It’s the craziest thing…

[Reagan]

5 minutes ago, UT alum said:

If it was, you can bet Breitbart used it out of context.  I believe nothing they say.

Just admit it, you didn't watch the video!  

[UT alum]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Lame, tired argument when you can’t dispute the point.

I heard the argument. It’s lawyer BS. The investigation started over a year ago. A grand jury voted to bring charges based on the evidence collected over that time, not the DOJ. Citizens chosen at random saw the DOJ evidence and voted to indict. Seems Trump would be anxious to want to prove his innocence he so brazenly proclaims and get on with the election. He’s acting like a guilty person, most an innocent one.

[UT alum]

2 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Just admit it, you didn't watch the video!  

No, I didn’t. See my reply to LumRaider above.

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Chutkan donated $1,500 to Barack Obama's campaign between 2008 and 2009!  Yeah, she's not biased.  LOL!  Yobama also appointed her husband as a Judge.  Yobama appointed people to do his bidding, NOT to follow the law.  Check the 2 on the Supreme Court.  Plus this recent one has Yobama's finger prints all over it!

I see no comment on the unanimous vote to confirm.

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I heard the argument. It’s lawyer BS. The investigation started over a year ago. A grand jury voted to bring charges based on the evidence collected over that time, not the DOJ. Citizens chosen at random saw the DOJ evidence and voted to indict. Seems Trump would be anxious to want to prove his innocence he so brazenly proclaims and get on with the election. He’s acting like a guilty person, most an innocent one.

You commented on an article you didn’t view and blamed it on the source, like I said, lame and tired.

 

[baddog]

Good little sheeple…..baaa baaaa

[Reagan]

11 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I see no comment on the unanimous vote to confirm.

Politics are played everywhere.  Doesn’t mean she’s not biased!  

[Big girl]

9 hours ago, Unwoke said:

The reason you didn’t know that is because it didn’t happen. CB is a cowardly liar who likes to twist the truth. But yet you swallow his BS hook, line, and sinker which is not surprising because you want it to be oh so true. What’s dangerous is ignorant individuals like you that are too lazy to actually look into the truth but vote believing that nonsense that is spewed by ignorant people like CB.
 

The vice president was not being asked to decide the matter himself, but to pause the proceedings long enough to give the couple of states whose legislators had asked for more time to assess whether the illegal conduct by their state election officials—illegal conduct that Pence himself twice acknowledged in his statement—was sufficient to warrant revoking the existing certification and submitting a new one that accurately reflected the state’s vote, just as Hawaii had done in 1960. 

Pence was thus being asked to let the matter be resolved by the State Legislatures. It is the states that choose the president, and the Constitution gives them sovereign authority over the disposition of their electoral votes. There is no federal check—not Congress, not the vice president—over how the states, pursuant to their own laws, certify the elections they conduct and the electors they appoint to cast their electoral votes. 

The difficulty was that the existing slates of electors had not been certified after an election conducted “pursuant to [the states’] own laws.” Pence was simply being asked to provide the state legislatures in the contested states with the time necessary to properly assess the legitimacy of their electoral votes. 

I don't believe anything that you say because your sources are questionable, and you are a conspiracy theorist.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

Conspiracy theorist = free thinking American who doesn’t blindly follow like sheep being led to slaughter. Also do not defend criminals on either side. 

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

You commented on an article you didn’t view and blamed it on the source, like I said, lame and tired.

 

Just like you do The New York Times. Quite tiring, indeed.

[UT alum]

49 minutes ago, baddog said:

Conspiracy theorist = free thinking American who doesn’t blindly follow like sheep being led to slaughter. Also do not defend criminals on either side. 

Conspiracy theorist =Someone who has no idea or even curiosity about the concept of sociology and the laws and customs that bind societies.  If it doesn’t fit their world view, anything opposing that view must be a dishonest manipulation of of their reality.  More like lemmings than sheep.

[LumRaiderFan]

27 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Just like you do The New York Times. Quite tiring, indeed.

Nice try.

I might think a news organization is biased but I at least read the article and evaluate it, which is obviously more than you do.

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Conspiracy theorist =Someone who has no idea or even curiosity about the concept of sociology and the laws and customs that bind societies.  If it doesn’t fit their world view, anything opposing that view must be a dishonest manipulation of of their reality.  More like lemmings than sheep.

Wrong.

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, UT alum said:

Conspiracy theorist =Someone who has no idea or even curiosity about the concept of sociology and the laws and customs that bind societies.  If it doesn’t fit their world view, anything opposing that view must be a dishonest manipulation of of their reality.  More like lemmings than sheep.

God forbid someone have a point of view that wasn’t mined off of some right wing echo chamber’s Twitter feed. 

[UT alum]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Wrong.

Right.

