Flynt Offering $10 Million for Information That Leads to Impeachment Trump

Larry Flynt - Wikipedia

The significance is already given, if you disagree so be it.

We already had that link. It doesn't give his present political affiliation, if he has one.

And again, the significance whether he has one or not would be a Composition Fallacy anyway. So it's not a matter of "disagree" -- it's a matter of "bullshit".

Actions speak louder than words.

So you admit you're making an ass-sumption with no evidence.

Yeah that's what I already said.

No I didn’t, I am saying I disagree with your conclusion. You seem to think I someone disagrees with your conclusion they are wrong. I don’t see it your way because the evidence doesn’t fit your conclusion. That is my opinion and you have offered nothing to change my opinion.

I don't have a "conclusion" --- you do.

You posted a proper adjective. That's not opinion, that's asserting a fact. And you just admitted you have no evidence for that assertion.

Shall we just run the same thing over again and expect different results?

I don’t agree with you.
 
We already had that link. It doesn't give his present political affiliation, if he has one.

And again, the significance whether he has one or not would be a Composition Fallacy anyway. So it's not a matter of "disagree" -- it's a matter of "bullshit".

Actions speak louder than words.

So you admit you're making an ass-sumption with no evidence.

Yeah that's what I already said.

No I didn’t, I am saying I disagree with your conclusion. You seem to think I someone disagrees with your conclusion they are wrong. I don’t see it your way because the evidence doesn’t fit your conclusion. That is my opinion and you have offered nothing to change my opinion.

I don't have a "conclusion" --- you do.

You posted a proper adjective. That's not opinion, that's asserting a fact. And you just admitted you have no evidence for that assertion.

Shall we just run the same thing over again and expect different results?

I don’t agree with you.

Unfortunately it's not a matter of 'agree' or 'disagree'. You made an assertion that you can't prove.
That's really all there is to it.
 
“Flynt Offering $10 Million for Information That Leads to Impeachment Trump”

Flynt should save his money, there’s already ample evidence which justifies the impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and removal from office of Trump pursuant to Article II, Section 4.

Indeed, providing an adversary state with intelligence in violation of his oath of office alone warrants impeachment of Trump, in addition to various other misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process; it does not require that a president might have violated the law to begin the process, a president can be removed from office the consequence of his bad acts, absent alleged criminal wrongdoing.

The problem isn’t a lack of information or evidence to impeach Trump and remove him from office; the problem is a blind partisan Republican Congress loath to impeach a Republican president, failing to meet its Constitutional responsibilities.
 
DMteLc7XcAABgUd.jpg:small

Follow
Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher


'I only paid 25 million to settle an entire fake university while you paid 32 million to settle just one sexual harassment case.'

10:59 PM - Oct 21, 2017
 
Larry Flynt, one of the icons of free speech, and a fighter against the establishment, including the religious groups, has offered $10 MILLION for information that leads to the impeachment of Donald Trump.


"The advert says: “Buried in Trump’s top-secret tax returns or in other records from his far-flung investments there may be a smoking gun.”"

How to Impeach Donald Trump: Larry Flynt Is Offering $10 Million to Anyone With Suitable Info
Isn't he Harvey Weinsteins doppleganger, lol!
 
636094625533197883-Fox-News-cartoon.jpg
trump_value-410x220.jpg

‘Hypocrisy much?’: Don Lemon, Joy Reid and other media stars ruthlessly mock O’Reilly and Fox News
CNN anchor Don Lemon didn’t hold back on Saturday when he found out that Fox News paid out $32 million to a woman who accused Bill O’Reilly of sexual harassment just a month before the network renewed O’Reilly’s contract. Joy Reid, Stephanie Ruhle and Jake Tapper joined in the fun.
Damn, no wonder Trump loves FOX so much ... they set the example and he follows the leaders and vice versa - as it were:
DMr9axzW0AEQG8e.jpg

DMYkl5mWsAA-Spq.jpg
 
Actions speak louder than words.

So you admit you're making an ass-sumption with no evidence.

Yeah that's what I already said.

No I didn’t, I am saying I disagree with your conclusion. You seem to think I someone disagrees with your conclusion they are wrong. I don’t see it your way because the evidence doesn’t fit your conclusion. That is my opinion and you have offered nothing to change my opinion.

I don't have a "conclusion" --- you do.

You posted a proper adjective. That's not opinion, that's asserting a fact. And you just admitted you have no evidence for that assertion.

Shall we just run the same thing over again and expect different results?

I don’t agree with you.

Unfortunately it's not a matter of 'agree' or 'disagree'. You made an assertion that you can't prove.
That's really all there is to it.

Just because you can’t follow the dots, doesn’t mea. It isn’t proven. Flint has put up a bounty for Republicans not one Democrat, his political affiliation doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t care that Dems can fall and only goes after GOP. He doesn’t care a wit for right or wrong, just hanging Republicans. If you can’t see or understand, that is on you.
 
So you admit you're making an ass-sumption with no evidence.

Yeah that's what I already said.

No I didn’t, I am saying I disagree with your conclusion. You seem to think I someone disagrees with your conclusion they are wrong. I don’t see it your way because the evidence doesn’t fit your conclusion. That is my opinion and you have offered nothing to change my opinion.

I don't have a "conclusion" --- you do.

You posted a proper adjective. That's not opinion, that's asserting a fact. And you just admitted you have no evidence for that assertion.

Shall we just run the same thing over again and expect different results?

I don’t agree with you.

Unfortunately it's not a matter of 'agree' or 'disagree'. You made an assertion that you can't prove.
That's really all there is to it.

Just because you can’t follow the dots, doesn’t mea. It isn’t proven. Flint has put up a bounty for Republicans not one Democrat, his political affiliation doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t care that Dems can fall and only goes after GOP. He doesn’t care a wit for right or wrong, just hanging Republicans. If you can’t see or understand, that is on you.

Once AGAIN ---- you asserted an adjective that you can't prove. Nothing has changed about that.
 
No I didn’t, I am saying I disagree with your conclusion. You seem to think I someone disagrees with your conclusion they are wrong. I don’t see it your way because the evidence doesn’t fit your conclusion. That is my opinion and you have offered nothing to change my opinion.

I don't have a "conclusion" --- you do.

You posted a proper adjective. That's not opinion, that's asserting a fact. And you just admitted you have no evidence for that assertion.

Shall we just run the same thing over again and expect different results?

I don’t agree with you.

Unfortunately it's not a matter of 'agree' or 'disagree'. You made an assertion that you can't prove.
That's really all there is to it.

Just because you can’t follow the dots, doesn’t mea. It isn’t proven. Flint has put up a bounty for Republicans not one Democrat, his political affiliation doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t care that Dems can fall and only goes after GOP. He doesn’t care a wit for right or wrong, just hanging Republicans. If you can’t see or understand, that is on you.

Once AGAIN ---- you asserted an adjective that you can't prove. Nothing has changed about that.

Once AGAIN, I disagree.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top