One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main
Mueller has shrewdly 'stacked the deck' against Trump
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Aug 11, 2017 13:31:38   #
PoppaGringo (a regular here)
 
By Gregg Jarrett
Published August 11, 2017

What's head for Mueller and the Russia probe?

Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck” –arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses.

It appears that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller has approached his investigation. Consider the evidence.

Mueller chose, of all places, the venue of Washington, D.C., to convene a grand jury to examine evidence in the Russia-Trump investigation. It would be difficult to find a group of people more hostile to Trump than in the nation’s capital. The president garnered a scant four percent of the vote there, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 93 percent.

There was already a grand jury convened in Virginia looking into the related Michael Flynn matter and Mueller could have easily presented his case there. But no, that would run the risk of being potentially fair to the president since the jurors there are more apt to be politically bipartisan. So, from the outset, Mueller dealt himself a high ace on his way to a royal flush.

His next card, a king, is the grand jury process itself. Over time, this Fifth Amendment principle has devolved into a one-sided farce, favoring only the prosecution. Defense attorneys are not allowed inside what has become a secret “star chamber, permitting no adverse party to challenge the truth and credibility of witnesses through the test of cross-examination. It gets worse.

There are no enforceable rules of evidence during grand jury proceedings, which means that otherwise inadmissible hearsay or double-hearsay is perfectly acceptable. Unauthenticated documents are copacetic. Prosecutors are free to present only incriminating evidence, to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence. All too often grand jurors simply rubber-stamp a prosecutor’s instructions. Thus, the old saying, “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

With no meaningful limits on abusive tactics, the entire system is anathema to fairness. A grand jury is to justice what military music is to music. It bears no resemblance. My apologies to John Philip Sousa, but you get the point. This is precisely why grand juries, which were once in vogue everywhere, have now been banished in all nations except the United States and Liberia.

Mueller’s queen card is the Obama-appointed judge likely overseeing the D.C. grand jury. Under local court rules, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell is the one who presides over decisions on grand jury subpoenas, witness testimony, any executive privilege and possible Fifth Amendment assertions. In the past, she worked closely with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and one of Mueller’s top staff lawyers, Andrew Weissman.

Indeed, Howell and Weissman co-authored a scholarly law article that explored obstruction of justice… which just happens to be part of what Mueller is reportedly investigating in the Russia-Trump case. Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast uncovered this nugget. A conflict of interest? Surely. But don’t expect a judicial recusal anytime soon, even though Judge Howell teaches ethics at American University’s law school.

Dealing himself a jack, Mueller has chosen to hire for his staff an unconscionable number of lawyers of the liberal persuasion. Out of 14 lawyers retained thus far, eight have donated to Democrats while none appear to have contributed a nickel to Republicans. Several of Mueller’s lawyers gave generously to “Hillary for America,” while another actually represented the Clinton Foundation. The special counsel could have selected a more balanced team devoid of partisan ties, but he deliberately chose not to do so.

Finally, Mueller is holding a precious ten card in the very man who hired him, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who authored the infamous memo advising President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. In any obstruction case arising therefrom, Rosenstein would be a prosecutor, investigator and witness all rolled into one. Despite his glaring conflict of interest, Rosenstein has made no move to step aside. Which means he is unlikely to fire Mueller for his own similar conflict of interest.

As explained in previous columns, Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest specifically forbidden by the special counsel law itself (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2), not to mention the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of lawyers. Their record as longtime friends, allies and partners is well-documented and indisputable.

It is inconceivable that Mueller could be completely impartial in judging the credibility of his friend versus the president who fired his friend in deciding whether to pursue a charge of obstruction. Even scrupulously honest people can be influenced in ways they do not recognize themselves. This is exactly why there are legal and ethical rules that demand recusal based on prior relationships. Even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for recusal. But Mueller remains on the job.

