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.
No. A claim not supported by any actions of Trump - claimed, real or imagined.A claim supported by specific actions of Trump
Oh nozies. A prosecution where the prosecutor “turns” people? That’s unthinkable. That’s horrifying. That could never happen. Oh. Wait.Wait until his codependents turn on him
Nope! He is bound by them, according to the take care clause in the constitution....
Follow the laws and rules in place even if ministerial duties....
He still is the head declassifier, just follow the laws and rules to do it.... He took an oath to that....
Regulations are not laws, moron. A president or his minions creates them, and the President can ignore them.Nope! He is bound by them, according to the take care clause in the constitution....
Follow the laws and rules in place even if ministerial duties....
He still is the head declassifier, just follow the laws and rules to do it.... He took an oath to that....
No. A claim not supported by any actions of Trump - claimed, real or imagined.
Oh nozies. A prosecution where the prosecutor “turns” people? That’s unthinkable. That’s horrifying. That could never happen. Oh. Wait.
I meant to say: “oh wow. Again?”
You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.In most cases yes. But no. Not in all cases. People are allowed to challenge subpoenas.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.Allegedly. And so what? If you subpoena my 6th grade country report, I may not agree that you’re entitled to it. So, I hold on to it (if it even still exists). You don’t like it? Too bad. It ain’t up to you. It will be up to a court and possibly a jury.
It alleges real crimes. The charges are not ridiculous. Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.It doesn’t charge any real crimes. It alleges some crimes. But the charges it makes are ridiculous.
The charges are ridiculous.You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
It alleges real crimes. The charges are not ridiculous. Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.
Yes it does.Perhaps, but failure to comply with a subpoena doesn't qualify as obstruction of justice..
it does.Perhaps, but failure to comply with a subpoena doesn't qualify as obstruction of justice..
If you willfully ignore a subpoena, it is considered an obstruction of justice, under the law.Perhaps, but failure to comply with a subpoena doesn't qualify as obstruction of justice..
Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.
Your reply is pretty stupid.Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
No. It doesn’t. It makes real crimes. It doesn’t allege any shit worthy of anything but derisive laughter.It alleges real crimes.
Oh yea they are. Absolutely absurd. Laughable.The charges are not ridiculous.
Real obstruction of justice is.Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.
No, it's considered failing to comply with a subpoena.If you willfully ignore a subpoena, it is considered an obstruction of justice, under the law.
And the only reason Trump gets away with things is because the courts are rigged. The 3 justices he appointed gave him a pass on breaking laws. Hell, does anyone think the Supreme Court is a legitimate court? After seeing how many billionaires shower Clarence Thomas with gifts?
He didn’t. But if you think he did, I sure would be open to seeing you substantiate this statement with any kind of link, especially the court document that challenges the subpoena.Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.
Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.
Your reply is pretty stupid.
No. It doesn’t. It makes real crimes. It doesn’t allege any shit worthy of anything but derisive laughter.
Oh yea they are. Absolutely absurd. Laughable.
Real obstruction of justice is.
You’re stuck with idiot Smith’s nonsensical charges.
That's the only reason Biden isn't in prison yet.Thomas may be compromised, but I think ( Hope) the rest put the constitution and rule of law ahead of loyalty to Trump.
Why would the winner claim it was stolen?Only Trump, the loser, claims the election was stolen.
That much would be true, if it actually occurred and if the FBI didn't already have the security footage.Trump ordered some employee to delete the security footage. That's obstruction
I am looking. But you may be right. I can’t find it yet. I know he had been in negotiations with the Archives. So, that may be what I was thinking of. I can’t find a legal filing objecting to the subpoena.He didn’t. But if you think he did, I sure would be open to seeing you substantiate this statement with any kind of link, especially the court document that challenges the subpoena.
But they cannot follow the rule of law for many others guilty of the same crimes, the same kind of speech, and the denial of elections. Like every Democrat from 2000 on. Al Gore, Stacy Abrams, and Killary. Shove that rule of law up your deluded ass.It isn't persecution.
It is following the rule of law and it isn't the DoJ or the FBI, it's the grand jury.
Are you confused?
When it comes to classified documents, a search warrant is always the first step, not the method of last resort.I am looking. But you may be right. I can’t find it yet. I know he had been in negotiations with the Archives. So, that may be what I was thinking of. I can’t find a legal filing objecting to the subpoena.
Then came the Search Warrant. That abusive display of power against a former President really tells the story.
If the election were closer the Supreme's would have sided with Trump just like they sided with Bush.Thomas may be compromised, but I think ( Hope) the rest put the constitution and rule of law ahead of loyalty to Trump.
Mark Meadows is going to get f'ed in the A.Leftists are still blubbering about supposedly "classified documents" that Trump took with him when he left the White House. They claim to support Law and Order, but the truth is they don't even know the law.Leftists are excited. They’ve got him now because Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, doesn’t recall Trump declassifying the documents later seized at Mar-a-Lago. In fact, that’s a big “who cares?”. Trump didn’t need to follow bureaucratic requirements to declassify anything. As one with plenary power over national security under the Constitution, merely by taking them with him, he declassified them.ABC News' story :
Trump is correct. He declassified the documents by taking the documents. That’s all he needed to do.Let me explain.National security questions belong solely to the president. That’s not me saying that; that’s the Supreme Court saying that:
