Jules

The Senate Impeachment Trial of DJT

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hasher said:

Very shiny and new.

I do have a problem with anyone who aspires to be as smart as Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, warbird said:

The court determines whether a subpoena is appropriate or not. 

And this is necessary every single time? For every single subpoena? It was decided long ago. Never decided your way. You and the (R)s choose to ignore that precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Boracho said:

And this is necessary every singe time? For every single subpoena? It was decided long ago. Never decided your way. You and the (R)s choose to ignore that precedent.

Every situation is different in scope and subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed how the Republicans kept hammering away that Trump had no chance to defend himself against allegations by the House.... And that Republicans weren't allowed to participate....

 The reality shift here is astounding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

There is the fundamental difference between you and Wardodo.

He is told what to think.

No one tellls me what to think. I examine what the echo chamber thinks , know that is altogether wrong,  and tale the opposite position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hasher said:

JZK, if I demanded a personal benefit by offering to use the power as a government authority, it is all okay as long as I get a no?

And, if your loved one was in mortal peril, using a government office is fine to coerce them? 

 

You mean if you exposed corruption?   I don't think running for office is some kind of immunity shield to corruption investigations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

You mean if you exposed corruption?   I don't think running for office is some kind of immunity shield to corruption investigations.  

Fire the Generals if they tell you that you can't do something.  Fire the chief executive from one of the world's most prosperous companies and then degrade him.  Fire the top people and bring in cronies whose only quality is loyalty to little don.

This just seems like a recipe for success?  Sort of like all the bankruptcies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Seriously.. It is pointless to continue this discussion with you if you Can’t take the time and spend the effort to inform yourself about the historical precedents.

Yes!! Absolutely!! The House has very special powers with respect to subpoenas and impeachment. 

The House is the ONLY body with impeachment  power and with those powers EVERY previous POTUS who has commented has made it absolutely clear the subpoena powers of the House with respect to impeachment are equal In operation and strength to those Held by the Judicial branch for all other investigations and prosecutions. 
 

Please have a look!!! 
 

if you wish to argue the impeachment powers of the House should now be restricted as never before, please make your case for the change.

Otherwise, saying the House has no such powers or limited impeachment powers suggests you stand for a radical change In how the powers of our government are defined, divided, and assigned.


 

 

 

Seems you missed Nixon tapea and Fast and Furious :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

Fire the Generals if they tell you that you can't do something.  Fire the chief executive from one of the world's most prosperous companies and then degrade him.  Fire the top people and bring in cronies whose only quality it loyalty to little don.

This just seems like a recipe for success?  Sort of like all the bankruptcies. 

Trump is a petty narcissist?  

Who knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, warbird said:

Every situation is different in scope and subject. 

Exactly. Thank you. So every different shoplifter that appears in court should have every bit of testimony and evidence reviewed by SCOTUS? Hilarious. That's why I said the entire system depends on a minimum level of respect for our system of government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Trump is a petty narcissist?  

Who knew.

Most of us.  And if the electoral college was not filled with partisans, little don could be buying another girlfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

Most of us.  And if the electoral college was not filled with partisans, little don could be buying another girlfriend.

Yes, we know he is a petty narcissist.

Too bad the USA is filled with "partisans" as it is the American people that will be your problem come November. 

If only there was a way to avoid having the election....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Personally I think the defense is playing it smart by staying professional and keeping it short.  

:lol: you think this shit is professional? :lol: goddamn rightwingers are stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, the Reich is being disingenuous. It would take years for the doc & witness subpoenas to work their way through the courts. 

And the Reich-wing SCOTUS is fully complicit in this - they could have expedited the cases with the thoroughly meritless arguments of the Drumph gang, but chose to help him run out the clock. 

And I'm waiting for Ken Starr & Joker/Dog/JZK to tell us how totally righteous the Clinton impeachment was in comparison. 