And so, the deck has been shrewdly stacked against President Trump. Robert Mueller has dealt from the bottom of the deck. There is a lot at stake on the table.

The only good hand the president may have requires a trump card called innocence. Does he have it?

There is no bluffing in this game.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
 
Aug 11, 2017 14:14:02   #
vettelover (a regular here)
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
By Gregg Jarrett
Published August 11, 2017

What's head for Mueller and the Russia probe?

Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck” –arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses.

It appears that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller has approached his investigation. Consider the evidence.

Mueller chose, of all places, the venue of Washington, D.C., to convene a grand jury to examine evidence in the Russia-Trump investigation. It would be difficult to find a group of people more hostile to Trump than in the nation’s capital. The president garnered a scant four percent of the vote there, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 93 percent.

There was already a grand jury convened in Virginia looking into the related Michael Flynn matter and Mueller could have easily presented his case there. But no, that would run the risk of being potentially fair to the president since the jurors there are more apt to be politically bipartisan. So, from the outset, Mueller dealt himself a high ace on his way to a royal flush.

His next card, a king, is the grand jury process itself. Over time, this Fifth Amendment principle has devolved into a one-sided farce, favoring only the prosecution. Defense attorneys are not allowed inside what has become a secret “star chamber, permitting no adverse party to challenge the truth and credibility of witnesses through the test of cross-examination. It gets worse.

There are no enforceable rules of evidence during grand jury proceedings, which means that otherwise inadmissible hearsay or double-hearsay is perfectly acceptable. Unauthenticated documents are copacetic. Prosecutors are free to present only incriminating evidence, to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence. All too often grand jurors simply rubber-stamp a prosecutor’s instructions. Thus, the old saying, “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

With no meaningful limits on abusive tactics, the entire system is anathema to fairness. A grand jury is to justice what military music is to music. It bears no resemblance. My apologies to John Philip Sousa, but you get the point. This is precisely why grand juries, which were once in vogue everywhere, have now been banished in all nations except the United States and Liberia.

Mueller’s queen card is the Obama-appointed judge likely overseeing the D.C. grand jury. Under local court rules, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell is the one who presides over decisions on grand jury subpoenas, witness testimony, any executive privilege and possible Fifth Amendment assertions. In the past, she worked closely with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and one of Mueller’s top staff lawyers, Andrew Weissman.

Indeed, Howell and Weissman co-authored a scholarly law article that explored obstruction of justice… which just happens to be part of what Mueller is reportedly investigating in the Russia-Trump case. Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast uncovered this nugget. A conflict of interest? Surely. But don’t expect a judicial recusal anytime soon, even though Judge Howell teaches ethics at American University’s law school.

Dealing himself a jack, Mueller has chosen to hire for his staff an unconscionable number of lawyers of the liberal persuasion. Out of 14 lawyers retained thus far, eight have donated to Democrats while none appear to have contributed a nickel to Republicans. Several of Mueller’s lawyers gave generously to “Hillary for America,” while another actually represented the Clinton Foundation. The special counsel could have selected a more balanced team devoid of partisan ties, but he deliberately chose not to do so.

Finally, Mueller is holding a precious ten card in the very man who hired him, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who authored the infamous memo advising President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. In any obstruction case arising therefrom, Rosenstein would be a prosecutor, investigator and witness all rolled into one. Despite his glaring conflict of interest, Rosenstein has made no move to step aside. Which means he is unlikely to fire Mueller for his own similar conflict of interest.

As explained in previous columns, Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest specifically forbidden by the special counsel law itself (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2), not to mention the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of lawyers. Their record as longtime friends, allies and partners is well-documented and indisputable.

It is inconceivable that Mueller could be completely impartial in judging the credibility of his friend versus the president who fired his friend in deciding whether to pursue a charge of obstruction. Even scrupulously honest people can be influenced in ways they do not recognize themselves. This is exactly why there are legal and ethical rules that demand recusal based on prior relationships. Even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for recusal. But Mueller remains on the job.

And so, the deck has been shrewdly stacked against President Trump. Robert Mueller has dealt from the bottom of the deck. There is a lot at stake on the table.

The only good hand the president may have requires a trump card called innocence. Does he have it?

There is no bluffing in this game.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
By Gregg Jarrett br Published August 11, 2017 br ... (show quote)



Trumps lawyers can legally change the venue. Trump only taking 4% of the District of Columbia says it all. Love him or hate him, what is happening should concern all freedom loving Americans. The left should be careful for what they wish for! Especially with the technology being where it is right now and the spying apparatus growing by the day. All this technology in evil hands woll be the end of your freedom.
Aug 11, 2017 14:36:42   #
E (a regular here)
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
By Gregg Jarrett
Published August 11, 2017

What's head for Mueller and the Russia probe?

Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck” –arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses.

It appears that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller has approached his investigation. Consider the evidence.

Mueller chose, of all places, the venue of Washington, D.C., to convene a grand jury to examine evidence in the Russia-Trump investigation. It would be difficult to find a group of people more hostile to Trump than in the nation’s capital. The president garnered a scant four percent of the vote there, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 93 percent.

There was already a grand jury convened in Virginia looking into the related Michael Flynn matter and Mueller could have easily presented his case there. But no, that would run the risk of being potentially fair to the president since the jurors there are more apt to be politically bipartisan. So, from the outset, Mueller dealt himself a high ace on his way to a royal flush.

His next card, a king, is the grand jury process itself. Over time, this Fifth Amendment principle has devolved into a one-sided farce, favoring only the prosecution. Defense attorneys are not allowed inside what has become a secret “star chamber, permitting no adverse party to challenge the truth and credibility of witnesses through the test of cross-examination. It gets worse.

There are no enforceable rules of evidence during grand jury proceedings, which means that otherwise inadmissible hearsay or double-hearsay is perfectly acceptable. Unauthenticated documents are copacetic. Prosecutors are free to present only incriminating evidence, to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence. All too often grand jurors simply rubber-stamp a prosecutor’s instructions. Thus, the old saying, “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

With no meaningful limits on abusive tactics, the entire system is anathema to fairness. A grand jury is to justice what military music is to music. It bears no resemblance. My apologies to John Philip Sousa, but you get the point. This is precisely why grand juries, which were once in vogue everywhere, have now been banished in all nations except the United States and Liberia.

Mueller’s queen card is the Obama-appointed judge likely overseeing the D.C. grand jury. Under local court rules, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell is the one who presides over decisions on grand jury subpoenas, witness testimony, any executive privilege and possible Fifth Amendment assertions. In the past, she worked closely with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and one of Mueller’s top staff lawyers, Andrew Weissman.

Indeed, Howell and Weissman co-authored a scholarly law article that explored obstruction of justice… which just happens to be part of what Mueller is reportedly investigating in the Russia-Trump case. Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast uncovered this nugget. A conflict of interest? Surely. But don’t expect a judicial recusal anytime soon, even though Judge Howell teaches ethics at American University’s law school.

Dealing himself a jack, Mueller has chosen to hire for his staff an unconscionable number of lawyers of the liberal persuasion. Out of 14 lawyers retained thus far, eight have donated to Democrats while none appear to have contributed a nickel to Republicans. Several of Mueller’s lawyers gave generously to “Hillary for America,” while another actually represented the Clinton Foundation. The special counsel could have selected a more balanced team devoid of partisan ties, but he deliberately chose not to do so.

Finally, Mueller is holding a precious ten card in the very man who hired him, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who authored the infamous memo advising President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. In any obstruction case arising therefrom, Rosenstein would be a prosecutor, investigator and witness all rolled into one. Despite his glaring conflict of interest, Rosenstein has made no move to step aside. Which means he is unlikely to fire Mueller for his own similar conflict of interest.

