17/2/21. Trump on media binge. To appear on Fox, OANN and Newsmax.

Foreigner Looking In.

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2021
3,544
4,979
After several weeks of radio silence, President Trump will be appearing on several shows tonight.
He was obviously waiting for the Show Trial to den.
Times included in link.

Dems about to learn this hard lesson:

if-you-strike-me-down-i-will-become-more-powerful-16238113.png
 
He's going to announce his run for president...
Wait. . .

wut?

I thought he was still president?

What the hell happened? I must not be keeping up with the news.

Didn't the Senate just try to convict him of an impeachment? :dunno:

You can only do that to a sitting president. It stands to reason, he must really still be POTUS, and they are all keeping it a secret. :tinfoil:


Shhhhh :eusa_shhh:

Don't tell Ropey.


:auiqs.jpg:
 
He's going to announce his run for president...
Wait. . .

wut?

I thought he was still president?

What the hell happened? I must not be keeping up with the news.

Didn't the Senate just try to convict him of an impeachment? :dunno:

You can only do that to a sitting president. It stands to reason, he must really still be POTUS, and they are all keeping it a secret. :tinfoil:


Shhhhh :eusa_shhh:

Don't tell Ropey.


:auiqs.jpg:
Trump was impeached while sitting as a president. The trial wasn't until last week.
 
After several weeks of radio silence, President Trump will be appearing on several shows tonight.
He was obviously waiting for the Show Trial to den.
Times included in link.

Why would he grace Newsmax with his presence?
FUCK Bob Sellers!
 
Let's all watch all three appearance and repeat the orange animals words as if they are fact here!

What a fun night for us cultists!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
He's going to announce his run for president...
Wait. . .

wut?

I thought he was still president?

What the hell happened? I must not be keeping up with the news.

Didn't the Senate just try to convict him of an impeachment? :dunno:

You can only do that to a sitting president. It stands to reason, he must really still be POTUS, and they are all keeping it a secret. :tinfoil:


Shhhhh :eusa_shhh:

Don't tell Ropey.


:auiqs.jpg:
Trump was impeached while sitting as a president. The trial wasn't until last week.
So, they tried a president huh?
 
He's going to announce his run for president...
Wait. . .

wut?

I thought he was still president?

What the hell happened? I must not be keeping up with the news.

Didn't the Senate just try to convict him of an impeachment? :dunno:

You can only do that to a sitting president. It stands to reason, he must really still be POTUS, and they are all keeping it a secret. :tinfoil:


Shhhhh :eusa_shhh:

Don't tell Ropey.


:auiqs.jpg:
Trump was impeached while sitting as a president. The trial wasn't until last week.
So, they tried a president huh?
Yep, they tried him for what he did as president. If an employee embezzles money and then quits can that former employee be prosecuted for what they did while they worked at their former employers?
 
He's going to announce his run for president...
Wait. . .

wut?

I thought he was still president?

What the hell happened? I must not be keeping up with the news.

Didn't the Senate just try to convict him of an impeachment? :dunno:

You can only do that to a sitting president. It stands to reason, he must really still be POTUS, and they are all keeping it a secret. :tinfoil:


Shhhhh :eusa_shhh:

Don't tell Ropey.


:auiqs.jpg:
Trump was impeached while sitting as a president. The trial wasn't until last week.
So, they tried a president huh?
Yep, they tried him for what he did as president. If an employee embezzles money and then quits can that former employee be prosecuted for what they did while they worked at their former employers?
So. . now you are making an False equivalence fallacy? Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?

I will try to explain the difference here. The constitution gives the Senate the power to try a sitting president, with the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. In the example you cited, the former employee is still bound by criminal legal code.

Now. . . once the agent of the government is no longer an agent of the government, he or she is no longer subject to be convicted of impeachment by the Senate. Could they, perhaps be indicted per criminal or civil codes?

Sure, go ahead.






Lots and lots of ways to prosecute if there is any REAL evidence.

Legal standing was one of the things Trump and his legal team had a hard time with in all those states he wanted to challenge the vote on. In some cases he had none.

He wasn't a voter that could prove harm. The only Federal legislation that applies to states is the voting rights act.

. . . and reform on that wasn't due till AFTER the election, which, might be some of the reason the SCOTUS wanted to stay out of this mess.


But please, let's get one thing straight, I'm not partisan, I'm only interested in the law, and what language dictates as truth.

I will not be gas-lit by billionaire owned corporate media. Do your own research and your own thinking.

Everything else is bullshit.

You aren't being truthful, but are parroting shit you saw on TEE VEE, or read from the CFR media.
 
Why would he grace Newsmax with his presence?
I've only watched NewsMax a few times, and I was disappointed every time.

I don't know what all the hype was about from Conservatives. I guess it's because they waited to call the disputed election.

Tucker is awesome; Hannity is okay; Ingraham is good.
 
Yawn.... Nobody seems to care....zero reports about what El Blob-O is saying
 

Forum List

Back
Top