[Reagan]

Trump Lawyer Bobb: Jack Smith's New Indictment Empowers Trump Legal Team to Get J6 Answers.  If this goes to trial, like I've said before, this will open Trump's team for discovery.  Everything concerning J6 is on the table.  Dose the anti-Trump side really want this?!  Since this is all for show, just like the J6 committee meetings were, I doubt they want this to happen!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Trump Lawyer Bobb: Jack Smith's New Indictment Empowers Trump Legal Team to Get J6 Answers.  If this goes to trial, like I've said before, this will open Trump's team for discovery.  Everything concerning J6 is on the table.  Dose the anti-Trump side really want this?!  Since this is all for show, just like the J6 committee meetings were, I doubt they want this to happen!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Smith wouldn’t have brought the suit if he was scared of discovery.  I’m more interested in hearing answers given under oath in a court of law.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Smith wouldn’t have brought the suit if he was scared of discovery.  I’m more interested in hearing answers given under oath in a court of law.

Why would he be scared of discovery? Nothing happens to dims that bring false charges. Where are all the people who assisted in false accusations for 2 impeachments? They’re still living their lives as usual. Conscience certainly doesn’t bother them, neither does the truth, which is not what they were after in the first place. Hey, but you’re a lefty and see nothing wrong with this while attempting to have moral ground.

[UT alum]

38 minutes ago, baddog said:

Why would he be scared of discovery? Nothing happens to dims that bring false charges. Where are all the people who assisted in false accusations for 2 impeachments? They’re still living their lives as usual. Conscience certainly doesn’t bother them, neither does the truth, which is not what they were after in the first place. Hey, but you’re a lefty and see nothing wrong with this while attempting to have moral ground.

Look, dude, the Mueller Report cited ten possible violations of law but would not pursue because of his status as sitting President.  He was not exonerated.  He used the DOJ through AG Barr to misrepresent and obfuscate the situation because his mental illness will not allow him to consider the possibility that he has ever done wrong in his life.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Look, dude, the Mueller Report cited ten possible violations of law but would not pursue because of his status as sitting President.  He was not exonerated.  He used the DOJ through AG Barr to misrepresent and obfuscate the situation because his mental illness will not allow him to consider the possibility that he has ever done wrong in his life.

Total BS. How can you live with yourself, dude? Mueller didn’t even know what was in his own freakin report. You must have been absent that day. In conclusion, Mueller stated there was no evidence of Russian collusion. If that’s not being exonerated, wtf is?

[UT alum]

42 minutes ago, baddog said:

Total BS. How can you live with yourself, dude? Mueller didn’t even know what was in his own freakin report. You must have been absent that day. In conclusion, Mueller stated there was no evidence of Russian collusion. If that’s not being exonerated, wtf is?

There was mucho evidence of obstruction of Justice.

[Reagan]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

There was mucho evidence of obstruction of Justice.

Uh, no there is not.  Speech that someone disagrees with is not obstruction of justice.  Or do you have a problem with the 1st Amendment?

[UT alum]

29 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Uh, no there is not.  Speech that someone disagrees with is not obstruction of justice.  Or do you have a problem with the 1st Amendment?

Did you read any of the Mueller Report? Either of the two Federal indictments? You’ve drunk so much Trump kool-aid, you got to be orange.

[Reagan]

34 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Did you read any of the Mueller Report? Either of the two Federal indictments? You’ve drunk so much Trump kool-aid, you got to be orange.

My friend, there's  nothing there.  This new clown they got has violated Trump's 1 and 6th Amendment protections.  BTW, in the past, he tried to attack anther Republican politician and the Supreme Court "unanimously" threw it out.  If this gets to the SC it'll have the same result.  

The Mueller report?  My friend, everything concerning the Russian collusion was a hoax perpetrated by Hillarious Clintionista with "fake" Russian dossier.  I hope all this is not new to you.  

Federal indictments?  It's been said you can indict a ham sandwich.  Meaning you can always indict even when there's "nothing" there.  BTW, in this J6 indictment, the special prosecutor clown left out very important pieces concerning Trump.  Like when Trump said to protest "peacefully!"  He left that out.  This is cause for the clown himself to get indicted.  I bet you didn't know you left that part out of the indictment!  They've got a nothing burger.  Like the lady said in the video, if you would have watched it, she said Trump wants J6 ligated in order to subpoena for 2020 election documents.  Like I said before, I don't think the special council wants to go there.  But, they've been real stupid so far.  

[UT alum]

9 minutes ago, Reagan said:

My friend, there's  nothing there.  This new clown they got has violated Trump's 1 and 6th Amendment protections.  BTW, in the past, he tried to attack anther Republican politician and the Supreme Court "unanimously" threw it out.  If this gets to the SC it'll have the same result.  

The Mueller report?  My friend, everything concerning the Russian collusion was a hoax perpetrated by Hillarious Clintionista with "fake" Russian dossier.  I hope all this is not new to you.  

Federal indictments?  It's been said you can indict a ham sandwich.  Meaning you can always indict even when there's "nothing" there.  BTW, in this J6 indictment, the special prosecutor clown left out very important pieces concerning Trump.  Like when Trump said to protest "peacefully!"  He left that out.  This is cause for the clown himself to get indicted.  I bet you didn't know you left that part out of the indictment!  They've got a nothing burger.  Like the lady said in the video, if you would have watched it, she said Trump wants J6 ligated in order to subpoena for 2020 election documents.  Like I said before, I don't think the special council wants to go there.  But, they've been real stupid so far.  

That’s a mighty long answer. You could have just said no.