Gag me before I puke !! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 8:00 AM, The Joker said:

Always the messenger attack when you can’t deal with being wrong

Hold on a minute Harry. In those 9 instances your spurious link refers to, how many did Obama expressly forbid someone to testify? Also, how many of those inquiries were couched as an impeachment investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Trump is a petty narcissist?  

Who knew.

It’s why you like him, isn’t it jerkz? He’s just a dumb old fuck, trolling and bullshitting like you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, warbird said:

No one tellls me what to think. I examine what the echo chamber thinks , know that is altogether wrong,  and tale the opposite position. 

When did you first now (sic) that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, warbird said:

No one tellls me what to think. I examine what the echo chamber thinks , know that is altogether wrong,  and tale the opposite position. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The typing skills of the trolls seems to decline dramatically after 5 PM Moscow time.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: no, it’s not bullshitter :lol:

Would a subpoena sperm sample request have been appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure, extortion is only a crime if the victim actually pays the money and nobody finds out about it.... oh wait

- DSK

Is extortion a crime if the victim doesn't know about the extortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jzk said:

Is extortion a crime if the victim doesn't know about the extortion?

If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

Waxing philosophically can be rather thought provoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

You mean if you exposed corruption?   I don't think running for office is some kind of immunity shield to corruption investigations.  

Can you give two examples of President Trump "exposing corruption?"

Can you give ONE example of him doing so in a case that does not involve a political rival?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jules said:

2100630951_5c288e7058fa41.jpeg.19dc70dbcd229e3086aad609ad9ec052.jpeg

 

jules.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Let's see.... I predicted that you would avoid answering questions, and continue to avoid answering.

I was completely correct.

 

Only in your pea brained mind.  Despite your not even being able to write coherent sentences, I did answer the questions.  It is you that will never back up your case other than citing the roundness of the Earth.

Ah, did you answer them? Everybody missed it. Here, let's see it again

1- Does the Constitution specifically give the President to deny witnesses or documents to COngress

2- Does the Constitution say anything about powers it specifically does not grant?

3-  Is there any other legal precedent on this issue?

In the past, Presidents have granted access to almost everything to Congress. They have claimed executive privilege in a few specific cases. The current President has not followed this example, not even close.

This President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has he violated that oath?

This time maybe you can actually type out your answer and post it, instead of letting it float above your head.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah, did you answer them? Everybody missed it. Here, let's see it again

1- Does the Constitution specifically give the President to deny witnesses or documents to COngress

2- Does the Constitution say anything about powers it specifically does not grant?

3-  Is there any other legal precedent on this issue?

In the past, Presidents have granted access to almost everything to Congress. They have claimed executive privilege in a few specific cases. The current President has not followed this example, not even close.

This President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has he violated that oath?

This time maybe you can actually type out your answer and post it, instead of letting it float above your head.

- DSK

Well, pea brain, the answer is in the precedent that I cited, US v. Nixon.  Give that case a read, and you can bring yourself up to speed on your knowledge of how this all works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Well, pea brain, the answer is in the precedent that I cited, US v. Nixon.  Give that case a read, and you can bring yourself up to speed on your knowledge of how this all works.

It's just some simple YES or NO questions. Don't be so afraid.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah, did you answer them? Everybody missed it. Here, let's see it again

1- Does the Constitution specifically give the President to deny witnesses or documents to COngress

2- Does the Constitution say anything about powers it specifically does not grant?

3-  Is there any other legal precedent on this issue?

In the past, Presidents have granted access to almost everything to Congress. They have claimed executive privilege in a few specific cases. The current President has not followed this example, not even close.

This President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has he violated that oath?

This time maybe you can actually type out your answer and post it, instead of letting it float above your head.

- DSK

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

 

jules.jpg

Cartoons are not convincing arguments.

There are things like logical thought and rational reasoning that help with negotiating life.

