McConnell now supports Trump IMPEACHMENT

BWK

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
16,033
Reaction score
3,613
Points
255
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?

There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.

.
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.

Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.

.
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.

The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.

You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO

.
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.

Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.

.
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.

Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.

BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.

Also I prefer to focus on the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Now with three new textualist on SCOTUS, how do you think they'll read it?

But hey keep swallowing the commie propaganda, it's what you chose to do.

.
 

BWK

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
16,033
Reaction score
3,613
Points
255
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.
We don't know...but I'm ready to find out!!!


Your link is very specific. From your link:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “the President,

No where does it say the outgoing president or former president. It says, The President, there is only one president at a time, Trump will not be "the President", he will be the former president at the point the senate could take up the house resolution. So tell me child, what is there to be found out? The Constitution is clear.

.
I hope it works out, I really do.

Then, eventually, when the GOP takes office again, maybe they can set a precedent and not only impeach Obama. . . then they can go on and impeach FDR as well!


:auiqs.jpg:
Lol! Impeach Obama for what? Crimes you can't prove? :auiqs.jpg:

You could start with thousands of violations of immigration law.

.
No, I won't, you will. I asked you specifically what crimes? And where is the documentation proving your claim?
 

BWK

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
16,033
Reaction score
3,613
Points
255
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?

There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.

.
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.

Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.

.
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.

The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.

You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO

.
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.

Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.

.
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.

Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.
Try admitting Trump will get about 100 million votes if he runs in 2024.
Trump is going to jail, and the only running Trump will be doing, is trying to get away from big daddy in that jail house.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?

There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.

.
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.

Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.

.
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.

The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.

You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO

.
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.

Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.

.
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.

Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.

BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.

Also I prefer to focus on the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Now with three new textualist on SCOTUS, how do you think they'll read it?

But hey keep swallowing the commie propaganda, it's what you chose to do.

.
It doesn’t prohibit a trial. And a trial can have consequences BESIDES removal from office.

and my point remains, legal experts have talked both sides of the argument. You certainly aren’t a legal expert so I’ll defer to those who are.

And here’s an itemized list of trumps cases - 60 that were lost and 1 that was won. But I won’t call you a liar because sonething isn’t a lie if you believe it to be true. But I WILL call you ignorant because you just don’t know any better.


if you don’t believe the list, please tell me which you think are wrong.
What you mean is that legal experts have said it can't happen. Douchebags have argued with them.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
Another fake news lie. It claims he’s “happy” that Dems are doing it, so the GOP can be rid of him.

McConnell is a moron if he thinks the majority of those 80 million voters for President Trump are going to back him or his horrid policies in any way in the future.
Yyyyyeeeaahhhh ummmmm..... those were voters for Biden, and it's 81 million. And change.

Rump LOST by roughly the population of the entire state of Arizona.
You don't win a real election with fake votes.
"Fake votes"?

You mean "newly discovered votes that sat in the Wisconsin Historical Society for 94 years"?

What a moron....
No, I mean fake votes. Dims manufactured them
No evidence = you are a liar. You lose as always.
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?

There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.

.
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.

Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.

.
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.

The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.

You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO

.
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.

Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.

.
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.

Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.

BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.

Also I prefer to focus on the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Now with three new textualist on SCOTUS, how do you think they'll read it?

But hey keep swallowing the commie propaganda, it's what you chose to do.

.
Joe Biden has never been right about anything in his entire life.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
Producing even ONE tangible piece of evidence would be nice. Then, any time someone asks you again, you can just post a link to that post. If the evidence why couldnt a lawyer making charging $20,000 a day produce any. And why did we never see the Kraken. When the court considers a lawsuit, the litigant must show they have standing in that court, the litigant must provide specific allegations, and the litigant must provide evidence (not hearsay). In more than 60 cases Trump lost,some suits were tossed because the litigant had no standing. But most were tossed for lack of specific allegation and/or lack of evidence.

as for you’re last sentence, never have I seen such pitiful circular logic.
 