As explained in previous columns, Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest specifically forbidden by the special counsel law itself (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2), not to mention the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of lawyers. Their record as longtime friends, allies and partners is well-documented and indisputable.

It is inconceivable that Mueller could be completely impartial in judging the credibility of his friend versus the president who fired his friend in deciding whether to pursue a charge of obstruction. Even scrupulously honest people can be influenced in ways they do not recognize themselves. This is exactly why there are legal and ethical rules that demand recusal based on prior relationships. Even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for recusal. But Mueller remains on the job.

And so, the deck has been shrewdly stacked against President Trump. Robert Mueller has dealt from the bottom of the deck. There is a lot at stake on the table.

The only good hand the president may have requires a trump card called innocence. Does he have it?

There is no bluffing in this game.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
By Gregg Jarrett br Published August 11, 2017 br ... (show quote)


That was a well put summation that shows more collusion on the part of Mueller then any possible collusion he could find on President Trump and his Campaign team. Eventually it will all come out and Mueller better make sure that there isn't a single wrinkle on any of his cards or it will all fall down around him and his creditability will be lost forever. It would have been better if he dealt the cards from the top of a fresh deck freshly, fairly shuffled with an honest cut and five unmarked cards each.

And meanwhile the Democrats continue to block anything they can and protest their innocence and interests in protecting America from the evils of Republicans.

cheers
Aug 11, 2017 14:41:16   #
Big Bass (a regular here)
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
By Gregg Jarrett
Published August 11, 2017

What's head for Mueller and the Russia probe?

Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck” –arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses.

It appears that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller has approached his investigation. Consider the evidence.

Mueller chose, of all places, the venue of Washington, D.C., to convene a grand jury to examine evidence in the Russia-Trump investigation. It would be difficult to find a group of people more hostile to Trump than in the nation’s capital. The president garnered a scant four percent of the vote there, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 93 percent.

There was already a grand jury convened in Virginia looking into the related Michael Flynn matter and Mueller could have easily presented his case there. But no, that would run the risk of being potentially fair to the president since the jurors there are more apt to be politically bipartisan. So, from the outset, Mueller dealt himself a high ace on his way to a royal flush.

His next card, a king, is the grand jury process itself. Over time, this Fifth Amendment principle has devolved into a one-sided farce, favoring only the prosecution. Defense attorneys are not allowed inside what has become a secret “star chamber, permitting no adverse party to challenge the truth and credibility of witnesses through the test of cross-examination. It gets worse.

There are no enforceable rules of evidence during grand jury proceedings, which means that otherwise inadmissible hearsay or double-hearsay is perfectly acceptable. Unauthenticated documents are copacetic. Prosecutors are free to present only incriminating evidence, to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence. All too often grand jurors simply rubber-stamp a prosecutor’s instructions. Thus, the old saying, “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

With no meaningful limits on abusive tactics, the entire system is anathema to fairness. A grand jury is to justice what military music is to music. It bears no resemblance. My apologies to John Philip Sousa, but you get the point. This is precisely why grand juries, which were once in vogue everywhere, have now been banished in all nations except the United States and Liberia.

Mueller’s queen card is the Obama-appointed judge likely overseeing the D.C. grand jury. Under local court rules, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell is the one who presides over decisions on grand jury subpoenas, witness testimony, any executive privilege and possible Fifth Amendment assertions. In the past, she worked closely with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and one of Mueller’s top staff lawyers, Andrew Weissman.

Indeed, Howell and Weissman co-authored a scholarly law article that explored obstruction of justice… which just happens to be part of what Mueller is reportedly investigating in the Russia-Trump case. Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast uncovered this nugget. A conflict of interest? Surely. But don’t expect a judicial recusal anytime soon, even though Judge Howell teaches ethics at American University’s law school.

