Simple Question for the Trump illiterates
Dec 17, 2019 08:55:36 #
rjoeholl wrote:
Ohhh, it looks like a "Russian" got under your skin. Made you cry like a sissy.
Dec 17, 2019 09:03:09 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
proud republican wrote:
I doubt you have any hygiene!!!! 
He thinks hygiene is a greeting.
Dec 17, 2019 09:07:48 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Airforceone wrote:
What did you hear anything about corruption did you listen to 8 career officials testify under oath did you hear two ambassadors that Trump appointed testify under oath, that freak is guilty as hell.
Only someone who would consume the scat of a running animal, won't admit that these so called witnesses were liars with an agenda to cover-up Bullbiden and Ukrainian corruption.
Dec 17, 2019 09:14:27 #
Airforceone wrote:
How come Trump has not offered any under oath testimony in defense of his Russian propaganda that it was the Ukraine that hacked our e******ns not the Russians.
Like that would cause the fruitcakes on the Left Fringe to change their thinking ? Everything Trump says or does will be twisted into a pretzel of lies by the rabies infected crowd.
Dec 17, 2019 10:20:43 #
Airforceone wrote:
How come Trump has not offered any under oath testimony in defense of his Russian propaganda that it was the Ukraine that hacked our e******ns not the Russians.
Because he has no defense....we know it, he knows it, and he knows we know he knows it!!
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
Dec 17, 2019 10:23:51 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
JediKnight wrote:
Because he has no defense....we know it, he knows it, and he knows we know he knows it!!
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
So all administrations have something to hide? Because I can’t remember the last time Executive Privelage wasn’t used by an administration at some point.
Dec 17, 2019 10:25:19 #
JediKnight wrote:
Because he has no defense....we know it, he knows it, and he knows we know he knows it!!
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
you are correct, he has no defense.....nothing to defend, hence, no defense needed.
I would suggest finding a crime, not some hearsay allegation that you hope is true....then we will mount a defense, not before as its not needed.
Dec 17, 2019 10:26:29 #
JFlorio wrote:
So all administrations have something to hide? Because I can’t remember the last time Executive Privelage wasn’t used by an administration at some point.
Executive Privilege is one thing J; but defying the law and Constitution is a whole different matter. Trump ordered his people not to comply with Congressional subpoenas… a big no-no.
Dec 17, 2019 10:27:39 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
you are correct, he has no defense.....nothing to defend, hence, no defense needed.
I would suggest finding a crime, not some hearsay allegation that you hope is true....then we will mount a defense, not before as its not needed.
I would suggest finding a crime, not some hearsay allegation that you hope is true....then we will mount a defense, not before as its not needed.
Excellent. Why try and defend against something you haven’t done when the witnesses’s for the prosecution have already proven you innocent?
Dec 17, 2019 10:30:41 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
JediKnight wrote:
Executive Privilege is one thing J; but defying the law and Constitution is a whole different matter. Trump ordered his people not to comply with Congressional subpoenas… a big no-no.
That’s within his right. He can invoke such privilege for anyone in the Executive Branch. The proper place for the answer to that question is the judicial branch, which then rules on the validity of said subpoena. That’ exactly where it is now in the Supreme Court. They will rule.
Dec 17, 2019 10:37:46 #
JFlorio wrote:
Excellent. Why try and defend against something you haven’t done when the witnesses’s for the prosecution have already proven you innocent?
That's what I have been saying......there has to be a crime for a defense to work, or even be needed, they have nothing.....if they, did Trump would have been hauled off in chains long ago.....that alone speaks volumes.
Personally, If I would have tried for 3 years and failed all 3 trying to make Trump look dirty, I would have moved on so I did not look so damn foolish....but that's just me I guess.
but here we are, 3 years of the same crap without a shred of anything, not even a parking ticket
Dec 17, 2019 10:38:43 #
nwtk2007
Loc: Texas
JediKnight wrote:
Because he has no defense....we know it, he knows it, and he knows we know he knows it!!
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
If he was as innocent as he claims, he would not be blocking people from testifying.
Wrong jedi, when you're dealing with guys who claim a favor is a demand, there can be no expectations of having anything spoken in testimony not twisted and proclaimed a lie and thus perjury. The dem's would just ramp up something said into all new "crimes."
Since it is becoming fairly obvious that most of the country are seeing what we have been seeing all along, it is clear that there is simply no reason to even legitimized this entire thing by testifying. This "impeachment" is very similar to the Salem witch trials and their methods of putting peoplein a catch 22 situation; if you survive, you're lying and thus will be burned. If you die, you must have been telling the t***h but the dem's aren't even giving Trump that.
Dec 17, 2019 10:49:56 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
That's what I have been saying......there has to b... (show quote)
Indeed Sir!
Dec 17, 2019 10:53:36 #
Dec 17, 2019 10:55:49 #
Airforceone wrote:
How come Trump has not offered any under oath testimony in defense of his Russian propaganda that it was the Ukraine that hacked our e******ns not the Russians.
Would you agree to answer questions under oath with no lawyer present, your answers must first be vetted as to what would go on the record, and you could not face your accusers or have any witnesses called or questioned? In other words NO DUE PROCESS which is guaranteed in multiple places in our constitution. If you answer yes you would, you have obviously never been falsely accused or even questioned by the cops!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.