You failed but please try again.  I get some joy when I knock you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Well, pea brain, the answer is in the precedent that I cited, US v. Nixon.  Give that case a read, and you can bring yourself up to speed on your knowledge of how this all works.

And what happened to Nixon, and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

And what happened to Nixon, and why?

The court agreed that he had executive privilege and agreed that the subpoena needed to be tailored to an in camera review to protect the confidentiality of the information while providing the government the information it needed.    The court further stated that there could be some situations where Presidential executive privilege would completely outweigh the needs of the government.

What court has ordered Trump to produce anything?  It is the court that needs to make this determination as clearly outlined in the case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

The court agreed that he had executive privilege and agreed that the subpoena needed to be tailored to an in camera review to protect the confidentiality of the information while providing the government the information it needed.    The court further stated that there could be some situations where Presidential executive privilege would completely outweigh the needs of the government.

What court has ordered Trump to produce anything?  It is the court that needs to make this determination as clearly outlined in the case.  

Courts have ruled against Trump a bunch of times.

Did the court rule in Nixon's case that the President could refuse anything he wanted, or that he could refuse EVERYthing requested?

If there is already precedent for this, why isn't it being followed by Trump?

Hasn't Trump violated his oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hasher said:

Cartoons are not convincing arguments.

There are things like logical thought and rational reasoning that help with negotiating life.

You failed but please try again.  I get some joy when I knock you down.

2 1/2 years of Russian Collusion and the resulting Mueller Report based on fraudulent FISA warrants   ...were not enough to convince you that you have been lied to every step of the way and gladly slurping it up.....so all you deserve is an occasional meme when the whim strikes me appropriate

 

patton.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

And what happened to Nixon, and why?

In summer 1974 I piloted a 21 foot TBI tugboat from Stonington CT to Western Lake Michigan . I was 16 , my brother 15. The 2 of us made many friends along the way. My dad had named the boat "Democrat" All along the way poeple cheered us . Literally came down the piers to see this little boat on the Sound,  the Hudson,  the Erie and Welland canals, Ontario and Erie with two teenagers running her. After 3 weeks of cheer leading the Democrat cause we stayed 2 days in Detroit in early August.  Nixon,  feeling all the pressure we generated along the waterways with our Tugboat named Democrat, finally resigned.  The Detroit 6 o'clock  news  was all about Nixon resigning except a 2 minute interview on the dock, Democrat in the background with two Wisconsin teenagers on the journey of a lifetime on a Tugboat named Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

2 1/2 years of Russian Collusion and the resulting Mueller Report based on fraudulent FISA warrants   ...were not enough to convince you that you have been lied to every step of the way and gladly slurping it up.....so all you deserve is an occasional meme when the whim strikes me appropriate

 

patton.jpg

Mueller's report demonstrated little don's criminality.

Mr. Mueller was livid when Mr. Barr released a misleading summary.

I don't know why you would defend the little don.  I understand that Republicans seem to care more about their own careers than they do about their constitutional duties.

Do you have a desire to be right despite the facts?  You know if you win the race you will always have the knowledge that you are a cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

Mueller's report demonstrated little don's criminality.

Curious that Nancy failed to include that in the articles, don't you think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warbird said:

Congress ADMITTED they didn't WANT to wait  for a court decision. What part of that do you not understand.

Congress did forward articles of impeachment  that are weak and will ultimately be ineffective. If they had taken the time to pursue the proper legal remedy they might have gotten something beyond supposition and innuendo.  In the end,  they didn't. 

The house has sole authority to conduct impeachment, they are not subordinate to the courts.

And they are correct - there is no time to lose as Trump has already invited several other countries to interfere in our election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.J. Porter said:

The house has sole authority to conduct impeachment, they are not subordinate to the courts.

And they are correct - there is no time to lose as Trump has already invited several other countries to interfere in our election.

And the Senate has sole authority to dismiss this charade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Curious that Nancy failed to include that in the articles, don't you think?

No it is not curious.

It is obvious.

