Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[fishonjazz]

Oh, you mean like when BLM chants we want dead cops and 5 Dallas cops are shot dead?

Do you mean like how the left doesnt condem the calls for violence against cops? And we keep ending up with dead cops?

Is that what you mean?

Well that deflection was predictable

I actually hold the president of the United States to a higher standard than blm or "the left" (or the right for that matter)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Red]

4. I like how this is now about Obstruction of Justice, and not collusion. You dont see anything wrong with charging someone with obstruction for a crime they werent committing and were just being entrapped by spying agents and a dirty bought and paid for FBI?

I have to run at the moment, doctor appointments, etc., but I'll take the time to point out that I already explained this to you in an earlier comment. By committing obstruction of justice, even absent an underlying crime, a president demonstrates that he does not uphold the rule of law. That is why it is a issue. It demonstrates the president believes he is above the law. This is a simple concept to understand, but I cannot make you understand it, it's up to you to get it.

As to what you call the other 1%, I do not know what is in it, so I cannot say what it will reveal. Rep Schiff has also supoenaed the counterintelligence component of Mueller's report, as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Congress has every right to see all of that, and making the Mueller report something that is protected by executive privlage will not stand, IMO. We'll see, though.

I would also like to point out that you have not commented, at all, on any of the points I raised. You have not demonstrated you understand separation of powers, or that you understand the power of oversight Congress enjoys over the Executive Branch, or that you comprehend the notion of co-equal branches of government. You have given no indication whatsoever that you comprehend any of that. It's all Civics 101. And you've ignored every point I made while asking me questions, like the nature of obstruction of justice, that I have already taken the time to provide clear, and easy to comprehend, answers for you.

But it wouldn't matter, because you will never change your tune, despite my belief that you do in fact understand all of this.....

 

[One Brow]

Oh, you mean like when BLM chants we want dead cops and 5 Dallas cops are shot dead?

By a person not affiliated with BLM.

Do you mean like how the left doesnt condem the calls for violence against cops? And we keep ending up with dead cops?

The number of police killed in the line of duty hasn't changed significantly in the past ten years. Just the usual up-and-down fluctuations.

https://www.statista.com/chart/11727/us-police-deaths-spiked-last-year/

Still, you do get organization on the left condemning violence against police.

https://action.groundswell-mvmt.org...nst-black-people-and-law-enforcement-officers

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So, when they invent an election out of thin air that hurts a far-left figure like Maduro, that's "sloppy", not anti-Maduro. Thank you for clarifying exactly how you interpret who has what sort of bias.

You are pretty far left. Do you support Maduro? Do you know of any American politicians who support Maduro? Does the American Democratic Party support Maduro? Yes, Maduro is very far left and CNN got something wrong about him, but unless I'm mistaken the American Left is fortunately very much anti-Maduro, so your claim is absurd.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

CNN

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

We are having a discussion about whether CNN has a liberal bias. I say they do, OneBrow says they don't. Either way, what does the answer to that question have to do with whether I read them or not?

 

[Hotdog]

I have to run at the moment, doctor appointments, etc., but I'll take the time to point out that I already explained this to you in an earlier comment. By committing obstruction of justice, even absent an underlying crime, a president demonstrates that he does not uphold the rule of law. That is why it is a issue. It demonstrates the president believes he is above the law. This is a simple concept to understand, but I cannot make you understand it, it's up to you to get it.

As to what you call the other 1%, I do not know what is in it, so I cannot say what it will reveal. Rep Schiff has also supoenaed the counterintelligence component of Mueller's report, as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Congress has every right to see all of that, and making the Mueller report something that is protected by executive privlage will not stand, IMO. We'll see, though.

I would also like to point out that you have not commented, at all, on any of the points I raised. You have not demonstrated you understand separation of powers, or that you understand the power of oversight Congress enjoys over the Executive Branch, or that you comprehend the notion of co-equal branches of government. You have given no indication whatsoever that you comprehend any of that. It's all Civics 101. And you've ignored every point I made while asking me questions, like the nature of obstruction of justice, that I have already taken the time to provide clear, and easy to comprehend, answers for you.

But it wouldn't matter, because you will never change your tune, despite my belief that you do in fact understand all of this.....

I quite fully understand what you are saying and appreciate your responses. I dont need a civics lesson.

My point is that we need to solve inconsistencies in the moral outrage before we can agree.

You claim this is about upholding the law, but you only seen focused on the law being upheld for just one person. And might I add, you are not being consistent with the laws. It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Even for the president. You and everyone else on the left have already deemed Trump guilty a long time ago. And you were wrong about it. Now you want to move onto the next thing and deem him guilty. The attorney General of the United States has made the decision to uphold the law, and you dont like that. So there is another inconsistency in your stance. You also dont seem to concerned with the abuse of power by the FBI in their political attack on Trump either.

The president isnt above the law, but he surely isnt below it either. He deserves the same due process and protections as any other citizen, despite what @fishonjazz says.

 

[Hotdog]

FYI

The entirety of the Muller report has been made to 6 Democrats who refuse to read it. With the exception of 2 full lines and 7 partial lines, out of the 448 page.

