No. I don’t “want” or expect you to read anything. I offered it. And what I have shared does support my position. Your failure to grasp it is a different matter. That’s entirely a you problem.
Good for you.
Untrue. But you’re allowed to believe whatever you wish.
I’m here. You’re not. Another “you” problem.
Nope. You introduced "I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...Thus, I am obliged to leave USMB. I have been' assured' by lots of my lib "buddies" that I will come back under some other username. Nope. Gone means gone."
That was in another thread. You are off topic and you willfully ignore how I subsequently addressed the matter anyway.
No more warning, the dainty. Knock it off.So "As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised." Interesting isn't it. Pure cognitive dissonance. Ahh, its all good. The dreaded 'lib buddies' were right all along.
Sweet dreams are made of lies so dream on you crazy diamondLots of people get ducted. Some (like Trump) are completely innocent and it’s the accuser who has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The persecutor, here, will lose.
If not directly at trial, then on the appeals.
Good gawd, why don't you petition the Admin to become the Super Maude!
Stop being a prissy sissy, the dainty.
You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.
at me.
You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.
He just doesn’t like the fact that I always call bullshit on him when he tries to “lash out”
But it’s nice to see you stepping up to play the role of his knight in shining armor.
The problem is you use dainties first because you cannot argue your point and you just get flustered and start making remarks that may you feel important. So I just talk down to you level to make you fell better about yourself.You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.
He just doesn’t like the fact that I always call bullshit on him when he tries to “lash out”
But it’s nice to see you stepping up to play the role of his knight in shining armor.
Nah. No problem. The dainty refers to itself using the third person. It’s a narcissistic little critter.
Nah. No problem. The dainty refers to itself using the third person. It’s a narcissistic little critter.
Nobody cares who a moron like you talks down to. You’re an imbecile of absolutely no value.
Now, hurry back to your damsel in distress. The dainty needs as much support as it can acquire.
You can’t “continue” what you’ve never started.
No shit. It s an irrelevant factoid. But im glad you derive happy feelings from such trivia.
Yes. We all know. Thanks for catching up.
Actually, no reasonable Senator would vote to convict based on the shit excuse for the “evidence.”
Wrong again, penis breath. We were all lucky our Framers foresaw the dangers of partisan politics undermining the republic.
Did they? Or did they simply vote that way?
Trump has no immunity, Shitty Lawyer.We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”
It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.
They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.
I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.
For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:
One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.
Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.
Trump's immunity argument is garbage. He's not arguing that he's innocent, he's arguing that he has the right to be a criminal.We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”
It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.
They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.
I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.
For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:
One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.
Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.
What else can you expect of a Libby?First reply to this thread is the typically inane use of a laughter emoji.
I realized this would sail over the head of most of our liberals. Augy is one of the usual suspects.
We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”
It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.
They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.
I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.
For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:
One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.
Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.