When you have a solid case, which Rep Pelosi has, there is no reason to gild the lily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.J. Porter said:

The house has sole authority to conduct impeachment, they are not subordinate to the courts.

And they are correct - there is no time to lose as Trump has already invited several other countries to interfere in our election.

Yes !...and as the USS Gerald Ford is attempting a starboard course correction a seamen on the port quarter with a hairdryer is brought up on mutiny charges 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

And the Senate has sole authority to dismiss this charade.  

Calling it a charade does not make is so.

I'm sorry you find it reasonable to defend the indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

Calling it a charade does not make is so.

I'm sorry you find it reasonable to defend the indefensible.

The Senate has the sole authority to decide if this is a charade.  Let's see what they do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

And the Senate has sole authority to dismiss this charade.  

And the Senate almost certainly will... except that in doing so, it has cut off it's own balls. The President will no longer be subject to Congressional oversight, as prescribed in the Constitution.

Not really a charade, it is?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

And the Senate almost certainly will... except that in doing so, it has cut off it's own balls. The President will no longer be subject to Congressional oversight, as prescribed in the Constitution.

Not really a charade, it is?

- DSK

The Senate will have done exactly as the Constitution empowered it to do.  

If you don't like it, vote for a different Senator.  

But, it seems the smart money has both Trump winning in November and the Republicans keeping the Senate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Can you give two examples of President Trump "exposing corruption?"

Can you give ONE example of him doing so in a case that does not involve a political rival?

- DSK

Heh. Surely you meant exposing corruption outside of the current administration? Trump exposes his own corruption whenever he says the quiet parts out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

The Senate will have done exactly as the Constitution empowered it to do.  

....    ...

I agree. And it will be the last time the Senate votes on anything of any importance.

With no power to oversee the President, what difference will it make what the whole Congress does in the future?

 

17 minutes ago, jzk said:

...    ...

If you don't like it, vote for a different Senator.  

...    ...

I did not vote for either of my state's current Senators, and I have assured them that I will not vote for them. Generally I keep my word.

OTOH it seems likely that we are exiting the era in which voting matters. I expect either Trump of his successor (Mulvaney? Barr?) to decree that we will no longer bother with such silliness. Democracy is for Democrats!

And you are still avoiding answering any of the simple YES or No questions I've asked you... for example, has Trump violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?

Or another question, can you give two examples of Trump fighting corruption, or ONE example of him fighting corruption that doesn't involve a political rival?

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I agree. And it will be the last time the Senate votes on anything of any importance.

With no power to oversee the President, what difference will it make what the whole Congress does in the future?

 

I did not vote for either of my state's current Senators, and I have assured them that I will not vote for them. Generally I keep my word.

OTOH it seems likely that we are exiting the era in which voting matters. I expect either Trump of his successor (Mulvaney? Barr?) to decree that we will no longer bother with such silliness. Democracy is for Democrats!

And you are still avoiding answering any of the simple YES or No questions I've asked you... for example, has Trump violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?

Or another question, can you give two examples of Trump fighting corruption, or ONE example of him fighting corruption that doesn't involve a political rival?

- DSK

Your questions are stupid.  Even your buddies here don't care about them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jzk said:

Your questions are stupid.  Even your buddies here don't care about them.

Great comeback.  Puts your mental age at about 5.  You'd sound a lot smarter just saying you hate all things democrat, versus saying you support Trump.  Can't we all agree he's a worthless lying cocksucker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Great comeback.  Puts your mental age at about 5.  You'd sound a lot smarter just saying you hate all things democratic, versus saying you support Trump.  Can't we all agree he's a worthless lying cocksucker?

I think what you mean to say is that you hate all things Trump.  You are deranged and can't think clearly.

Steams questions are stupid and not relevant to impeachment.  

Any subpoena given to Trump would have to be tailored by the courts before there would be any duty to follow it.  That is the point of Nixon.  

