- Nov 28, 2011
- 42,927
- 16,060
- 2,250
To much for you to comprehend eh ? The truth when it's presented usually causes incomprehensive reactions such as yours. You'll be alright, we can only hope. LOLAs I thought, like all Trumpette's your replies amount to nothing but blah, blah, blah. You can't substantiate a thing you write.Assertion of what ??? I already said that this is a kangaroo court situation in which can't be taken seriously. As far as comparing the demoncrats with republicans, I am talking about the last 50 years concerning the prosperity of American's, and the destruction of American's. Yes we have modern day conveniences now, and we have un-imaginable technological advances, but putting such stuff in the hands of a wrecklace party wanting to rule over it all for controlling purposes, is equal to suicide being comitted in it all.Wow, so many talking points and platitudes, so little independent thought. I don't give a damn about your opinion of a lower court ruling.I look at results throughout this nation, and especially in demoncrat strongholds. Not concerned with any kangaroo court that serves to try and sooth the butthurt of the agenda minded cratzies who lost that agenda in 2016. Judges ? You mean those deep state compromised activist for whom legislate from the bench their leftist ideology upon their enemies/victim's whom can't escape the mis-use of their judicial charter's ??Let's get specific. In doing so, try to avoid juvenile references to Dems as "demoncrats." It only serves to make you appear to be an immature dope.And the demoncrats are much, much better eh ??? Choices brother, choices. Trump in all his imperfections, still beats the demoncrats big time in comparison.
Perhaps you'd like to begin by giving me an example of anything any Dem prez did in history that compares to Trump's declaration of blanket immunity for anyone he chooses to prevent from testifying before a House committee? A claim that has already been thrown out of court due to its lack of any legal standing or precedent.
"Judge Marrero's decision was not unexpected to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law. In essence, Judge Marrero summarized Trump's argument as demanding "blanket presidential and derivative immunity (in) all stages of federal and state criminal law enforcement proceedings and judicial process: investigations, grand jury proceedings, indictments, arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, and punishment."
You should read the ruling. You might learn something.
READ: Ruling in Trump tax return lawsuit - CNNPolitics
I'll ask again. Perhaps you'd like to begin by giving me an example of anything any Dem prez did in history that compares to Trump's declaration of blanket immunity for anyone he chooses to prevent from testifying before a House committee? A claim that has already been thrown out of court due to its lack of any legal standing or precedent.
Either you are capable of backing up your assertion or you are not. I'm going with the latter.