That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
989,798 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
aginlakeway said:Gary Johnson said:aginlakeway said:
Gary or Jimmy or any others ...
$250 to SPCA on the election? I'll take Trump.
I'll take the first 4 posters who want to wager.
What if he resigns or is removed by the Senate?
I'll give you 5:1 odds on any amount you want to wager that doesn't happen. How much?
I'm absolutely shocked that Gary/Chase/Jimmy won't take this bet. Shocked I tell you.
Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
An unconstitutional act is not a crime.
Congress/President signs unconstitutional laws regularly. ITS NOT A CRIME!
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,074
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm just trying to distract you with your other favorite chew toy.Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
Plus, it's painfully dishonest to ignore what the market would do if Trump really was in trouble with all this nonsense and a Biden/Bernie/Pocahontas was gaining huge amounts of traction. Plenty of rich Dems in power places that know what would happen if those three knuckleheads get to grab the steering wheel.
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
An unconstitutional act is not a crime.
Congress/President signs unconstitutional laws regularly. ITS NOT A CRIME!
Cool. Trump should file a case to get the articles dismissed on those grounds. He won't, which is how we know it's just sh** talk to comfort the dumbest of his followers.
Your troll job is 10x worse
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
An unconstitutional act is not a crime.
Congress/President signs unconstitutional laws regularly. ITS NOT A CRIME!
Cool. Trump should file a case to get the articles dismissed on those grounds. He won't, which is how we know it's just sh** talk to comfort the dumbest of his followers.
You are the one swinging your big ole hog for 20 pages around claiming Trump is guilty. You can't name a law he broke. The people who hate Trump the most couldn't even find a law to pretend he broke.
Now I'm supposed to believe after
Russiagate
Stormygate
Sharpiegate
Ukrainegate
that some idiot named "Hyde" has the keys to bring down the kingdom. You are deluding yourself.
Russiagate
Stormygate
Sharpiegate
Ukrainegate
that some idiot named "Hyde" has the keys to bring down the kingdom. You are deluding yourself.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,082
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
you know how Internet porn Addiction utterly fries some people's brains and even leaves them with erectile dysfunction? Well this insanity is a type of hope-porn that Gary/his multitude of socks is hopelessly addicted to and it has fried his brain.Rockdoc said:
And certain posters gobble it up!
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
An unconstitutional act is not a crime.
Congress/President signs unconstitutional laws regularly. ITS NOT A CRIME!
Cool. Trump should file a case to get the articles dismissed on those grounds. He won't, which is how we know it's just sh** talk to comfort the dumbest of his followers.
I rarely block people. But your posts are a waste of time. Good luck in your efforts.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
It is perfectly legal for the US government to investigate one of its diplomats if they believe said diplomat has done something wrong. We already know that this woman was using the resources of her office to spy on Americans connected to Trump and conservative media people.Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:Wildcat said:
Why would the Ukrainian government investigate whether the American government was surveiling an American diplomat in The Ukraine?
1. It was Trump's private team, not the government
2. It's illegal
Since when is physically following someone a crime?
Do I have to spoonfeed everything? Click the link.Quote:
However, the published references cited by the Washington Post contain a possible violation of the law of Ukraine and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects the rights of a diplomat on the territory of the foreign country.
You really didn't think it might be illegal to physically and electronically surveill an ambassador?
Electronically, yes (without a warrant). Physically, in the United States, probably not. You know there is a whole industry based on it. So I doubt there is much blow back domestically.
This is like claiming criminality if an american woman drove in Saudi Arabia. I don't exactly care what the laws are in some second rate country.
I'm sure it's illegal here to sureveill a diplomat. They were in Ukraine which is why the Ukrainian government announced investigations under Ukrainian law.
If you care or not is irrelevant.
As for Hyde, who holds no position in government, he would not be involved in it, unless he did it on his own, which would be illegal, but in no way connected to Trump.
I don't understand why the ICA wasn't cited in the articles of impeachment.
Hey Gary. Maybe you should go back to things you know something about.....like....maybe economics. Oh, my bad. We've already covered that.
Bwahahahahh. Bwahahahahh. Lmao.
Bwahahahahh. Bwahahahahh. Lmao.
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
That's a weird defense of a crime.
But the stock market doesn't GIAF if Trump gets impeached.