Dealing himself a jack, Mueller has chosen to hire for his staff an unconscionable number of lawyers of the liberal persuasion. Out of 14 lawyers retained thus far, eight have donated to Democrats while none appear to have contributed a nickel to Republicans. Several of Mueller’s lawyers gave generously to “Hillary for America,” while another actually represented the Clinton Foundation. The special counsel could have selected a more balanced team devoid of partisan ties, but he deliberately chose not to do so.

Finally, Mueller is holding a precious ten card in the very man who hired him, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who authored the infamous memo advising President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. In any obstruction case arising therefrom, Rosenstein would be a prosecutor, investigator and witness all rolled into one. Despite his glaring conflict of interest, Rosenstein has made no move to step aside. Which means he is unlikely to fire Mueller for his own similar conflict of interest.

As explained in previous columns, Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest specifically forbidden by the special counsel law itself (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2), not to mention the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of lawyers. Their record as longtime friends, allies and partners is well-documented and indisputable.

It is inconceivable that Mueller could be completely impartial in judging the credibility of his friend versus the president who fired his friend in deciding whether to pursue a charge of obstruction. Even scrupulously honest people can be influenced in ways they do not recognize themselves. This is exactly why there are legal and ethical rules that demand recusal based on prior relationships. Even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for recusal. But Mueller remains on the job.

And so, the deck has been shrewdly stacked against President Trump. Robert Mueller has dealt from the bottom of the deck. There is a lot at stake on the table.

The only good hand the president may have requires a trump card called innocence. Does he have it?

There is no bluffing in this game.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
By Gregg Jarrett br Published August 11, 2017 br ... (show quote)

Don't underestimate Trump. He has 4 aces and holds his cards close to his chest.
Aug 11, 2017 20:00:29   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
Big Bass wrote:
Don't underestimate Trump. He has 4 aces and holds his cards close to his chest.

Plus, he's a smart son of a bitch. Don't forget, he's president. Need I say anything else?
Aug 12, 2017 05:31:25   #
Richard94611
 
To answer the question about innocence, the answer is a resounding "NO !"

Go ahead and blame Mueller for wanting to investigate crimes and prove them. That's his job.
 
Aug 12, 2017 05:33:13   #
Richard94611
 
Yes, you need to say more. For instance, "Watch Trump be impeached. You'll see the formal process starting in a few months."

PeterS wrote:
Plus, he's a smart son of a bitch. Don't forget, he's president. Need I say anything else?
Aug 12, 2017 08:28:23   #
Big Bass (a regular here)
 
PeterS wrote:
Plus, he's a smart son of a bitch. Don't forget, he's president. Need I say anything else?


So you finally admit he's our fairly-elected president.
Aug 12, 2017 10:21:06   #
kemmer (a regular here)
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
By Gregg Jarrett
Published August 11, 2017

What's head for Mueller and the Russia probe?

Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck” –arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses.

It appears that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller has approached his investigation. Consider the evidence.

Mueller chose, of all places, the venue of Washington, D.C., to convene a grand jury to examine evidence in the Russia-Trump investigation. It would be difficult to find a group of people more hostile to Trump than in the nation’s capital. The president garnered a scant four percent of the vote there, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 93 percent.

There was already a grand jury convened in Virginia looking into the related Michael Flynn matter and Mueller could have easily presented his case there. But no, that would run the risk of being potentially fair to the president since the jurors there are more apt to be politically bipartisan. So, from the outset, Mueller dealt himself a high ace on his way to a royal flush.

His next card, a king, is the grand jury process itself. Over time, this Fifth Amendment principle has devolved into a one-sided farce, favoring only the prosecution. Defense attorneys are not allowed inside what has become a secret “star chamber, permitting no adverse party to challenge the truth and credibility of witnesses through the test of cross-examination. It gets worse.

