myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Trump
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1041, 1042, 1043 ... 1060, 1061, 1062  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 941

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
vientomas wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
vientomas wrote:
A primary element that has separated the United States of America from virtually every other nation in history is the concept of it being “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.”

“A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902-the-united-states-of-america-a-nation-of-laws-not-a-nation-of-men


Does that include Due Process????? Something the dems seem to have zero interest in with their bogus impeachment clown show....


Of course you have no idea of how due process applies in an impeachment inquiry, or how the Trumpists ignore it in everything they do. Someone just gave you a peanut—you didn’t notice how it had been used.


Actually moron you are wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that congressional hearings absolutely require Due Process...otherwise we would live in a banana republic. But we know the Critical Thinker does not care about the law or precedents as long as it hurts Trump..






This is what a true Critical Thinker sounds like.....pretty much the opposite of a turd like you...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-have-to-make-impeachment-fair-but-it-still-should-be/2019/10/13/b09ce182-ec44-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html


Due process protects regular people from an overbearing, arbitrary hand of government that attempts to deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property” without notice and an opportunity to be heard first. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (the one that binds the federal government) is not intended to protect officeholders—such as the individual who heads the entire federal criminal and military apparatus—from political investigation or a House impeachment trial. Moreover, while a criminal defendant might be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, a conviction in the Senate means that the president only loses his job. Even targets of grand jury investigations don’t get the panoply of “rights” that Cipollone wrongly claims the president deserves under the Constitution at the House stage of the impeachment proceedings—namely, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, to have counsel present during each stage of the process, to have access to the evidence, to get transcripts of the testimony, and “many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.”

That said, as Republicans have pointed out, the full House of Representatives held votes formally triggering the impeachment inquiries for presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. For both Nixon and Clinton, the impeachment process began with resolutions giving the Judiciary Committee the power to conduct an investigation into whether grounds for impeachment existed. Republicans argue that this precedent—although not binding—should be followed here.

In 1868, however, after Andrew Johnson dismissed the Secretary of War in violation of a statute that required Senate approval, the House voted on a “Resolution providing for the impeachment” of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors in office.” A vote on the actual articles of impeachment came a few days later. For Johnson, then, there was no threshold vote on an impeachment inquiry, so historical precedent isn’t uniform.

That said, there is a legal and strategic rationale for holding a House vote at this juncture. Per Cipollone’s letter, the White House is refusing categorically to respond to congressional subpoenas. For Nixon and Clinton, the subpoenas came through the judicial branch, not Congress. Encouraging Monica Lewinsky to conceal gifts subpoenaed by independent counsel Ken Starr was among the items listed in the articles of impeachment for Clinton. Nixon balked at a subpoena from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the White House tapes, losing the challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For congressional subpoenas, the 1961 decision in Wilkinson v. United States is more on point. In that case, a witness refused to answer questions about his Communist party affiliation when subpoenaed to testify before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating Communist infiltration in the South. The witness cited First Amendment concerns, claiming that “the Congress cannot investigate into an area where it cannot legislate.” He was convicted of violating a statute making it a misdemeanor for refusing to answer any question pertinent to a congressional inquiry.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the investigation was authorized by Congress, that the subcommittee was pursuing a valid legislative purpose, and that the questioning was pertinent to the congressional inquiry. It rejected the First Amendment claim.

Arguably, a House vote to instigate formal impeachment hearings would strengthen Congress’s hand should the stonewalled subpoenas reach the federal courts through the filing of a civil action. (We can expect that, unlike in Wilkinson, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Bill Barr won’t take up a criminal action to enforce Congress’s subpoena prerogative.)

But impeachment is an express power entrusted to the House in Article II of the Constitution. There’s no debate here about squishy constitutional language, originalism, or a “living Constitution.” Nor does this text involve arcane English that people today cannot readily comprehend. The House unequivocally has the power it is currently exercising.

If this issue reaches the Supreme Court on the merits, even conservative-leaning justices will likely agree: Impeachment proceedings are not unconstitutional.

https://thebulwark.com/impeachment-and-the-due-process-canard/




Wrong nitwit....Shiff has called these hearings depositions and grand jury style.....What they are doing is wrong, useless, and will absolutely backfire....

Impeachment is not a partisan event, which this clearly is. If you think the framers would approve of what's going on here you are one stupid liberal.

But I doubt you have the integrity to admit that...


A full House vote: Not required

First, there is no constitutional requirement that the full House pass a resolution authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry before committees of the House begin gathering evidence of impeachable conduct. The constitution’s provisions on impeachment are few, but clear, in their assignment to the House of plenary authority over impeachment and the rules for conducting this and all other elements of its business.

Article I, Section 2 states, “The House of Representatives shall … have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Article I, Section 5, states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings….” In short, the constitution confers no authority on a president to demand that the House set the rules of impeachment to his liking.

The point is made even clearer by recognition that impeachment is only one of the many powers granted to Congress. Article I, Section 7 confers the power of initiating revenue bills exclusively on the House, while Section 8 lists a cornucopia of powers shared by the House and Senate acting together – the powers to regulate interstate commerce, to lay taxes, to borrow money, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform rules for bankruptcies, to establish post offices, to raise armies, and on and on. The exercise of all these powers requires collection of information enabling Congress to formulate specific responses – bills in the case of routine legislation or specific charges framed as articles in the case of impeachment.

The Constitution no more requires the House to pass a special resolution to gather facts relevant to a particular potential impeachment than it requires a special resolution of the whole House before a committee may gather facts related to legislation on interstate commerce, taxation, or establishing a post office.

The White House is correct that in the three main presidential impeachment controversies – Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton – the House chose to pass such resolutions, largely in recognition of the solemnity of the undertaking. But there is no constitutional warrant for the idea that such a resolution is required. Again, the constitution makes the House the sole arbiter of its own rules.

What has the Supreme Court actually said about required procedures?

The second White House argument, that the ongoing House impeachment inquiry is constitutionally illegitimate for lack of a list of particular “due process” protections is even more specious. To begin, in the only Supreme Court ruling bearing on the question, the Court found in Nixon v. United States, that challenges to the procedures of a Senate impeachment trial are non-justiciable, in other words, a matter not to be resolved by the courts. (The 1993 judgment by the Court involved the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, not President Richard Nixon.)

Judge Nixon argued unsuccessfully that, because Article I, Section 3, confers on the Senate the sole power to “try” impeachments, the full Senate must sit and conduct a proceeding with all the trappings of a formal court trial. While Justices White and Souter intimated in concurrence that some minimal procedures might be implied by the mention of a trial, the suggestion was, at best, dicta. But that’s the Senate in any case. Critically, there is not a hint that that the Court would presume to decree a specific list of required procedures for the far different House process of approving articles of impeachment. Indeed, the Constitution’s explicit commitment that the House has the “sole power of impeachment” leads to the same conclusion: the procedures are, in essence, for the House to decide.

What’s more, as any lawyer knows, “due process” is an almost infinitely malleable phrase. The process due in one kind of proceeding will be quite different than in another kind of proceeding. Even if there were some requirement of “due process” before the House could vote out articles of impeachment, one would need to consider carefully what the House is charged by the Constitution to do. The House’s constitutional function is merely to approve charges, not to adjudicate them. Thus, the legal procedure to which the duties of the House are most analogous is the process by which grand juries approve indictments.

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66534/white-house-letter-distorts-both-law-and-history-on-impeachment/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Let me remind you stupid...Trump has destroyed the Clintons, destroyed the Bushes, Destroyed the Bidens, destroyed the media, and is in the process of destroying the deep state...."


mat-ty, what's with the "destroyed" characterization over and over? Is this WWE?

Given the fact that Bard has posted a number of videos where Donald Trump is like some animated super hero swiping out all the bad guys and draining the swamp, who knows what you guys actually think.

What I find hard to believe is how you can worship Donald Trump knowing how dishonest the guy is. The idea of turning him into a super hero or valiant crusader is stupid crazy.

You need to reflect a bit...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
"Let me remind you stupid...Trump has destroyed the Clintons, destroyed the Bushes, Destroyed the Bidens, destroyed the media, and is in the process of destroying the deep state...."


mat-ty, what's with the "destroyed" characterization over and over? Is this WWE?

Given the fact that Bard has posted a number of videos where Donald Trump is like some animated super hero swiping out all the bad guys and draining the swamp, who knows what you guys actually think.

What I find hard to believe is how you can worship Donald Trump knowing how dishonest the guy is. The idea of turning him into a super hero or valiant crusader is stupid crazy.

You need to reflect a bit...



Dishonest??????? Hard to acknowledge your calls of Trumps dishonesty when you completely ignore the criminal and dishonest actions of the left in the past three years......We spent 2.5 years living through the daily LIES of collusion...
Never once did I hear you call your party out...And now we know it was a complete fabrication....crickets !!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 941

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we joined other legal experts earlier this month to testify before the House Judiciary Committee regarding lessons from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, it became apparent from the questioning that a number of misconceptions continue to exist regarding Mueller’s findings. The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller’s conclusions three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page report. In a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his team’s work and conclusions, and created “public confusion.” Here is our effort to dispel some of those myths.