Which court orders did Trump violate?  None?  Move on to something else then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

I think what you mean to say is that you hate all things Trump.  You are deranged and can't think clearly.

Steams questions are stupid and not relevant to impeachment.  

Any subpoena given to Trump would have to be tailored by the courts before there would be any duty to follow it.  That is the point of Nixon.  

Which court orders did Trump violate?  None?  Move on to something else then.

You are correct, I do hate all things Trump as most reasonable people would had they been blessed with a brain. The man is a fool.

Trump said the wheel is a US invention, you agree?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

You are correct, I do hate all things Trump as most reasonable people would had they been blessed with a brain. The man is a fool.

Yet the American people are set to re-elect him in November.  Now, I am not a super big fan of that fact either.  But, as opposed to electing any of the nut jobs that the Democrats are currently offering up, I would take it in a heartbeat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jzk said:

...

Steams questions are stupid and not relevant to impeachment.  

...   ...

If you don't see the relevance, perhaps in trying to answer, you would learn that they are very relevant.

The only stupid question is one you don't even try to answer.

Don't be afraid

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yet the American people are set to re-elect him in November.  Now, I am not a super big fan of that fact either.  But, as opposed to electing any of the nut jobs that the Democrats are currently offering up, I would take it in a heartbeat.  

So, are you a misogynist or a homophobe?  I have this dream that Trump and Maxine Waters take an abbreviated IQ test on live TV with all proceeds going to charity.  He would get killed.  The man is a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

So, are you a misogynist or a homophobe?  I have this dream that Trump and Maxine Waters take an abbreviated IQ test on live TV with all proceeds going to charity.  He would get killed.  The man is a moron.

Are you trying to say that Trump is so stupid that even Maxine Waters would beat him in an IQ test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Are you trying to say that Trump is so stupid that even Maxine Waters would beat him in an IQ test?

:lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Trump can't even spell Maxine. It would be quality entertainment though

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

:lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Trump can't even spell Maxine. It would be quality entertainment though

- DSK

Trump would have a hard time spelling cat even if you gave him the c and the t.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

So, are you a misogynist or a homophobe?  I have this dream that Trump and Maxine Waters take an abbreviated IQ test on live TV with all proceeds going to charity.  He would get killed.  The man is a moron.

Rex Tillerson for President!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

Calling it a charade does not make is so.

I'm sorry you find it reasonable to defend the indefensible.

 

bic.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

 

bic.jpg

That's a picture of honorable statesman.

You on the other hand have posted the name of a man who by federal law should be protected from this form of harassment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

That's is a picture of honorable statesman.

You on the other hand have posted the name of a man who by federal law should be protected from this form of harassment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

This guy or Bidet ?

IMG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo,

Define the word alleged.  And who gives a fuck who blew the whistle or why?  The GAO has ruled Trump's actions violated the law.  Please don't go for the Warbird  spot as the dumbest motherfucker on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

The house has sole authority to conduct impeachment, they are not subordinate to the courts.

And they are correct - there is no time to lose as Trump has already invited several other countries to interfere in our election.

Questions of law are resolved by the court.  Period.  Not   Nancy, not Schit, not Nadler,  not Schumer.  Pretty fucking sad that a gravel truck driver has to school you legal eagles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BravoBravo said:

This guy or Bidet ?

IMG.jpg

Now there is a persuasive argument.  One hand clapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Questions of law are resolved by the court.  Period.  Not   Nancy, not Schit, not Nadler,  not Schumer.  Pretty fucking sad that a gravel truck driver has to school you legal eagles.

Been hitting the bottle?  In an hour you'll be telling us how great the Foxconn deal is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Joker said:

So another member of the circle jerk that can’t refute my poInt so they fall back on insults. 
 

It's not a fallback, it's all you and your "ideas" are good for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, warbird said:

 Pretty fucking sad that a gravel truck driver has to thinks he can school you legal eagles anyone about anything.

