Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actual criminals do deserve to be locked up.Actual criminals may deserve to be locked up.
Don’t pretend to be adherent to the idea that you want fair application of justice.and here we have it people,,
a perfect example of the lefts projection,,
Your projection is unending.Actual criminals do deserve to be locked up.
But you have to have actual evidence of actual crimes.
That’s where you run into problems. To people like you, actual evidence of actual crimes matters more or less depending if the person aligns with your political ideology.
Don’t pretend to be adherent to the idea that you want fair application of justice.
You or your comrades were chanting “lock her up” in 2016.
considering she has a long history of corruption it only makes sense,,Don’t pretend to be adherent to the idea that you want fair application of justice.
You or your comrades were chanting “lock her up” in 2016.
Clinton lacked evidence in many key areas. For example, the right was most upset about the deleting of the emails after the congressional subpoena. The right failed to acknowledge there was no evidence that she had anything to do with deleting those emails.Your projection is unending.
Yes actual crimes require actual evidence which was conceded about Shrillary by the same thug who then shared the opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her case.
I’m not the one who has run into problems. I merely point out your obvious, glaring and intentional hypocrisy. It is unconscionable for you assholes to applaud such a glaring double standard.
But you’re a libtard, so you’re mantra is still “fuck equal Justice” and “fuck due process.”
Says who? You? You’re biased. We can’t have biased people deciding who has committed crimes.Because she had committed crimes.
Can you show me the times she was convicted of corruption?considering she has a long history of corruption it only makes sense,,
She was EXCUSED of her CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!Can you show me the times she was convicted of corruption?
thats the problem with our two tiered justice system,,Can you show me the times she was convicted of corruption?
I keep telling people that even Judge Cannon isn't going to allow the defense to talk about Hillary, nor anyone else not named Trump. I keep getting called dumbass for that. 'Tis my cross to bear.Please point out the specific law you are referencing, and explain what bearing a previous case for a different person has any bearing on trump's case.
She was EXCUSED of her CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!
So she doesn’t have a history of corruption. She has a history of being accused of corruption by a bunch of political opponents.thats the problem with our two tiered justice system,,
even comey admitted no prosecutor would dare try and convict her,, shes got to many dead bodies in her past,,
Again, I disagree, but just suppose you are right. Will, or should that have any effect on trump's trial?No prosecutor would take this case up against Hillary. (QUOTE is foggy)
Point is Comey used his PERSONAL JUDGMENT not the law when deciding to file charges or not. She CLEARLY broke the law.
Yes, trump has riled a lot of people up. In this specific case, I'm not considering public opinion, or how the MAGAs might feel about it. I'm just discussing how our laws work. Do you think we should change the laws to give trump a pass?You can claim irrelevance all you want, but it doesn't change reality.
Reality is, it matters VERY MUCH how the law is treating all the other people who've done the exact same thing.
It matters to HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people.
And if you're not one of them, it speaks volumes about YOU.
save it spanky,,So she doesn’t have a history of corruption. She has a history of being accused of corruption by a bunch of political opponents.
you changed them to give biden and hilary a pass along with a long list of other dems and progs,, either be consistent or STFUYes, trump has riled a lot of people up. In this specific case, I'm not considering public opinion, or how the MAGAs might feel about it. I'm just discussing how our laws work. Do you think we should change the laws to give trump a pass?
I'm not concerned about convincing MAGAs of anything. Nothing short of dropping all charges would make you happy anyway, regardless of what the facts show, or how our laws work.Gosh, all this spilled ink to convince us, all over the board.
Wouldn't work that way if you were winning. But you're not. And you know it.
if you consider ALL the facts the charges should be dropped,,I'm not concerned about convincing MAGAs of anything. Nothing short of dropping all charges would make you happy anyway, regardless of what the facts show, or how our laws work.
Again, that's a very interesting rant, but doesn't have much to do with the OP.This is an indictment on the Republican Party who have people in it who help grease the wheels of the former Democrat Party that is now the Progressive Socialist Party. And it will eventually morph into the American Communist Party as it has to keep moving. Which is the reason we are in trouble as a nation.