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

Myth: Mueller found no obstruction.

Response: Mueller found at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied – attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. As Mueller stated, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller declined to make a “traditional prosecution decision” about obstruction of justice. Because he was bound by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, he did not even attempt to reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Instead, he undertook to “preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” because a president can be charged after he leaves office. In fact, out of an abundance of fairness, Mueller thought that it would be improper to even accuse Trump of committing a crime so as not to “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” meaning impeachment.

Myth: Case closed. No do-overs.

Response: Mueller investigated the case under criminal statutes, which is a narrow and specific window of inquiry. Congress has a different and broader responsibility to determine whether the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment is appropriate. Congress is not bound by the high standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Mueller used for his criminal inquiry. Our system reserves that burden of proof for cases where someone’s liberty is at stake and they may be incarcerated as a result of proceedings. That is not the case with impeachment.

Myth: Focus on obstruction detracts from focus on Russia.

Response: We agree that it is critical to defend our elections against future instances of the Russian attack Mueller details in his report. But focusing on obstruction is focusing on Russia. Mueller concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.” The report documents Trump’s efforts to end or curtail the investigation, his refusal to be interviewed and written answers that Mueller found “inadequate.” The report also notes that members of the campaign lied, refused to answer questions, deleted communications and used encrypted applications. Obstruction is a crime precisely because those who engage in it seek to keep investigators from arriving at the truth. As Mueller wrote in Volume I, pertaining to conspiracy with Russia, “given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” Efforts to obstruct the investigation may have shielded not only the conduct of members of Trump’s campaign, but also active measures by Russia to interfere with our election.

Myth: If there was no underlying crime, then there can be no obstruction of justice.

Response: Obstruction of justice includes not just completed acts but also attempts. That rule makes sense because otherwise even the most blatant obstructers could avoid accountability by successfully concealing their crimes from investigators. Furthermore, attempts are illegal because the wrong that the law seeks to prevent is the effort to prevent investigators from learning the truth. Here, of course, crimes were charged against 37 individuals and entities, including two dozen Russian nationals.

Although Mueller was unable to establish each and every element of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he found contacts with Russia that may have created concern for Trump that they would amount to a crime or create embarrassment for himself, his family and his campaign. He also may have been motivated by a desire to conceal his payments to silence Stormy Daniels regarding allegations of marital infidelity on the eve of the election after his disparaging remarks about women on the Access Hollywood tape had become public, activity for which he is described as “Individual-1,” an unindicted co-conspirator, in a federal criminal case filed in the Southern District of New York. In addition, Trump may have been motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance that his election was illegitimate because it was achieved with assistance from a foreign adversary. He could have been concerned that the investigation would reveal personal financial matters, which he has always considered sensitive. Regardless of his motive, Trump’s efforts to interfere with Mueller’s investigation legally amount to obstruction of justice, even under the narrow definition and high standard of proof Mueller used.

Myth: Because Trump was unsuccessful in ending the investigation, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Response: The report finds substantial evidence that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he was prepared to resign rather than comply. Because the law punishes attempts, Trump’s effort to end the investigation constitutes obstruction of justice, even though McGahn did not follow through on the order. In addition, Mueller found that all elements of obstruction were satisfied with regard to Trump’s efforts to limit the investigation to future elections: Trump directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself from the investigation and to publicly announce that the investigation would focus on only future elections — that is, even if Mueller were fired and then replaced, the new special counsel would be required to ignore facts relating to the 2016 election. If successful, this effort would have prevented us from learning the truth about Russia’s efforts to attack the 2016 election. By looking out for his own interests, Trump ignored the interests of our country.

Myth: A president cannot obstruct justice as a matter of law when he is exercising executive power.

Response: Mueller found that this theory, advanced by Barr in an unsolicited 19-page memo before he became attorney general, was inconsistent with the law, the Constitution and the foundational notion of separation of powers. The Constitution requires not just that the president execute the law, but that he do so “faithfully.” Under Barr’s theory, a president would be above the law and could engage in behavior such as ordering a U.S. Attorney to investigate a political rival even if no criminal behavior had occurred or to stop investigating a friend or family member. Mueller was able to draw upon the expertise of team member Michael Dreeban, DOJ’s top career criminal appellate lawyer who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations over his three decades at the Department, and has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. Barr has never been a courtroom prosecutor. As Mueller and his team stated, subjecting the president to obstruction law is consistent with the fundamental principle of our government that “no person in this country is so high that he is above the law.” Even under Barr’s theory, a president commits illegal obstruction when he engages in conduct that is outside his executive power, such as directing a witness to create a false document, as Mueller found that Trump did with McGahn.