WEATHER53

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
11,539
Reaction score
3,659
Points
360
Surprised this fake and erroneous thread title is still up
Bitter bitter children are the libbies. Instead of basking in the glory of victory for their Guy they are still fakely trying to make it as if Trump never was President . I guess being non competitive cucks and queers with participation trophies does not school one in how to celebrate victory correctly
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Surprised this fake and erroneous thread title is still up
Bitter bitter children are the libbies. Instead of basking in the glory of victory for their Guy they are still fakely trying to make it as if Trump never was President . I guess being non competitive cucks and queers with participation trophies does not school one in how to celebrate victory correctly
And it’ll stay up as long as ranters like you keep bumping it up. Smart move.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
Producing even ONE tangible piece of evidence would be nice. Then, any time someone asks you again, you can just post a link to that post. If the evidence why couldnt a lawyer making charging $20,000 a day produce any. And why did we never see the Kraken. When the court considers a lawsuit, the litigant must show they have standing in that court, the litigant must provide specific allegations, and the litigant must provide evidence (not hearsay). In more than 60 cases Trump lost,some suits were tossed because the litigant had no standing. But most were tossed for lack of specific allegation and/or lack of evidence.

as for you’re last sentence, never have I seen such pitiful circular logic.
They produced tons of evidence, you fucking NAZI moron.

Here ya go - hard, irrefutable evidence:

 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
Producing even ONE tangible piece of evidence would be nice. Then, any time someone asks you again, you can just post a link to that post. If the evidence why couldnt a lawyer making charging $20,000 a day produce any. And why did we never see the Kraken. When the court considers a lawsuit, the litigant must show they have standing in that court, the litigant must provide specific allegations, and the litigant must provide evidence (not hearsay). In more than 60 cases Trump lost,some suits were tossed because the litigant had no standing. But most were tossed for lack of specific allegation and/or lack of evidence.

as for you’re last sentence, never have I seen such pitiful circular logic.
They produced tons of evidence, you fucking NAZI moron.

Here ya go - hard, irrefutable evidence:

You are aware, aren’t you, that Giuliani only provided a highly edited actions in the video. On site cameras showed more than an hour of footage.

it was running late so it was decided to call it a day. All the boxes containing ballots were sealed and put under the tables in full view of the cameras and observers from both sides. before the people has left, it was decided to go ahead and count the remaining ballots. So the ballots were pulled back out from under the table, unsealed, and counted.

Giuliana is already under fire for his misleading videos. He als said that some of the ballots were run through the machines three times, though even his edited video doesn’t show anything and the full video proves he was lying.

I’ve watched parts of the video that are conveniently edited out What you call irrefutable evidence has in fact been conclusively refuted.


 

conserveguy877

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
1,717
Points
195
This is why President Trump will overshadow the Corrupt Joe administration next four years. We start with this mindless impeachment.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
This is why President Trump will overshadow the Corrupt Joe administration next four years. We start with this mindless impeachment.
Rant about it all you want. What I said to you was right. And what you said was wrong. It also showed that you didn’t even know what impeachment is.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
7,575
Reaction score
2,256
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
Producing even ONE tangible piece of evidence would be nice. Then, any time someone asks you again, you can just post a link to that post. If the evidence why couldnt a lawyer making charging $20,000 a day produce any. And why did we never see the Kraken. When the court considers a lawsuit, the litigant must show they have standing in that court, the litigant must provide specific allegations, and the litigant must provide evidence (not hearsay). In more than 60 cases Trump lost,some suits were tossed because the litigant had no standing. But most were tossed for lack of specific allegation and/or lack of evidence.

as for you’re last sentence, never have I seen such pitiful circular logic.
They produced tons of evidence, you fucking NAZI moron.

Here ya go - hard, irrefutable evidence:

easily refuted


 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
You are aware, aren’t you, that Giuliani only provided a highly edited actions in the video. On site cameras showed more than an hour of footage.

it was running late so it was decided to call it a day. All the boxes containing ballots were sealed and put under the tables in full view of the cameras and observers from both sides. before the people has left, it was decided to go ahead and count the remaining ballots. So the ballots were pulled back out from under the table, unsealed, and counted.

