring to by "go after whoever you want"? My reply wasn't talking about me, it was talking about the NY AG. Keep deflecting, it's what you do best.
You guys are completely and totally unable to discern what "same thing" means in any legal or practical terms that survive even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
So no, the NY AG will not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton.
Because most importantly what she did and what Trump did to cover up hush money payments to keep his illicit sexual affair secret are not remotely the same thing, and for multiple other reasons.
But I am totally hoping that over the next few years Republican DA's try to bring a bunch of lawsuits against Democratic political figures. Them doing so will absolutely be win-win for us all.
They are actually the same thing. What's interesting is the FEC found Clinton guilty and it ended up as a fine. The FEC said what Trump did is not a crime, but Bragg and the Biden's # 3 DOJ lawyer came up with bs charges.
They didn't charge due to lack of evidence/findings (reasonable doubt).
"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign "knowingly and willfully" violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/
I thought it was interesting, but not relevant to the discussion about NY AG not going after Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton committed the same accounting misdemeanors. Clinton's intentions were clear.
I think you're confusing the feds that put Cohen in jail with the FEC, a partisan Republican committee that very surprisingly stamped "nothing to see here" on their report.
First paragraph of the linked article:
" The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election."
This was discussed in the media leading up to and during the Trump trial (not just right wing media). Surprised you are unaware.
TRUMP 2024
465,493 Views |
6138 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Werewolf
Again, the FEC, a body that was at the time 4-2 tilted in favor of Republicans (with an "independent") did an "investigation" that concluded that Cohen had already done his time and something something something... I think you're confusing them with law enforcement, who did an actual investigation, threw Cohen in jail, and very much would have indicted Trump had he not been the sitting President.packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Are you sure the feds didn't just shelf a Trump indictment because he was a sitting president? What did Michael Cohen do 13 months in prison for, again? 4 years before Bragg was elected to office!packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:Trump was all like “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.” which is exactly how laws are supposed to work you dipshit
— Liam Nissan™ (@theliamnissan) June 1, 2024
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE CULTISTS IN THE BACK
So we can expect NY to go after Hilary next for funding the dossier and recording the funding as a legal expense. It was clearly intended to influence the 2016 federal election.
I've said a million times I do not care. Go after whoever you want.
Either they're crooked and we clean it up, or you look like idiots for repeatedly pursuing cases with weak or no good evidence and the legally spurious behavior corrects itself.
Neither of those outcomes harm America one iota.
You posted a tweet to take a dig at Trump and Republican supporters. Then you deflect with a bs reply when confronted with the fact the NY legal charges will not be brought against Clinton who did the same thing.
Who are you referring to by "go after whoever you want"? My reply wasn't talking about me, it was talking about the NY AG. Keep deflecting, it's what you do best.
You guys are completely and totally unable to discern what "same thing" means in any legal or practical terms that survive even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
So no, the NY AG will not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton.
Because most importantly what she did and what Trump did to cover up hush money payments to keep his illicit sexual affair secret are not remotely the same thing, and for multiple other reasons.
But I am totally hoping that over the next few years Republican DA's try to bring a bunch of lawsuits against Democratic political figures. Them doing so will absolutely be win-win for us all.
They are actually the same thing. What's interesting is the FEC found Clinton guilty and it ended up as a fine. The FEC said what Trump did is not a crime, but Bragg and the Biden's # 3 DOJ lawyer came up with bs charges.
They didn't charge due to lack of evidence/findings (reasonable doubt).
"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign "knowingly and willfully" violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/
I thought it was interesting, but not relevant to the discussion about NY AG not going after Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton committed the same accounting misdemeanors. Clinton's intentions were clear.
I think you're confusing the feds that put Cohen in jail with the FEC, a partisan Republican committee that very surprisingly stamped "nothing to see here" on their report.
First paragraph of the linked article:
" The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election."
This was discussed in the media leading up to and during the Trump trial (not just right wing media). Surprised you are unaware.
That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier.
By all means, why don't you guys try to bring actual charges against Hillary? Is your contention that they would, but Republicans are just too high minded to go after political opponents? LOL!
