The purpose of this statement was to tell Congress not to call him in to testify. He won't be providing anything that's not already publicly known.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
- Thread starter ScoobyDoo
- Start date
- Status
The purpose of this statement was to tell Congress not to call him in to testify. He won't be providing anything that's not already publicly known.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
While he fellated Barr.
While he fellated Barr.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He's finally figured out there was insufficient evidence, not "no collusion." He ignores obstruction. A lack of evidence doesn't mean someone is innocent, it just means they won't be charged, now. And in the case of a President, it means there must be impeachment proceedings. <a href="https://t.co/GaKX090jzr">https://t.co/GaKX090jzr</a></p>— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1133760567288750080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He's finally figured out there was insufficient evidence, not "no collusion." He ignores obstruction. A lack of evidence doesn't mean someone is innocent, it just means they won't be charged, now. And in the case of a President, it means there must be impeachment proceedings. <a href="https://t.co/GaKX090jzr">https://t.co/GaKX090jzr</a></p>— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1133760567288750080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If you're not going to get a conviction, why bother? That's something Newt, et al failed to realize.
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Mueller doesn't get to pre-approve the questions he's going to be asked. Get him in there and find out a lot more about the obstruction of justice charges, such as were it not for DOJ policy to not indict a President would Chump have gotten indicted, and can he be indicted once he leaves office?
Mueller doesn't get to pre-approve the questions he's going to be asked. Get him in there and find out a lot more about the obstruction of justice charges, such as were it not for DOJ policy to not indict a President would Chump have gotten indicted, and can he be indicted once he leaves office?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Mueller will not answer that question.
Mueller will not answer that question.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
They might not indict a sitting president but holding them accountable after they leave office would still be a huge improvement over Obama doing nothing about the Bush admin's blatant crimes.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
That precedent was set during the Reagan Administration. Democrats, naturally, followed precedent.
That precedent was set during the Reagan Administration. Democrats, naturally, followed precedent.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Well yeah, that too. And I suppose my post about the Bush Admin should go back further to Reagan's admin.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Democrats follow precedent. Republicans create precedent. Based on what I am hearing all Mueller really did today was tell Congress again, that it's their job to indict, not his.
Democrats follow precedent. Republicans create precedent. Based on what I am hearing all Mueller really did today was tell Congress again, that it's their job to indict, not his.
If Elizabeth Warren wins next year do you think she wants talk about Trump dominating the news during her presidency? There is a good reason presidents want to move on.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
You both sound very concerned...
You both sound very concerned...
rufus
rock and roller
Why bother? So, law-breaking by the president of the efin' United States should just get a pass? Just no consequences whatsoever?
I thought you guys were the law and order party?
Just another principle you've sold out for tax cuts, no abortions, and f@g hating?
If only you'd felt that way about Clinton getting knobbed on.
Last edited:
D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
Don’t forget the fourth Christian tenant, hating brown people!!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Have the justice department investigate the Dumps. The President doesn't have to have any part in it.
There has to be some sort of accountability or Dumps will keep happening and some of them will be smart and not inept. And if that doesn't frighten you, consider: Dumpism is non-ideological gangtserism, so the next Dump could as easily come from the Left. You maybe fine with a fascist tyrant, but what about a far left tyrant?
We let Iran-Contra and Iraq off without prosecution and that was a lethal mistake. We have to clean out the criminals from time to time or they come back stronger, richer, and more powerful each time.
Have the justice department investigate the Dumps. The President doesn't have to have any part in it.
There has to be some sort of accountability or Dumps will keep happening and some of them will be smart and not inept. And if that doesn't frighten you, consider: Dumpism is non-ideological gangtserism, so the next Dump could as easily come from the Left. You maybe fine with a fascist tyrant, but what about a far left tyrant?
We let Iran-Contra and Iraq off without prosecution and that was a lethal mistake. We have to clean out the criminals from time to time or they come back stronger, richer, and more powerful each time.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
Holding people accountable when they blatantly break the law (specifically the rich) is something that would be well supported on either side of the political aisle. IRT specifically it might not get over 50% support on the R side but it'd definitely have well over that on the D side and it'd probably be > 60% of the country.
I think we know by now that Joe is a single issue voter.
Last edited:
rufus
rock and roller
You would think.
rufus
rock and roller
Don't really understand why he feels he has a stake in that issue.
Certainly torture, holding kids in cages, and Meskin kids dying in concentration camps don't appear to offend his Christian sensibilities.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
That's not fair, he has another, lesser issue that makes him vote Republican - immigration. Pat Buchanan has been spoon-feeding Joe on it for years.
That's not fair, he has another, lesser issue that makes him vote Republican - immigration. Pat Buchanan has been spoon-feeding Joe on it for years.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45:53: I Didn't Appoint That Judge So It Doesn't Matter.
What in the hell are you blabbering about?
What in the hell are you blabbering about?
- Status