There are no enforceable rules of evidence during grand jury proceedings, which means that otherwise inadmissible hearsay or double-hearsay is perfectly acceptable. Unauthenticated documents are copacetic. Prosecutors are free to present only incriminating evidence, to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence. All too often grand jurors simply rubber-stamp a prosecutor’s instructions. Thus, the old saying, “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

With no meaningful limits on abusive tactics, the entire system is anathema to fairness. A grand jury is to justice what military music is to music. It bears no resemblance. My apologies to John Philip Sousa, but you get the point. This is precisely why grand juries, which were once in vogue everywhere, have now been banished in all nations except the United States and Liberia.

Mueller’s queen card is the Obama-appointed judge likely overseeing the D.C. grand jury. Under local court rules, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell is the one who presides over decisions on grand jury subpoenas, witness testimony, any executive privilege and possible Fifth Amendment assertions. In the past, she worked closely with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and one of Mueller’s top staff lawyers, Andrew Weissman.

Indeed, Howell and Weissman co-authored a scholarly law article that explored obstruction of justice… which just happens to be part of what Mueller is reportedly investigating in the Russia-Trump case. Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast uncovered this nugget. A conflict of interest? Surely. But don’t expect a judicial recusal anytime soon, even though Judge Howell teaches ethics at American University’s law school.

Dealing himself a jack, Mueller has chosen to hire for his staff an unconscionable number of lawyers of the liberal persuasion. Out of 14 lawyers retained thus far, eight have donated to Democrats while none appear to have contributed a nickel to Republicans. Several of Mueller’s lawyers gave generously to “Hillary for America,” while another actually represented the Clinton Foundation. The special counsel could have selected a more balanced team devoid of partisan ties, but he deliberately chose not to do so.

Finally, Mueller is holding a precious ten card in the very man who hired him, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who authored the infamous memo advising President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. In any obstruction case arising therefrom, Rosenstein would be a prosecutor, investigator and witness all rolled into one. Despite his glaring conflict of interest, Rosenstein has made no move to step aside. Which means he is unlikely to fire Mueller for his own similar conflict of interest.

As explained in previous columns, Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest specifically forbidden by the special counsel law itself (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2), not to mention the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of lawyers. Their record as longtime friends, allies and partners is well-documented and indisputable.

It is inconceivable that Mueller could be completely impartial in judging the credibility of his friend versus the president who fired his friend in deciding whether to pursue a charge of obstruction. Even scrupulously honest people can be influenced in ways they do not recognize themselves. This is exactly why there are legal and ethical rules that demand recusal based on prior relationships. Even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for recusal. But Mueller remains on the job.

And so, the deck has been shrewdly stacked against President Trump. Robert Mueller has dealt from the bottom of the deck. There is a lot at stake on the table.

The only good hand the president may have requires a trump card called innocence. Does he have it?

There is no bluffing in this game.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
By Gregg Jarrett br Published August 11, 2017 br ... (show quote)


Trump is going down!
Aug 12, 2017 10:28:48   #
Big Bass (a regular here)
 
kemmer wrote:
Trump is going down!


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for your idiocy.
Aug 12, 2017 11:07:20   #
kemmer (a regular here)
 
Big Bass wrote:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for your idiocy.


We'll just see, won't we.
 
Aug 12, 2017 11:18:08   #
Big Bass (a regular here)
 
kemmer wrote:
We'll just see, won't we.


... said the blind man.
Aug 12, 2017 11:59:44   #
kemmer (a regular here)
 
Big Bass wrote:
... said the blind man.


Said the "true believer" trumpanzee.
Aug 12, 2017 12:03:55   #
Big Bass (a regular here)
 
kemmer wrote:
Said the "true believer" trumpanzee.


I looked that "trumpanzee" word in the dictionary. Just like your IQ, it doesn't exist. You can go back to your crocheting now.
Aug 12, 2017 12:58:49   #
PoppaGringo (a regular here)
 
Richard94611 wrote:
Yes, you need to say more. For instance, "Watch Trump be impeached. You'll see the formal process starting in a few months."


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.