SmaptyWolf said:Again, the FEC, a body that was at the time 4-2 tilted in favor of Republicans (with an "independent") did an "investigation" that concluded that Cohen had already done his time and something something something... I think you're confusing them with law enforcement, who did an actual investigation, threw Cohen in jail, and very much would have indicted Trump had he not been the sitting President.packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Are you sure the feds didn't just shelf a Trump indictment because he was a sitting president? What did Michael Cohen do 13 months in prison for, again? 4 years before Bragg was elected to office!packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:Trump was all like “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.” which is exactly how laws are supposed to work you dipshit
— Liam Nissan™ (@theliamnissan) June 1, 2024
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE CULTISTS IN THE BACK
So we can expect NY to go after Hilary next for funding the dossier and recording the funding as a legal expense. It was clearly intended to influence the 2016 federal election.
I've said a million times I do not care. Go after whoever you want.
Either they're crooked and we clean it up, or you look like idiots for repeatedly pursuing cases with weak or no good evidence and the legally spurious behavior corrects itself.
Neither of those outcomes harm America one iota.
You posted a tweet to take a dig at Trump and Republican supporters. Then you deflect with a bs reply when confronted with the fact the NY legal charges will not be brought against Clinton who did the same thing.
Who are you referring to by "go after whoever you want"? My reply wasn't talking about me, it was talking about the NY AG. Keep deflecting, it's what you do best.
You guys are completely and totally unable to discern what "same thing" means in any legal or practical terms that survive even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
So no, the NY AG will not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton.
Because most importantly what she did and what Trump did to cover up hush money payments to keep his illicit sexual affair secret are not remotely the same thing, and for multiple other reasons.
But I am totally hoping that over the next few years Republican DA's try to bring a bunch of lawsuits against Democratic political figures. Them doing so will absolutely be win-win for us all.
They are actually the same thing. What's interesting is the FEC found Clinton guilty and it ended up as a fine. The FEC said what Trump did is not a crime, but Bragg and the Biden's # 3 DOJ lawyer came up with bs charges.
They didn't charge due to lack of evidence/findings (reasonable doubt).
"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign "knowingly and willfully" violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/
I thought it was interesting, but not relevant to the discussion about NY AG not going after Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton committed the same accounting misdemeanors. Clinton's intentions were clear.
I think you're confusing the feds that put Cohen in jail with the FEC, a partisan Republican committee that very surprisingly stamped "nothing to see here" on their report.
First paragraph of the linked article:
" The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election."
This was discussed in the media leading up to and during the Trump trial (not just right wing media). Surprised you are unaware.
That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier.
By all means, why don't you guys try to bring actual charges against Hillary? Is your contention that they would, but Republicans are just too high minded to go after political opponents? LOL!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html
"F.E.C. Drops Case Reviewing Trump Hush-Money Payments to Women
The case had examined whether Donald Trump violated election law with a $130,000 payment shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The Federal Election Commission said on Thursday that it had formally dropped a case looking into whether former President Donald J. Trump violated election law with a payment of $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer at the time, Michael D. Cohen."
Your response "That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier." The misdemeanor charge against Hilary is the same misdemeanor charge Bragg brought against Trump. Good to hear you agree the charges are nonsense.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLvbujcX/
Dave Smith calls it what it is. The left has gone so bat**** crazy comedians are calling them out. Dave Smith, a known libertarian, has always been a harsh critic of Trump. Unlike the cultists here that are just completely overrun with TDS and have zero capability to see what brainwashed idiots they look like, Dave clearly sees how bat**** crazy this case was, how bat**** crazy the left is, and even calls the intelligence agencies out for framing Trump before. TDS boys are going to have a fit if they listen to this.
Who am I kidding? Those sheep won't listen. It's not approved messaging from their overlords.
Cultists.
Dave Smith calls it what it is. The left has gone so bat**** crazy comedians are calling them out. Dave Smith, a known libertarian, has always been a harsh critic of Trump. Unlike the cultists here that are just completely overrun with TDS and have zero capability to see what brainwashed idiots they look like, Dave clearly sees how bat**** crazy this case was, how bat**** crazy the left is, and even calls the intelligence agencies out for framing Trump before. TDS boys are going to have a fit if they listen to this.
Who am I kidding? Those sheep won't listen. It's not approved messaging from their overlords.
Cultists.
