Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 9/19/2018 at 7:30 AM, Koko78 said:

 

He never claimed Clinton wasn't impeached.

 

He said Clinton was never convicted of anything, but he certainly was impeached.

 

Since nothing has happened to Trump, yet, what's his point?

 

If Trump were to be convicted of something he might have a point. Then again, if Trump is convicted of something in the future, it will all be moot.

 

By the way, the notion that a President cannot be prosecuted for a crime is pure nonsense. It's certainly not in the Constitution. 

On 9/19/2018 at 9:05 AM, 4merper4mer said:

Dude.

 

You think The Big Lebowski tried to break into the voting machines?

Posted
20 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

He said Clinton was never convicted of anything, but he certainly was impeached.

 

Since nothing has happened to Trump, yet, what's his point?

 

If Trump were to be convicted of something he might have a point. Then again, if Trump is convicted of something in the future, it will all be moot.

 

By the way, the notion that a President cannot be prosecuted for a crime is pure nonsense. It's certainly not in the Constitution. 

 

You think The Big Lebowski tried to break into the voting machines?

But it is Justice Department policy, just saying. Who knows what they will do. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Kemp said:

He said Clinton was never convicted of anything, but he certainly was impeached.

 

I believe you were the one who said he was convicted.

 

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

By the way, the notion that a President cannot be prosecuted for a crime is pure nonsense. It's certainly not in the Constitution.  

 

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers #69. The founding fathers, specifically Alexander Hamilton, disagree with you. It was their pretty clear intent that impeachment was the remedy for a sitting president, with criminal liability only attaching once he is removed from office.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

Hey any evidence of Russian collusion yet? Just checking.

 

This probe is the biggest fraud in American history. Fact.

Posted
15 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

He said Clinton was never convicted of anything, but he certainly was impeached.

 

Since nothing has happened to Trump, yet, what's his point?

 

If Trump were to be convicted of something he might have a point. Then again, if Trump is convicted of something in the future, it will all be moot.

 

By the way, the notion that a President cannot be prosecuted for a crime is pure nonsense. It's certainly not in the Constitution. 

 

You think The Big Lebowski tried to break into the voting machines?

You can't convict a sitting president of a crime.

Posted
18 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

By the way, the notion that a President cannot be prosecuted for a crime is pure nonsense. It's certainly not in the Constitution. 

 

He can't be.  He has to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office before a criminal charge can be brought against him.

Posted

 

 

“I’ve read it. Some of it’s embarrassing for the Department of Justice — some of it’s embarrassing for the FBI. Embarrassment is not a reason to classify something,” said Gowdy. “A lot of it should be embarrassing to John Brennan, and maybe therein lies why he is so adamant that this information not be released.”

 

 

(Should be.... but Brennan isn't a principled or honorable man, he views what he did as his duty - to to the country, but to his wallet)

  • Like (+1) 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Still in Putin's back pocket, or maybe not.  

 

Funny how the narrative suddenly shifts from a Putin stooge to threatening a nukular war.  Nope, there's absolutely nothing in between.

 

Quote


The U.S. ambassador to NATO set off alarm bells Tuesday when she suggested that the United States might “take out” Russian missiles that U.S. officials say violate a landmark arms control treaty.

Although Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison’s comments were somewhat ambiguous, arms control experts said they could be interpreted to mean a preemptive strike against Russian missiles. Such a move could lead to nuclear war.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, GG said:

Still in Putin's back pocket, or maybe not.  

 

Funny how the narrative suddenly shifts from a Putin stooge to threatening a nukular war.  Nope, there's absolutely nothing in between.

 

 

Well it's obvious if Trump did order the military to take out the Russian missiles, it would be at the expense of the Democrats new best friend and ally - Russia. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, B-Man said:

SO YOU’RE SAYING IT WAS ALL A PUT-UP JOB? Russia collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on dossier before surveillance warrant. 

 

“This is a bombshell that unequivocally shows the real collusion was between the FBI and Donald Trump’s opposition — the DNC, Hillary and a Trump-hating British intel officer — to hijack the election, rather than some conspiracy between Putin and Trump.”

 

There's more to come on this. 

 

I assume the FBI presser tomorrow morning will be about the arrest of the ricin suspect ... but it could be much more interesting.

×
×
  • Create New...