FTFY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a much greater chance of me winning the Powerball this evening (without a ticket purchase) than Trump being removed from office.

Winning the battles and losing the war for the GOP, the Constitution and the American people.  YCMTSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

2 1/2 years of Russian Collusion...

Russia has been spying on us even before they were our WWII allies.  We were so naive we thought no ally of ours would ever spy on us.  HA!  It wasn't until 1947 that we discovered Russia had been spying on for quite some time.  

Today they are fucking with right out in the open with divisive propaganda.  They will incite Dems to hate Pubs and turn right around and incite Pubs to hate Dems.  And we are so busy throwing barbs at one another we don't even know it.

Americans are easy prey.  Must be a hold over from the Civil War. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jules said:
2 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

2 1/2 years of Russian Collusion...

Russia has been spying on us even before they were our WWII allies.  We were so naive we thought no ally of ours would ever spy on us.  HA!  It wasn't until 1947 that we discovered Russia had been spying on for quite some time.  

Today they are fucking with right out in the open with divisive propaganda.  They will incite Dems to hate Pubs and turn right around and incite Pubs to hate Dems.  And we are so busy throwing barbs at one another we don't even know it.

Americans are easy prey.  Must be a hold over from the Civil War.

You mean the last one?

Putin told Trump to say "No Collusion!!" and of course, Trump being Trump with a small vocabulary and love of hearing his own voice repeat things, he's said it over and over and over and over (x 9k but we don't have time), and look who believes it.

The mistake was allowing the slavelords and their dupes to surrender last time. We should have just killed all of them that we could catch. Then we wouldn't have this stupidity about statues and such, and even with the breeding rate being what it is, there'd be a lot fewer of them

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jules said:

 It wasn't until 1947 that we discovered Russia had been spying on for quite some time. 

And even then we had to tell you about it. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jules said:

Russia has been spying on us even before they were our WWII allies.  We were so naive we thought no ally of ours would ever spy on us.  HA!  It wasn't until 1947 that we discovered Russia had been spying on for quite some time.  

Today they are fucking with right out in the open with divisive propaganda.  They will incite Dems to hate Pubs and turn right around and incite Pubs to hate Dems.  And we are so busy throwing barbs at one another we don't even know it.

Americans are easy prey.  Must be a hold over from the Civil War. :wacko:

Stop it!  Warbird likes the crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

No it is not curious.

It is obvious.

When you have a solid case, which Rep Pelosi has, there is no reason to gild the lily.

Maybe she should have tried lipstick on the pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with your new avatar?

Have you ever set foot on a sailboat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, warbird said:

Maybe she should have tried lipstick on the pig.

Rudy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warbird said:

Maybe she should have tried lipstick on the pig.

Is this how you want us to know you?  Offer a reasoned response and at the very least, we would have some semblance of respect.  Your insistence of being the dumbest most ill-informed person in the room makes it hard to take you seriously.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Questions of law are resolved by the court.  Period.  Not   Nancy, not Schit, not Nadler,  not Schumer.  Pretty fucking sad that a gravel truck driver has to school you legal eagles.

Thank you Attorney Warbird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Questions of law are resolved by the court.  Period.  Not   Nancy, not Schit, not Nadler,  not Schumer.  Pretty fucking sad that a gravel truck driver has to school you legal eagles.

Mr. Gravel Truck Driver: Like the speed limit on the highway. Do you appeal all citations to SCOTUS? Or do you admit that speed limits are to be obeyed as well established law?

These a rhetorical questions. Please not answer directly. BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious that a "Gravel truck driver" doesn't know the difference between a dump truck, and a cement truck..... But maybe it's just a regional colloquialism thing.....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

Rudy?

 

He’s been known to wear lipstick and he’s assuming porcine dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

What's with your new avatar?

Have you ever set foot on a sailboat?

First sailboat I bought . B25 named WarBird. The name is on lots of the club trophies........:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites