Uh, Do Liberals Realize that the Stormy Daniels-Donald Trump Incident Happened 12 Years Ago?

[JoeB131]

Really, most people have the good sense to stand down when taking as ass-whooping, but not Cellblock, He keeps doubling down on stupid.

 

[Faun]

----/ I know what I heard. I don't care what you believe.

Guy, we can't be responsible for the voices in your head. They have medications for that now.

Now, if you can cite an actual example of where McCain wasn't treated with respect by Democrats, let us know. Not 'We disagree with his policy stances", but actual disrespect to him as a person.

/----/ Liberals Trash John McCain And Trump After McCain's Brain Cancer Diagnosis

LOLOL

You said Liberals mocked him for being a POW. To demonstrate this, you first showed Obama mocking his age; and now you show Liberals attacking him for his lack of healthcare support.

When are you going to prove what you said? No one challenged you to prove things you didn't say.

 

[Reasonable]

Looking at the continual stream of liberal threads on the Stormy Daniels scandal, one wonders if liberals realize that Daniels' alleged hookup with Trump supposedly occurred in 2006, 12 years ago, and that Cohen's payoff to her occurred in 2016, 10 years after the alleged encounter and long before Donald Trump even ran for president?

Obviously you don’t know she was paid off a month from the election.
You going to excuse one of Trump’s henchmen for threatening her too, scumbag?

 

[hadit]

Haha. You think Obama sincerely believed it. Difference here is, Obama don't care it's costing us a lot, while the question of whether Trump boinked somebody years ago is not.

Funny, my health care costs didn't go up because of ACA and neither did anyone I know.

In fact, a funny thing happened after ACA passed. We stopped having those annual meetings where the HR Cow would tell us how our insurance would cost a little more and cover a little less this year.

So, you want Trump lying to be enough. Enough for what? Kicking him out of office? Better grab a lot of paper, because you're going to have a loooong list of people to kick out of office. Naturally, you won't be upset at the ones with a D behind their name. They're different and special.

I want Trump kicked out of office because he's a buffoon and a crazy person.

You know, the kind of person who hires people who mock dying war heroes.

At least he didn't hire a tax cheat to run the Treasury. At any rate, gotta love the cover Obama butt thing you have going on there. You, where you staunchly declare you're just positive you know what he was thinking and what he meant despite what he actually said and did.

 

[hadit]

Were you absent that day in history class? Bubba was in court because he was being sued for sexual harassment. Charge Trump with something and you might get a chance. Otherwise you get to marinate in your frustration.

There's a bunch of lawsuits against Trump already, but Mueller is just getting his ducks in a row. PRobably waiting until October to release what he has for maximum effect.

IOW, it's a political hit job, as has been alleged from the beginning. Until Trump is charged with something, you won't get him under oath.

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Were you absent that day in history class? Bubba was in court because he was being sued for sexual harassment. Charge Trump with something and you might get a chance. Otherwise you get to marinate in your frustration.

There's a bunch of lawsuits against Trump already, but Mueller is just getting his ducks in a row. PRobably waiting until October to release what he has for maximum effect.

IOW, it's a political hit job, as has been alleged from the beginning. Until Trump is charged with something, you won't get him under oath.

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

 

[hadit]

Were you absent that day in history class? Bubba was in court because he was being sued for sexual harassment. Charge Trump with something and you might get a chance. Otherwise you get to marinate in your frustration.

There's a bunch of lawsuits against Trump already, but Mueller is just getting his ducks in a row. PRobably waiting until October to release what he has for maximum effect.

IOW, it's a political hit job, as has been alleged from the beginning. Until Trump is charged with something, you won't get him under oath.

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

For perjury, It simply doesn't matter what he says before being under oath.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There's a bunch of lawsuits against Trump already, but Mueller is just getting his ducks in a row. PRobably waiting until October to release what he has for maximum effect.

IOW, it's a political hit job, as has been alleged from the beginning. Until Trump is charged with something, you won't get him under oath.

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

For perjury, It simply doesn't matter what he says before being under oath.

Yes, I know, but to admit, under oath, that he made previous false statements to the public, carries its own price.

 

[hadit]

IOW, it's a political hit job, as has been alleged from the beginning. Until Trump is charged with something, you won't get him under oath.

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

For perjury, It simply doesn't matter what he says before being under oath.

Yes, I know, but to admit, under oath, that he made previous false statements to the public, carries its own price.

Again, though, to get him under oath in the first place requires a crime if some sort, and there isn't any in this case.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The only person who has to worry about a perjury trap is someone who is going to lie. No lying, no perjury. Yet Trumpkins are so sure Dishonest Don will lie, that any Mueller interview is viewed as a perjury trap. It's pitiful.

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

For perjury, It simply doesn't matter what he says before being under oath.

Yes, I know, but to admit, under oath, that he made previous false statements to the public, carries its own price.

Again, though, to get him under oath in the first place requires a crime if some sort, and there isn't any in this case.

There may be a campaign finance law crime. Certainly, you can't say there definitely is not.

 

[hadit]

A perjury trap can be as simple as being asked the same question multiple times over a period of several weeks of testimony and not remembering a small detail exactly the way you said it the first time.

Anyway, why did you bring perjury into it? I sure didn't.

You said we wouldn't see Trump interviewed under oath, although he expressed his eagerness to do just that. I agree he will not. It has been bandied about - as an excuse for Trump to avoid - that Mueller is setting a perjury trap. In the Daniel's case, he has told irreconcilable statements. No one is going to let those be aired, if it can be avoided.

For perjury, It simply doesn't matter what he says before being under oath.

Yes, I know, but to admit, under oath, that he made previous false statements to the public, carries its own price.

Again, though, to get him under oath in the first place requires a crime if some sort, and there isn't any in this case.

There may be a campaign finance law crime. Certainly, you can't say there definitely is not.

It's possible. It will be interesting to see.

 

[JoeB131]

At least he didn't hire a tax cheat to run the Treasury. At any rate, gotta love the cover Obama butt thing you have going on there. You, where you staunchly declare you're just positive you know what he was thinking and what he meant despite what he actually said and did.

Frankly, there's no reason why the insurance industry should have tried to renege on the sweetheart deals they got under ACA, but they did anyway. Kind of like the old story about the Scorpion and the Frog.

Obama should have stuck to his guns and went with single payer.

 

[hadit]

At least he didn't hire a tax cheat to run the Treasury. At any rate, gotta love the cover Obama butt thing you have going on there. You, where you staunchly declare you're just positive you know what he was thinking and what he meant despite what he actually said and did.

Frankly, there's no reason why the insurance industry should have tried to renege on the sweetheart deals they got under ACA, but they did anyway. Kind of like the old story about the Scorpion and the Frog.

Obama should have stuck to his guns and went with single payer.

He wasn't able to get majority support from the people for obamadontcare. What makes you think he could have gotten socialized medicine?

 

[Cellblock2429]

At least he didn't hire a tax cheat to run the Treasury. At any rate, gotta love the cover Obama butt thing you have going on there. You, where you staunchly declare you're just positive you know what he was thinking and what he meant despite what he actually said and did.

Frankly, there's no reason why the insurance industry should have tried to renege on the sweetheart deals they got under ACA, but they did anyway. Kind of like the old story about the Scorpion and the Frog.

Obama should have stuck to his guns and went with single payer.

/——/ Thank God Obozo didn’t push single payer. Ever hear of the VA?

 

[JoeB131]

He wasn't able to get majority support from the people for obamadontcare. What makes you think he could have gotten socialized medicine?

Well, he probalby shouldn't have conceded half the field to the GOP before the discussion started. there's that. SOcialized Medicine should have been his opening position, and if he couldn't get Joe LeiberJew (D-Israel) to go along, drop the nuclear option.

/——/ Thank God Obozo didn’t push single payer. Ever hear of the VA?

Use the VA all the time. Not their hospitals, I'm in good health... But never had a bad experience with the VA>

Cigna, on the other hand, those guys are cocksuckers.