ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 10 of 38
« First < 678910 1112131420 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Impeachment 2.0: The Roger Stone Chronicles
petegz28 10:16 AM 02-13-2020
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...ger-stone-case


:-)
[Reply]
Donger 02:31 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Why are you asking stupid questions and ignoring what I posted?
It's not stupid at all. You stated:

Donger believes he knows this has never ever happened in history before as well.

I didn't say or claim that. That's you lying.

You then post a Breitbart (:-)) article about Obama.
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:31 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
And did you oppose Obama doing that? If not, why not?
I oppose it but not because its impeachable or abuse of power. I've always thought he was the reason she would never be charged, I mean didn't you?

Its just hilarious you are crying impeachment again over something not remotely close to abuse of power simply because you don't like the way it may have been done.

TDS
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:34 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
It's not stupid at all. You stated:

Donger believes he knows this has never ever happened in history before as well.

I didn't say or claim that. That's you lying.

You then post a Breitbart (:-)) article about Obama.
Oh yea, I guess I should have been more clear, I believe your implication when mentioning Nixon was clearly that this has never been done before without impeachment as an outcome.

Secondly do you actually refute anything in the article or just want to claim the source isn't someone you trust?
[Reply]
Donger 02:35 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I oppose it but not because its impeachable or abuse of power. I've always thought he was the reason she would never be charged, I mean didn't you?

Its just hilarious you are crying impeachment again over something not remotely close to abuse of power simply because you don't like the way it may have been done.

TDS
Why do you oppose it then?
[Reply]
Donger 02:36 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I oppose it but not because its impeachable or abuse of power. I've always thought he was the reason she would never be charged, I mean didn't you?

Its just hilarious you are crying impeachment again over something not remotely close to abuse of power simply because you don't like the way it may have been done.

TDS
If it's not impeachable or an abuse of power, why do you oppose it then?
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:39 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
If it's not impeachable or an abuse of power, why do you oppose it then?
What a stupid fucking question.
[Reply]
Donger 02:41 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Oh yea, I guess I should have been more clear, I believe your implication when mentioning Nixon was clearly that this has never been done before without impeachment as an outcome.

Secondly do you actually refute anything in the article or just want to claim the source isn't someone you trust?
So, we have Obama commenting on an ongoing trial. That's not acceptable, either.
[Reply]
Donger 02:42 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
What a stupid ****ing question.
No, it isn't at all, actually. You say you oppose it. And you say that it's not impeachable or an abuse of power.

So, you oppose it because you think....
[Reply]
stevieray 02:44 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
cult
:-), rent a troll.


....same shit you dems pulled with blacks forever.

scumbags.
[Reply]
Donger 02:49 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
The abuse of power is as blatant as it gets but trying to convince a cult that it's leader did a bad thing is a complete waste of time.

Out of curiosity Donger, are you going to hold your nose and vote blue this November?
No.
[Reply]
Donger 02:51 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Article II, of course. See the vesting clause.
Not seeing this: "sentencing recommendation"

I presume that you, like Trump, thinks that Article II allows him to do whatever he watns?
[Reply]
patteeu 02:52 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Not seeing this: "sentencing recommendation"

I presume that you, like Trump, thinks that Article II allows him to do whatever he watns?
This is why your opinions on consitutional issues are worthless.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 02:54 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
So, let's say that it's proven that Trump called up Barr the Ballwasher (or someone else) and told him to have the sentencing decision reduced.

What say the Trumpers?
I would not have an issue with it. If he wants to micromanage Justice, fuck it, who cares. If it’s “inappropriate,” it’s a small pebble in the Trump landslide.
[Reply]
Donger 02:54 PM 02-13-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
This is why your opinions on consitutional issues are worthless.
Well, feel free to point out the words which you think give Trump the power to interfere in sentencing recommendations in the vesting clause in Article II.
[Reply]
petegz28 02:54 PM 02-13-2020
So now they are saying Trump never intervened it was Barr on his own.


OOPS!
[Reply]
Page 10 of 38
« First < 678910 1112131420 > Last »
Up