Giuliana is already under fire for his misleading videos. He als said that some of the ballots were run through the machines three times, though even his edited video doesn’t show anything and the full video proves he was lying.

I’ve watched parts of the video that are conveniently edited out What you call irrefutable evidence has in fact been conclusively refuted.


[/URL]
That's the Dim narrative, and it's total horseshit.

it was running late so it was decided to call it a day. The story is that a water main broke. Of course, that story has already been debunked, so now you have a new one.
Who decided to call it a day? Why, the Dim election officials, of course. But they lied about that. The Republican observers were told to go home, but the Dim election clerks started counting the ballots they pulled out from under the table.

All the boxes containing ballots were sealed and put under the tables in full view of the cameras and observers from both sides.
They were "sealed" only by flipping the latches on them. In other words, they weren't sealed at all. There is no video of the boxes being put under the tables.

before the people has left, it was decided to go ahead and count the remaining ballots. So the ballots were pulled back out from under the table, unsealed, and counted.
Was that before or after the water main broke? They decided after the Republicans left, but before the Dim election clerks left. I suppose it was just a coincidence that none of the Dim clerks left with the Republicans.

Who do you imagine is swallowing your horseshit?

Your lame excuse has already been debunked 1000 different ways.
 
Last edited:

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
Do you actually believe I'm supposed to produce evidence every time you snap your fingers?

There's abundant evidence. If there was no evidence, then why are Dim officials trying so hard to keep everyone from seeing it?
Producing even ONE tangible piece of evidence would be nice. Then, any time someone asks you again, you can just post a link to that post. If the evidence why couldnt a lawyer making charging $20,000 a day produce any. And why did we never see the Kraken. When the court considers a lawsuit, the litigant must show they have standing in that court, the litigant must provide specific allegations, and the litigant must provide evidence (not hearsay). In more than 60 cases Trump lost,some suits were tossed because the litigant had no standing. But most were tossed for lack of specific allegation and/or lack of evidence.

as for you’re last sentence, never have I seen such pitiful circular logic.
They produced tons of evidence, you fucking NAZI moron.

Here ya go - hard, irrefutable evidence:

easily refuted


Your NAZI partner in crime failed miserably
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Your NAZI partner in crime failed miserably
you do realize, don’t you, that the Nazis weren’t Socialists, despite their choice of names? And it was German conservatives, the wealthy elites, who put the Nazis in power. So when you call someone a Nazi, you’re calling him a right winger.

so it could be inferred here that YOU are the Nazi here
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
you’re fabrications really aren’t accomplishing anything. Boxes were sealed, Republicans weren’t sent hope. Counting wasn’t done without Republicans present. You just fabricate all the time. It’s a shame you wasted so much of your time in an fantasy-writing exercise in mental masturbation
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
you’re fabrications really aren’t accomplishing anything. Boxes were sealed, Republicans weren’t sent hope. Counting wasn’t done without Republicans present. You just fabricate all the time. It’s a shame you wasted so much of your time in an fantasy-writing exercise in mental masturbation
We can all see the video, dumbfuck. It doesn't support your lies. If Republicans weren't sent home, then why did they all leave within 15 seconds of each other? Tell us the point in the video where ballots from the boxes were counted with Republicans present?

Is it possible to be an more of a liar than you?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,313
Reaction score
27,835
Points
2,180
Your NAZI partner in crime failed miserably
you do realize, don’t you, that the Nazis weren’t Socialists, despite their choice of names? And it was German conservatives, the wealthy elites, who put the Nazis in power. So when you call someone a Nazi, you’re calling him a right winger.

so it could be inferred here that YOU are the Nazi here
The NAZI's were socialists, moron. I've proven it 1000 times over.


“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin
“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.” – 1923, Interview with George Sylvester Viereck
“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top