Ya, there is so much info in there that will get Trump if we could just see that remaining .0001 percent of the Muller report.

Why dont guys try doing a little research before you start coming unhinged every 5 minutes over nothing.

 

[Hotdog]

I cannot wait til this goes to court and the Democrats take another L. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Need it before the next election.

I predict that the next conspiracy theory will be the court and judges are corrupt when they rule in Trump's favor. I guarantee this to happen.

I'll be book marking this post.

 

[Harambe]

I cannot wait til this goes to court and the Democrats take another L. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Need it before the next election.

I predict that the next conspiracy theory will be the court and judges are corrupt when they rule in Trump's favor. I guarantee this to happen.

I'll be book marking this post.

I'm not at all surprised you're the guy that re-reads his own posts.

 

[Hotdog]

I'm not at all surprised you're the guy that re-reads his own posts.

And Im not surprised that you think the **** you have said shouldn't have any impact on your credibility.

You and every other libtard thinks they can just say false things constantly and still be taken seriously.

 

[Harambe]

And Im not surprised that you think the **** you have said shouldn't have any impact on your credibility.

You and every other libtard thinks they can just say false things constantly and still be taken seriously.

If you had any credibility, you wouldn't be treated like ****.

 

[Hotdog]

If you had any credibility, you wouldn't be treated like ****.

Mr Mad Monkey. Its either that, or Im not an echo chamber boot licker desperate for internet friends such as yourself.

 

[Hotdog]

Gotta love the crickets on Obama doing the same things so we can keep with the narrative of constitutional crisis now.

Shall I post videos of of the same people in congress like Nancy that had the exact opposite reaction to when the Republicans were holding Eric Holder in contempt?

Im just so amazed that you guys still dont get that this is team politics, and your moral outrage you adopt for your leaders you idolize, is selective and fake.


Seriously, when do you grow up and actually look at reality and stop parroting things?

I'll come to the middle when you do. Otherwise I have to balance this out.

That mad monkey and his bad opinions is tipping the scales over.

 

[Harambe]

Mr Mad Monkey. Its either that, or Im not an echo chamber boot licker desperate for internet friends such as yourself.

But you *are* in an echo chamber. One that you didn't start in but insist on propagating.

 

[fishonjazz]

We are having a discussion about whether CNN has a liberal bias. I say they do, OneBrow says they don't. Either way, what does the answer to that question have to do with whether I read them or not?

Why read articles from a source that you believe to be bias/incorrect? Just seems like a strange thing to do

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Hotdog]

But you *are* in an echo chamber. One that you didn't start in but insist on propagating.

I noticed you didnt refute that you are a boot licker.

Hurry up pleb. One Brow needs his boots cleaned.

 

[fishonjazz]

I quite fully understand what you are saying and appreciate your responses. I dont need a civics lesson.

My point is that we need to solve inconsistencies in the moral outrage before we can agree.

You claim this is about upholding the law, but you only seen focused on the law being upheld for just one person. And might I add, you are not being consistent with the laws. It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Even for the president. You and everyone else on the left have already deemed Trump guilty a long time ago. And you were wrong about it. Now you want to move onto the next thing and deem him guilty. The attorney General of the United States has made the decision to uphold the law, and you dont like that. So there is another inconsistency in your stance. You also dont seem to concerned with the abuse of power by the FBI in their political attack on Trump either.

The president isnt above the law, but he surely isnt below it either. He deserves the same due process and protections as any other citizen, despite what @fishonjazz says.

Lol.
He clearly is above the law.
And I was talking about you comparing Trump not condemning things to blm not condemning things. That was your comparison.
I would hope that the president would act in a better way than blm. I hold the president to a higher standard.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Lol at hack

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Harambe]

I noticed you didnt refute that you are a boot licker.

Hurry up pleb. One Brow needs his boots cleaned.

Maybe I like the taste of boots. They have to be better than the taste of Donnie's dingleberries.

Fake edit; As this forums foremost expert, what do they taste like? Are they better with Whole, 2% or Skim?

 

[The Thriller]

I’m assuming that no one on this thread condones the notion of shooting immigrants. At a trump rally, a person shouted “shoot them” the crowd laughed and cheered and trump joked.

I have not heard trump or his followers distance themselves from this.

Giving trump supporters a chance to comment to condemn this and refute the deplorable narrative.

I wonder about the different response if a BLM rally shouted “shoot them” about white nationalists. Just curious.

While this sort of thing has gotten worse under Trump, it’s been bubbling for quite some time. Remember this gem? I know our little Kentucky boy on this forum was here cheerleading these lame *** gun nuts white supremacists on. Anyone remember this? It’s not like trumpism evolved out of a vacuum. The right has been harboring authoritarianism for a while now

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-mack-_n_5154606

A former Arizona sheriff who supported a Nevada rancher in his land dispute with the federal government says he would have put women in the frontline if officers started shooting.

An armed standoff between Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights ended with the federal government abandoning its plans on Saturday to impound Bundy’s cows that roamed public lands.

Richard Mack, a Bundy supporter who served as sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., between 1988-1997, told Fox News on Monday about a planned strategy if “rogue federal agents” had opened fire.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said on Fox News, according to TheBlaze.com. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”