Myth: Mueller wanted Barr to make the call on whether Trump committed obstruction.

Response: Mueller didn’t invite Barr to make a decision about prosecuting obstruction. He left it to prosecutors who could decide whether to pursue charges after Trump left office and to Congress which has impeachment power. And Mueller’s treatment of conspiracy shows that he knew how to conclude that a crime has not been established. By declining to reach the same conclusion with regard to obstruction, he indicated that he clearly found the evidence of that crime more troubling. Barr’s peremptory dismissal of obstruction happened with no explanation of how he was able to resolve the evidence of obstruction when Mueller could not. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, including us, have signed a letter stating that the evidence establishes multiple counts of obstruction of justice. And Mueller expressed concern to Barr that the attorney general’s intervention threatened to undermine “the central purpose” for appointing a special counsel: “to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Myth: The investigation began with the Steele dossier.

Response: According the Mueller report, the investigation began in July 2016 after Wikileaks had released materials stolen from the computers of the Democratic National Committee. The FBI received information from a foreign government that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had told one of its representatives that “the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” Mueller’s report states, “That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.” Mueller makes no statement to indicate that the investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, a series of reports that were compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who was hired by a research company that was working for a law firm paid first by a conservative website and later by the Clinton campaign.

Myth: Spying occurred against the Trump campaign.

Response: In October 2016, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump adviser. Authorization for surveillance under FISA requires a judge to find probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. The Steele dossier was part of a 66-page application submitted by DOJ and the FBI describing other facts in support of probable cause. The fact that the Steele dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign was disclosed in the application to the court in a footnote, which is consistent with the way potential bias is typically disclosed to a judge so that he may assess the credibility of the source. Renewals of the FISA application were approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by President Trump. While court-authorized surveillance was used in this counterintelligence investigation into Russia, there is nothing to indicate that this technique was improper.

Myth: The special counsel’s name is Robert Mule-er.

Response: At the hearing, at least two members of Congress referred to the special counsel as Mr. “Mule-er.” Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, Mueller is a dedicated public servant who took on a thankless task and a huge pay cut to investigate an attack on our national security, and he deserves the respect of having his name pronounced correctly. It’s pronounced “Muller.”

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hahaha keep dreaming stupid...Mueller spent two years with 19 of the top prosecutors in the country, the full resources of the US intelligence, FBI,CIA etc and a limitless budget........AND FOUND NOTHING worthwhile . No matter how much you liberal shit bags try to spin it. THAT'S WHY IT'S DEAD NITWIT...


As the great Bill Belichick would say .....We are on to Ukraine..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is only one person who colluded with Russia...HRC



https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446736-hillary-clintons-russia-collusion-iou-the-answers-she-owes-america
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty, you're getting so off-the-top that it's laughable. Always deflecting and circling around blaming the Democrats.

Like a run-on recording that never changes, and too high on Donald Trump to really care.

Believe me, Trump is getting nervous. Just look at his daily nonsense. Hardly the leader that we really need for this nation. Just think about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
mat-ty, you're getting so off-the-top that it's laughable. Always deflecting and circling around blaming the Democrats.

Like a run-on recording that never changes, and too high on Donald Trump to really care.

Believe me, Trump is getting nervous. Just look at his daily nonsense. Hardly the leader that we really need for this nation. Just think about it.


Okay clueless.....remind me who was dead wrong for the past two years??? that would be nitwits like you that were all in on RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX..
absolute fucking goose egg...

If you don't think Barr and Durham are about to drop the bomb of the century you are one clueless old fool....

Don't worry I will be right here to remind you how wrong you were...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty, I'm not interested in Donald Trump and his endless whining about being a victim. I've already been quite clear about how pathetic that path is.

Let's forget the nonsense and be honest. Thoughtful folks understand what's going on, and they won't suffer fools.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
If you don't think Barr and Durham are about to drop the bomb of the century you are one clueless old fool....
Don't worry I will be right here to remind you how wrong you were...

Great. I hope you will also not forget to mention when the bomb won't materialize.

Just to be ready, what's your bomb's eta? Next week, next month, end of the year? Or you're just not quite sure, yet, but it will happen, guaranteed, and if it won't it's only because the mean Deep state killed it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1041, 1042, 1043 ... 1060, 1061, 1062  Next
Page 1042 of 1062

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group