Mike Tyson talked about having dinner with President Trump, Melania and Barron: “…Barron is so smart… You know that?…This guy is on top of his game…”
— ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể (@TheThe1776) March 20, 2024
Happy 18th birthday Barron🥳❤️ pic.twitter.com/BESOOZvNIw
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Again, the FEC, a body that was at the time 4-2 tilted in favor of Republicans (with an "independent") did an "investigation" that concluded that Cohen had already done his time and something something something... I think you're confusing them with law enforcement, who did an actual investigation, threw Cohen in jail, and very much would have indicted Trump had he not been the sitting President.packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Are you sure the feds didn't just shelf a Trump indictment because he was a sitting president? What did Michael Cohen do 13 months in prison for, again? 4 years before Bragg was elected to office!packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:Trump was all like “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.” which is exactly how laws are supposed to work you dipshit
— Liam Nissan™ (@theliamnissan) June 1, 2024
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE CULTISTS IN THE BACK
So we can expect NY to go after Hilary next for funding the dossier and recording the funding as a legal expense. It was clearly intended to influence the 2016 federal election.
I've said a million times I do not care. Go after whoever you want.
Either they're crooked and we clean it up, or you look like idiots for repeatedly pursuing cases with weak or no good evidence and the legally spurious behavior corrects itself.
Neither of those outcomes harm America one iota.
You posted a tweet to take a dig at Trump and Republican supporters. Then you deflect with a bs reply when confronted with the fact the NY legal charges will not be brought against Clinton who did the same thing.
Who are you referring to by "go after whoever you want"? My reply wasn't talking about me, it was talking about the NY AG. Keep deflecting, it's what you do best.
You guys are completely and totally unable to discern what "same thing" means in any legal or practical terms that survive even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
So no, the NY AG will not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton.
Because most importantly what she did and what Trump did to cover up hush money payments to keep his illicit sexual affair secret are not remotely the same thing, and for multiple other reasons.
But I am totally hoping that over the next few years Republican DA's try to bring a bunch of lawsuits against Democratic political figures. Them doing so will absolutely be win-win for us all.
They are actually the same thing. What's interesting is the FEC found Clinton guilty and it ended up as a fine. The FEC said what Trump did is not a crime, but Bragg and the Biden's # 3 DOJ lawyer came up with bs charges.
They didn't charge due to lack of evidence/findings (reasonable doubt).
"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign "knowingly and willfully" violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/
I thought it was interesting, but not relevant to the discussion about NY AG not going after Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton committed the same accounting misdemeanors. Clinton's intentions were clear.
I think you're confusing the feds that put Cohen in jail with the FEC, a partisan Republican committee that very surprisingly stamped "nothing to see here" on their report.
First paragraph of the linked article:
" The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election."
This was discussed in the media leading up to and during the Trump trial (not just right wing media). Surprised you are unaware.
That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier.
By all means, why don't you guys try to bring actual charges against Hillary? Is your contention that they would, but Republicans are just too high minded to go after political opponents? LOL!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html
"F.E.C. Drops Case Reviewing Trump Hush-Money Payments to Women
The case had examined whether Donald Trump violated election law with a $130,000 payment shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The Federal Election Commission said on Thursday that it had formally dropped a case looking into whether former President Donald J. Trump violated election law with a payment of $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer at the time, Michael D. Cohen."
Your response "That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier." The misdemeanor charge against Hilary is the same misdemeanor charge Bragg brought against Trump. Good to hear you agree the charges are nonsense.
The Trump admin definitely worked overtime to try to make things go away, using a newly tilted FEC and of course Bill Barr... for those of you who bawl about the abuse of the Justice Dept you should take a closer look at the chicanery of that era.
But anyway, no... a gotcha clerical error is not the same thing as trying to hide a hush money payment for the purposes of affecting an upcoming election. And unfortunately for Trump, the FEC couldn't make NY state law go away.
SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Again, the FEC, a body that was at the time 4-2 tilted in favor of Republicans (with an "independent") did an "investigation" that concluded that Cohen had already done his time and something something something... I think you're confusing them with law enforcement, who did an actual investigation, threw Cohen in jail, and very much would have indicted Trump had he not been the sitting President.packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:Are you sure the feds didn't just shelf a Trump indictment because he was a sitting president? What did Michael Cohen do 13 months in prison for, again? 4 years before Bragg was elected to office!packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:Trump was all like “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.” which is exactly how laws are supposed to work you dipshit
— Liam Nissan™ (@theliamnissan) June 1, 2024
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE CULTISTS IN THE BACK
So we can expect NY to go after Hilary next for funding the dossier and recording the funding as a legal expense. It was clearly intended to influence the 2016 federal election.
I've said a million times I do not care. Go after whoever you want.
Either they're crooked and we clean it up, or you look like idiots for repeatedly pursuing cases with weak or no good evidence and the legally spurious behavior corrects itself.
Neither of those outcomes harm America one iota.
You posted a tweet to take a dig at Trump and Republican supporters. Then you deflect with a bs reply when confronted with the fact the NY legal charges will not be brought against Clinton who did the same thing.
Who are you referring to by "go after whoever you want"? My reply wasn't talking about me, it was talking about the NY AG. Keep deflecting, it's what you do best.
You guys are completely and totally unable to discern what "same thing" means in any legal or practical terms that survive even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
So no, the NY AG will not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton.
Because most importantly what she did and what Trump did to cover up hush money payments to keep his illicit sexual affair secret are not remotely the same thing, and for multiple other reasons.
But I am totally hoping that over the next few years Republican DA's try to bring a bunch of lawsuits against Democratic political figures. Them doing so will absolutely be win-win for us all.
They are actually the same thing. What's interesting is the FEC found Clinton guilty and it ended up as a fine. The FEC said what Trump did is not a crime, but Bragg and the Biden's # 3 DOJ lawyer came up with bs charges.
They didn't charge due to lack of evidence/findings (reasonable doubt).
"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign "knowingly and willfully" violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/
I thought it was interesting, but not relevant to the discussion about NY AG not going after Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton committed the same accounting misdemeanors. Clinton's intentions were clear.
I think you're confusing the feds that put Cohen in jail with the FEC, a partisan Republican committee that very surprisingly stamped "nothing to see here" on their report.
First paragraph of the linked article:
" The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election."
This was discussed in the media leading up to and during the Trump trial (not just right wing media). Surprised you are unaware.
That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier.
By all means, why don't you guys try to bring actual charges against Hillary? Is your contention that they would, but Republicans are just too high minded to go after political opponents? LOL!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html
"F.E.C. Drops Case Reviewing Trump Hush-Money Payments to Women
The case had examined whether Donald Trump violated election law with a $130,000 payment shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The Federal Election Commission said on Thursday that it had formally dropped a case looking into whether former President Donald J. Trump violated election law with a payment of $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer at the time, Michael D. Cohen."
Your response "That same FEC, btw, are the ones who fined Clinton for some nonsense surrounding the Steele dossier." The misdemeanor charge against Hilary is the same misdemeanor charge Bragg brought against Trump. Good to hear you agree the charges are nonsense.
The Trump admin definitely worked overtime to try to make things go away, using a newly tilted FEC and of course Bill Barr... for those of you who bawl about the abuse of the Justice Dept you should take a closer look at the chicanery of that era.
But anyway, no... a gotcha clerical error is not the same thing as trying to hide a hush money payment for the purposes of affecting an upcoming election. And unfortunately for Trump, the FEC couldn't make NY state law go away.
Toe that Libby line! Ridiculous response!
Clinton *and* her campaign funded the dossier which was intended to impact the election. Their accounting filed it as a legal expense. That IS a misdemeanor. No dispute.
Trump personally paid hush money (not with his campaign) and filed as a legal expense. The question is if it was for personal reason and/or for the election. Again, a misdemeanor if for the election.
Hilary got a fine by the FEC.
Trump's was dismissed by FEC. NY AG went after him for the EXACT SAME misdemeanor as Hilary, but with bs felony upgrade.
When NY AG goes after Hilary for the exact same criminal issue, there will be no argument. Until then, it is a politically motivated case (where the NY AG campaigned on getting Trump).
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
You must be referring to this article, about 6% charge rate (higher than Trump's which is 0%).
https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form
I will be surprised if a plea deal doesn't happen. Not the sweetheart one he wanted where he would be immune from any future investigations/charges.
After the special prosecutor let the statute of limitations run out on Hunter's 2014 and 2015 tax evasion, I guess the horseshoe finally fell out of Hunter's ass.
Much like Trump, when you play with matches, eventually you'll get burned.SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
hokiewolf said:Much like Trump, when you play with matches, eventually you'll get burned.SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
Applies to anyone, yes?
But it doesn't apply to bs charges (that will be overturned). I know, we will never agree on that one.
packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
You must be referring to this article, about 6% charge rate (higher than Trump's which is 0%).
https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form
I will be surprised if a plea deal doesn't happen. Not the sweetheart one he wanted where he would be immune from any future investigations/charges.
After the special prosecutor let the statute of limitations run out on Hunter's 2014 and 2015 tax evasion, I guess the horseshoe finally fell out of Hunter's ass.
Why do you care so much about Hunter Biden being charged? You suuuuuuuuuure it's not a political prosecution?
SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
You must be referring to this article, about 6% charge rate (higher than Trump's which is 0%).
https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form
I will be surprised if a plea deal doesn't happen. Not the sweetheart one he wanted where he would be immune from any future investigations/charges.
After the special prosecutor let the statute of limitations run out on Hunter's 2014 and 2015 tax evasion, I guess the horseshoe finally fell out of Hunter's ass.
Why do you care so much about Hunter Biden? You suuuuuuuuuure it's not a political prosecution?
Politics is what brings exposure to Hunter's charges. He evaded taxes (on the order of millions) for multiple years. If he played within the existing rules for taxes (which many wealthy people do), I would have no issue with it. That's up to the government/IRS to change the rules, close loopholes, etc. But that wasn't the case with Hunter. He just evaded taxes. If his name was John Smith, I would feel the same way about it. Although we know John Smith would already be in jail.
California sheriff says he’s changing teams:
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 1, 2024
“I think it’s time we put a felon in the White House. Trump 2024 baby. Let’s save this country and make America great again.”
Let’s go team America-First!pic.twitter.com/5rCrvgPZn2
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Let's remind ourselves of the balls it took to kick the door in several years ago. He knew what he faced. I promise you, he's got help. Whether the transition occurs without this becoming public knowledge or not I don't know. #WeGotThis #thePause #devolution #TheGreatAwakening #WWG1WGA
With hashtags like #ConvictedFelonTrump trending, I figured I would share this oldie and goodie. Trump woke us up to fake news in his own way like Alex Jones. The Infowars is a real thing! pic.twitter.com/LoJ1L1TA6w
— ThatGirlCasey☄️ (@ThatGirlCasey1) June 2, 2024
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
I'm guessing this might be too complicated for a handful of you here.
#ConvictedFelonTrump #Trump2024 pic.twitter.com/m4SfGB4YoN
— Susan H selfish CO2 emitter (@yepsuzn) June 2, 2024
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
LOL. More what? More trolling by you? I've been paying more attention than you give me credit for... and I remember the other 2-3 times you showed up here over the past year or so... it's about like Civ calling himself an "Independent".WolfpackUSC said:TheStorm said:Yes he did... he's been trolling ever since he showed up here.ncsupack1 said:WolfpackUSC said:
No you didn't…lol. It's popcorn time…
As Were says daily: pay attention, more is coming
But please continue - I'm enjoying the entertainment.
Republicans could really lock this up now if they get the Vice President pick correct. Hint: It has to be someone that could actually be President if ever needed to be... not window dressing.
Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
TheStorm said:LOL. More what? More trolling by you? I've been paying more attention than you give me credit for... and I remember the other 2-3 times you showed up here over the past year or so... it's about like Civ calling himself an "Independent".WolfpackUSC said:TheStorm said:Yes he did... he's been trolling ever since he showed up here.ncsupack1 said:WolfpackUSC said:
No you didn't…lol. It's popcorn time…
As Were says daily: pay attention, more is coming
But please continue - I'm enjoying the entertainment.
Thank you, and I will
By the way, the sun came up and we still have our freedom!
grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD itself is what has already caused ("allowed") the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
Regardless of what Trump meant, it's ridiculous to think that Trump is some kind of "threat" to "terminating" the Constitution. It's the communist Democrats who are OPEN enemies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- foaming at the mouth 24/7/365 to doing everything they can to destroy the 2nd Amendment and to censoring and suppressing the free speech of conservatives.
So...Democrats are crying crocodile tears here pretending to actually care about the Constitution. Democrats don't give a rats ass about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They piss on it. They call it an "outdated document written by racist old white men, that doesn't apply to today's world" -- and because they dismiss the Founders as "just a bunch of racist white men", they now say that this justifies them doing away with gun rights and freedom of speech.
I've been very critical of Trump over and over on these forums for being just another RINO, who conned conservatives. I generally support his stance on the issues, but the massive problem is that when he was in office he usually did the exact opposite of what he promised he would do, betraying conservatives. So what he says turns out to be largely empty rhetoric, used just to trick conservatives into supporting him. But I support him over Biden because the communist Democrats are the open enemies of the United States, the Constitution, and the American people. So it's a choice of the lesser of two evils.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
It can't be interpreted in "a couple ways". There's zero gray area here. The fact that you can't just admit that what he said was indefensible says everything about you.GuerrillaPack said:grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD is what has "allowed" the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
And sure, after Trump receives the push-back from his Tweet (or Truth...or whatever), he does what he always does and claims he either didn't say something...or didn't mean it...or whatever, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
Well, you can't deny that fact that Trump himself is claiming that the tweet is being misinterpreted. Tweets are limited to 280 characters. You can't type out a full explanation of a position with a 280 character limit. Perhaps Trump didn't explain his position too well? Trump hasn't doubled down since that tweet and said "Yes, I do support terminating the Constitution", did he? If he openly supports "terminating" the Constitution, then why won't he say it again, over and over, and reinforce such a position??grantwolf said:It can't be interpreted in "a couple ways". There's zero gray area here. The fact that you can't just admit that what he said was indefensible says everything about you.GuerrillaPack said:grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD is what has "allowed" the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
And sure, after Trump receives the push-back from his Tweet (or Truth...or whatever), he does what he always does and claims he either didn't say something...or didn't mean it...or whatever, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
Look, dude, you can't deny that I'm willing and able to criticize Trump. I'm not a cult member like you communist Democrats who can NEVER criticize the senile kid sniffer for anything he does -- including sniffing and groping young girls over and over on camera.
If Trump actually is in favor of "terminating" the Constitution, then I disagree with him.
Do YOU condemn the communist Democrat party for waging open war on the Constitution on a daily basis, working 24/7/365 to destroy the 2nd Amendment?? Do you condemn the Democrats for constantly working to censor and suppress the free speech of conservatives, including Biden working with Big Tech to have them censor those who opposed the official narrative on covid on social media?
Do you actually support the Constitution at all?? Why are you pretending to care about the Constitution?
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:packofwolves said:SmaptyWolf said:
Show of hands! How many MAGA folks are OUTRAGED about Hunter Biden's upcoming trial next month? He's facing felony gun charges that no prosecutor in America has ever even heard of being charged before.
Weird, I wonder why? Given how much you guys obviously care about political prosecutions, I'm definitely scratching my head here.
You must be referring to this article, about 6% charge rate (higher than Trump's which is 0%).
https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form
I will be surprised if a plea deal doesn't happen. Not the sweetheart one he wanted where he would be immune from any future investigations/charges.
After the special prosecutor let the statute of limitations run out on Hunter's 2014 and 2015 tax evasion, I guess the horseshoe finally fell out of Hunter's ass.
Why do you care so much about Hunter Biden? You suuuuuuuuuure it's not a political prosecution?
Politics is what brings exposure to Hunter's charges. He evaded taxes (on the order of millions) for multiple years. If he played within the existing rules for taxes (which many wealthy people do), I would have no issue with it. That's up to the government/IRS to change the rules, close loopholes, etc. But that wasn't the case with Hunter. He just evaded taxes. If his name was John Smith, I would feel the same way about it. Although we know John Smith would already be in jail.
Uh huh.
Incidentally, the whole slippery slope argument cracks me up... "If Trump is convicted then Republicans will be forced to retaliate with their own political prosecutions! Think of the country! Think of the children!"
You guys have been doing political prosecutions for so long I don't even think you're aware of it anymore... it's just how you do politics. Maybe they just don't count in your mind because there's never any actual evidence, and they mostly just serve the purpose of making Dems seem shady.
Can you remember the last Dem politician you didn't try to politically prosecute? Literally your entire worldview is a mish mosh of conspiracy theories about all of the Dems that need to be brought to justice for their many secret crimes.
Projection. Like the completely bogus and made up "muh Russia and muh Putin stole the 2016 election".SmaptyWolf said:
Literally your entire worldview is a mish mosh of conspiracy theories about all of the Dems that need to be brought to justice for their many secret crimes.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
The communist Democrats are committing REAL crimes. REAL conspiracies. Like conspiring all over the country and across all levels of government to destroy the 2nd Amendment and gun rights of Americans. And coordinating MASSIVE levels of election fraud to rig and steal elections. And illegally trying to mandate that people take injections of mystery substances or lose their jobs.SmaptyWolf said:
Literally your entire worldview is a mish mosh of conspiracy theories about all of the Dems that need to be brought to justice for their many secret crimes.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
has to be someone living outside of FloridaTheStorm said:
Republicans could really lock this up now if they get the Vice President pick correct. Hint: It has to be someone that could actually be President if ever needed to be... not window dressing.
I see the moron Trump actually went on Fox and claimed he never said the whole "lock her up" thing. I mean he's on tape multiple years saying exactly that. Let me guess, you cult members believe him too.
Who cares what is said about 2020, at this point? Everyone knows we had shenanigans; however, we aren't going backwards to fix the results; rather, we absolutely need to clean up the things that need cleaning and do a reasonable election this time.GuerrillaPack said:Well, you can't deny that fact that Trump himself is claiming that the tweet is being misinterpreted. Tweets are limited to 280 characters. You can't type out a full explanation of a position with a 280 character limit. Perhaps Trump didn't explain his position too well? Trump hasn't doubled down since that tweet and said "Yes, I do support terminating the Constitution", did he? If he openly supports "terminating" the Constitution, then why won't he say it again, over and over, and reinforce such a position??grantwolf said:It can't be interpreted in "a couple ways". There's zero gray area here. The fact that you can't just admit that what he said was indefensible says everything about you.GuerrillaPack said:grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD is what has "allowed" the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
And sure, after Trump receives the push-back from his Tweet (or Truth...or whatever), he does what he always does and claims he either didn't say something...or didn't mean it...or whatever, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
Look, dude, you can't deny that I'm willing and able to criticize Trump. I'm not a cult member like you communist Democrats who can NEVER criticize the senile kid sniffer for anything he does -- including sniffing and groping young girls over and over on camera.
If Trump actually is in favor of "terminating" the Constitution, then I disagree with him.
Do YOU condemn the communist Democrat party for waging open war on the Constitution on a daily basis, working 24/7/365 to destroy the 2nd Amendment?? Do you condemn the Democrats for constantly working to censor and suppress the free speech of conservatives, including Biden working with Big Tech to have them censor those who opposed the official narrative on covid on social media?
Do you actually support the Constitution at all?? Why are you pretending to care about the Constitution?
For that Trump is correct.
Right. Massive shenanigans, the proof of which doesn't exist, that resulted in 60-some failed lawsuits by Trump, and that somehow only served to hurt Trump and not down-ballot republicans.caryking said:
Who cares what is said about 2020, at this point? Everyone knows we had shenanigans; however, we aren't going backwards to fix the results; rather, we absolutely need to clean up the things that need cleaning and do a reasonable election this time.
grantwolf said:Right. Massive shenanigans, the proof of which doesn't exist, that resulted in 60-some failed lawsuits by Trump, and that somehow only served to hurt Trump and not down-ballot republicans.caryking said:
Who cares what is said about 2020, at this point? Everyone knows we had shenanigans; however, we aren't going backwards to fix the results; rather, we absolutely need to clean up the things that need cleaning and do a reasonable election this time.
Failed lawsuits by Trump, and successful criminal charges against many of the fake electors and other Trump-adjacent conspirators, and successful civil suits by Dominion already against Fox and likely against Rudy and Sid Powell, and now admittance in court by the 2000 Mules team they actually had zero evidence, and on and on.
The remaining Stop the Steal crowd is so dug in and pot-committed and deep-down embarassed at this point though that they're definitely going down with the fake election fraud ship.
okCivilized said:grantwolf said:Right. Massive shenanigans, the proof of which doesn't exist, that resulted in 60-some failed lawsuits by Trump, and that somehow only served to hurt Trump and not down-ballot republicans.caryking said:
Who cares what is said about 2020, at this point? Everyone knows we had shenanigans; however, we aren't going backwards to fix the results; rather, we absolutely need to clean up the things that need cleaning and do a reasonable election this time.
Failed lawsuits by Trump, and successful criminal charges against many of the fake electors and other Trump-adjacent conspirators, and successful civil suits by Dominion already against Fox and likely against Rudy and Sid Powell, and now admittance in court by the 2000 Mules team they actually had zero evidence, and on and on.
The remaining Stop the Steal crowd is so dug in and pot-committed and deep-down embarassed at this point though that they're definitely going down with the fake election fraud ship.
If Trump actually supported the idea of terminating the Constitution ole' Were would be supporting a 3rd party candidate.GuerrillaPack said:Well, you can't deny that fact that Trump himself is claiming that the tweet is being misinterpreted. Tweets are limited to 280 characters. You can't type out a full explanation of a position with a 280 character limit. Perhaps Trump didn't explain his position too well? Trump hasn't doubled down since that tweet and said "Yes, I do support terminating the Constitution", did he? If he openly supports "terminating" the Constitution, then why won't he say it again, over and over, and reinforce such a position??grantwolf said:It can't be interpreted in "a couple ways". There's zero gray area here. The fact that you can't just admit that what he said was indefensible says everything about you.GuerrillaPack said:grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD is what has "allowed" the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
And sure, after Trump receives the push-back from his Tweet (or Truth...or whatever), he does what he always does and claims he either didn't say something...or didn't mean it...or whatever, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
Look, dude, you can't deny that I'm willing and able to criticize Trump. I'm not a cult member like you communist Democrats who can NEVER criticize the senile kid sniffer for anything he does -- including sniffing and groping young girls over and over on camera.
If Trump actually is in favor of "terminating" the Constitution, then I disagree with him.
Do YOU condemn the communist Democrat party for waging open war on the Constitution on a daily basis, working 24/7/365 to destroy the 2nd Amendment?? Do you condemn the Democrats for constantly working to censor and suppress the free speech of conservatives, including Biden working with Big Tech to have them censor those who opposed the official narrative on covid on social media?
Do you actually support the Constitution at all?? Why are you pretending to care about the Constitution?
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
The only shenanigans I'm aware of are Trump people trying to subvert the election results or Trump voters trying to vote more than once.caryking said:Who cares what is said about 2020, at this point? Everyone knows we had shenanigans; however, we aren't going backwards to fix the results; rather, we absolutely need to clean up the things that need cleaning and do a reasonable election this time.GuerrillaPack said:Well, you can't deny that fact that Trump himself is claiming that the tweet is being misinterpreted. Tweets are limited to 280 characters. You can't type out a full explanation of a position with a 280 character limit. Perhaps Trump didn't explain his position too well? Trump hasn't doubled down since that tweet and said "Yes, I do support terminating the Constitution", did he? If he openly supports "terminating" the Constitution, then why won't he say it again, over and over, and reinforce such a position??grantwolf said:It can't be interpreted in "a couple ways". There's zero gray area here. The fact that you can't just admit that what he said was indefensible says everything about you.GuerrillaPack said:grantwolf said:Full quote (bold emphasis mine):GuerrillaPack said:Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?grantwolf said:Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.GuerrillaPack said:Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?grantwolf said:
""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections" - DJT
Dude. I get it. You're foaming at the mouth yelling about MARXISTS! while your guy is suggesting that we either have a new election or declare Trump the winner (with no proof of election fraud)...and if that's somehow against the constitution, that's fine too.
I know man...it's a terrible look. Awful. I'd want to pretend he didn't say it too if I thought I needed to support him.
I've not been following politics that closely for the past 2 years or so, and so haven't been following all of Trump's statements. Reading the tweet, it could really be interpreted a couple ways. It could also be interpreted that that THE FRAUD is what has "allowed" the termination of the Constitution. And FWIW, Trump has apparently said that people are misinterpreting that tweet and that he does not mean to say that he supports "terminating" the Constitution: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
And sure, after Trump receives the push-back from his Tweet (or Truth...or whatever), he does what he always does and claims he either didn't say something...or didn't mean it...or whatever, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
Look, dude, you can't deny that I'm willing and able to criticize Trump. I'm not a cult member like you communist Democrats who can NEVER criticize the senile kid sniffer for anything he does -- including sniffing and groping young girls over and over on camera.
If Trump actually is in favor of "terminating" the Constitution, then I disagree with him.
Do YOU condemn the communist Democrat party for waging open war on the Constitution on a daily basis, working 24/7/365 to destroy the 2nd Amendment?? Do you condemn the Democrats for constantly working to censor and suppress the free speech of conservatives, including Biden working with Big Tech to have them censor those who opposed the official narrative on covid on social media?
Do you actually support the Constitution at all?? Why are you pretending to care about the Constitution?
For that Trump is correct.
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: Sunday Morning Thoughts On The Wake Disaster
by James Henderson
6:38
14h ago
2.1k
Dave Doeren: "They Made More Plays Than We Did"
by Rob McLamb
8:33
15h ago
687
LOCKER ROOM REPORT: NC State Players
by James Henderson
OUR FINAL TAKE: NC State vs. Wake Forest
by James Henderson
BOX SCORE: Wake Forest 34, NC State 30
by James Henderson