An unconstitutional act is not a crime.
Congress/President signs unconstitutional laws regularly. ITS NOT A CRIME!
Cool. Trump should file a case to get the articles dismissed on those grounds. He won't, which is how we know it's just sh** talk to comfort the dumbest of his followers.
So you just can't help yourself. I guess when this gets banned you go back to chase
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:Wildcat said:
Why would the Ukrainian government investigate whether the American government was surveiling an American diplomat in The Ukraine?
1. It was Trump's private team, not the government
2. It's illegal
Since when is physically following someone a crime?
Do I have to spoonfeed everything? Click the link.Quote:
However, the published references cited by the Washington Post contain a possible violation of the law of Ukraine and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects the rights of a diplomat on the territory of the foreign country.
You really didn't think it might be illegal to physically and electronically surveill an ambassador?
Electronically, yes (without a warrant). Physically, in the United States, probably not. You know there is a whole industry based on it. So I doubt there is much blow back domestically.
This is like claiming criminality if an american woman drove in Saudi Arabia. I don't exactly care what the laws are in some second rate country.
I'm sure it's illegal here to sureveill a diplomat. They were in Ukraine which is why the Ukrainian government announced investigations under Ukrainian law.
If you care or not is irrelevant.
Surveillance of a foreign ambassador, probably. Could you follow a US ambassador stateside? Its within your rights as a citizen in the public square. I'm sure there are laws on how and duration. But I'm not the one jumping to conclusions that the White House ordered illegal surveillance.
Let it gooooooo
My guess would be because every president have violated it at one time or another.aggiehawg said:
I don't understand why the ICA wasn't cited in the articles of impeachment.
ExactlyAustinScubaAg said:My guess would be because every president have violated it at one time or another.aggiehawg said:
I don't understand why the ICA wasn't cited in the articles of impeachment.
And because the Democrats know it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
We surveill foreign ambassadors routinely under FISA. How Flynn and Kislyak conversations were picked up.
Yovanovitch was an ambassador in a former Soviet satellite. She was likely being watched by all sorts of people.
Yovanovitch was an ambassador in a former Soviet satellite. She was likely being watched by all sorts of people.
Especially when most was disappearing and unaccounted for.Quote:
I must have missed the law that says we have to give Ukraine taxpayer money, can you point me to that one?
But wanting to fight corruption is a bad thing if Trump is doing it.
And I'd put good money that the author of this "opinion" is an Obama appointee or known Democrat supporter.
Rapier108 said:ExactlyAustinScubaAg said:My guess would be because every president have violated it at one time or another.aggiehawg said:
I don't understand why the ICA wasn't cited in the articles of impeachment.
And because the Democrats know it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
My point was I don't think that act applies. If it did wouldn't Biden have violated it with his threats.
Biden is a Democrat, so under the current legal system, no.aggiehawg said:Rapier108 said:ExactlyAustinScubaAg said:My guess would be because every president have violated it at one time or another.aggiehawg said:
I don't understand why the ICA wasn't cited in the articles of impeachment.
And because the Democrats know it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
My point was I don't think that act applies. If it did wouldn't Biden have violated it with his threats.
A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?
Gary Johnson said:
"No law was broken" talking point gone.
Finally something that possibly could have happened. One congress could have actually discussed but did not.
One that is ultimately mute because the funds were released on time, and in their full amount.
So it's possible you got trump on an accounting speeding ticket. One impeachment leaders chose to ignore.
Given the reaction from Democrats and leftists, they think it is.Wildcat said:
A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?
Many think Trump will be marched out in chains by end of the day. Some are calling for people to storm the White House and remove him by force. Twitter is in the biggest meltdown in a while.
The thing is, the money was delivered within the time Congress said it had to be delivered.
Have you paid attention to the GAO in years past?
Did we "get him" yet?
Gary Johnson said:Wildcat said:
A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?
The point of the GAO is to be the swamp watchdog. Trump is the swamp.
If they released an adverse legal opinion about Hillary this board would cream itself.
Thanks to you, we all know exactly what that looks like.
Featured Stories
See All
Around CFB: Army, Notre Dame meet under a blue-gray November sky
by Olin Buchanan
9:59
7h ago
631
5:25
7h ago
1.3k