Republicans Cannot Admit That Joe Biden Has Constitutional Privacy Rights

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

He is on videotape numerous times saying that his father knew all about his job with Burisma, despite Joe claiming that he didn't know.

 

[Muhammed]

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

You seem to be very confused. The Prosecutor General who Biden got fired shortly after a sniper tried to get rid of him via assassination (A case that is still under investigation BTW) is PG Viktor Shokin. You and many other Biden apologists here keep claiming that he was corrupt. Fair enough, you are entitled to your uninformed opinion.

The problem is, when you assert that PG Shokin was corrupt that implies that he committed a crime. Yet PG Shokin has never been convicted of any crime. He's never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And when pressed to cite the specific law that you Biden apologists are so convinced that Shokin violated, you guys always come up with nothing. All you can come up with is vague unsubstantiated rumors that he is corrupt.

However, there definitely is a corrupt prosecutor involved and that Is Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Biden wanted Shokin fired and replaced with a "solid guy". Fair enough. But there was a snag, Biden's "solid guy" didn't really have solid credentials. Usually becoming the top prosecutor in the land requires some decent credentials for you to even be considered for the position and Ukraine was no exception. Specifically, under Ukrainian law you had to have a law degree and at least 10 years of experience practicing law to be eligible for the Prosecutor General position.

However, Biden's "solid guy" Lutsenko didn't have quite 10 years experience practicing law. Or 9 years experience. Actually he didn't have any experience. Nor did he have a law degree or ever enroll in law school for that matter. He wasn't even qualified to be a paralegal. Poor Joe. But then...

Well SON OF A BITCH! They changed the law! Now Joe Biden's "solid guy", or anyone else for matter, was eligible for the Prosecutor General job, and whuddayano, Joe got his solid guy into office. Lutsenko had no credentials but at least he wasn't corrupt, right? Wrong, actually Lutsenko was an ex-con. Joe Biden's solid guy had recently done hard time after being convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office.

"Solid guy" indeed.

Think about that. What would you think if a US president nominated a felon convicted of abuse of office with no law degree to be the US Attorney General and the Senate confirmed him?

Would you suspect that there was some kind of shenanigans going on?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job.

Sounds like we need a Special Counsel to investigate.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden.

Phone calls don't require a warrant.

More criminal civil rights violations arise

Durr.

 

[mascale]

Three dozen or more US Supreme Court Justices had no law degree. One never even graduated High School. "Felon" is less of a charge in many foreign governments, wherein entire leaderships were formerly political prisoners.

Of some possibly sordid (Sharia?), kind of background--Then even Muhammed poster is far better off to acknowledge that legal backgrounds themselves are sometimes sordid, but are subject to Civil Rights in the United States.

Which Supreme Court justices did not have a law degree - Answers

The allegations of corruption are not by me, alleged by dirty, sordid Muhammed poster, lying. The allegations were spread around entire continents. No warrants or investigations arising from 2014 are noted in the proceedings of the Ukraine phone call.

Civil Rights tend to be a US showcase, even worldwide--likely even in the Middle East.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Mounds everywhere able to defended--especially in France!)

 

[MAGAman]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

Do you believe Biden didn't know?

Bidens defenders say getting rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor was official US Policy .

Do you believe nobody in the State Dept or VP office knew the son of the guy in charge of handing a $Billion to the Ukraine just happened to have a $50-$100 / month job in a company that prosecutor was investigating?

 

[The Professor]

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

You seem to be very confused. The Prosecutor General who Biden got fired shortly after a sniper tried to get rid of him via assassination (A case that is still under investigation BTW) is PG Viktor Shokin. You and many other Biden apologists here keep claiming that he was corrupt. Fair enough, you are entitled to your uninformed opinion.

The problem is, when you assert that PG Shokin was corrupt that implies that he committed a crime. Yet PG Shokin has never been convicted of any crime. He's never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And when pressed to cite the specific law that you Biden apologists are so convinced that Shokin violated, you guys always come up with nothing. All you can come up with is vague unsubstantiated rumors that he is corrupt.

However, there definitely is a corrupt prosecutor involved and that Is Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Biden wanted Shokin fired and replaced with a "solid guy". Fair enough. But there was a snag, Biden's "solid guy" didn't really have solid credentials. Usually becoming the top prosecutor in the land requires some decent credentials for you to even be considered for the position and Ukraine was no exception. Specifically, under Ukrainian law you had to have a law degree and at least 10 years of experience practicing law to be eligible for the Prosecutor General position.

However, Biden's "solid guy" Lutsenko didn't have quite 10 years experience practicing law. Or 9 years experience. Actually he didn't have any experience. Nor did he have a law degree or ever enroll in law school for that matter. He wasn't even qualified to be a paralegal. Poor Joe. But then...

HOLY SHIT! They changed the law! Now Joe Biden's "solid guy", or anyone else for matter, was eligible for the Prosecutor General job, and whuddayano, Joe got his solid guy into office. Lutsenko had no credentials but at least he wasn't corrupt, right? Wrong, actually Lutsenko was an ex-con. Joe Biden's solid guy had recently done hard time after being convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office.

"Solid guy" indeed.

Think about that. What would you think if a US president nominated a felon convicted of abuse of office with no law degree to be the US Attorney General and the Senate confirmed him?

Would you suspect that there was some kind of shenanigans going on?

I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

Many thanks.

 

[mascale]

So in Ukraine, there was a potential extortionist replaced with a less-well-credentialled prosecutor. In Ukraine nothing out of the ordinary appears to have been alleged. The new one--with whatever dispensations--is apparently to have been regarded an improvement.

There are no investigations of Joe Biden reported, or directly cited, in the phone call transcript. Presumption of innocence of criminal wrong-doing by Joe Biden applies.

Allegations buy the House of Representatives apply--but to Trump and those people, in concurrence with absence of any Civil Rights of US national--likely no matter where they are.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Mounds better able maybe to stabilized even Mira Lago--a Mission Impossible, just like TV!)

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but Joe Biden and his son are corrupt, I think we can all agree on that.

And so's Trump and his spawn. But I'm not sure why the constitution has any effect. Trump's legal liability is simply if a jury or the House finds he offered the aid he refused unless Ukraine re-opened a closed investigation on Hunter and opened one on Biden. Imo that's not really offering a bribe because Ukraine was entitlted to the aid already authorized, and eventually they got it without giving Trump anything besides his political football to kick.

Biden's legal liability is … well none since he got nothing personally from Ukraine. Hunter isn't really any different from Jared who got something on his rep from the Saudis and UAE.

None of these people are really corrupt in the sense that they actually took bribes. Spiro Agnew did. Dan Rostonkowski basically did and Hassert paid bribes. Rather they just profited from their govt positions. As did Hillary.

It is sort of ironic now that the Dems are demanding some change or something new from whomever their nominee will be. And they foisted Hill on us before.

 

[easyt65]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden. Republicans invariably deflect noting that the White House cannot send monies into nest of corrupt activities--wherein intended outcome would not occur.

The actual conflict-of-interest in the Ukraine Phone Call--corruption--centers on Hunter Biden. No one denies that taking the lucrative Ukrainian lawfully provided stipend for the directorship was a conflict of interest. Hunter never advised the Vice President's Office of the new position.

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

So no probable cause exists to infer that the Vice President--Biden--may have improperly used leverage to get the prosecutor fired. The Corruption Thing, same legal basis.

In the matter of the phone call, not even any references to allegations of wrong-doing are noted in requesting a Ukrainian investigation of the U. S. private citizen, former Vice-President Biden.

The failure of the White House is tantamount to a KGB assassination attempt, even: Creating an incident outside of applicable law of Soviet, or now-Russian federation.

The President of the United States was not upholding and defending the U. S. Constitution: In the matter of creating a warrant-free request of another nation--outside the usual extradition and legal proceeding rules--to violate the private citizen's constitutional rights.

The FBI even has way more experience at it.(?). . .the matter of corruption investigations.

Federal Investigations: What Everyone Should Know

The Republicans have no basis on which to allege a corruption investigation in the matter of the subject phone call transcript between the two Presidents: Especially as the additional details unfold. Joe Biden does have Constitutional protections. The Presidents is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States: Clearly including the Constitutional protections.

Process stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes imported even Great Fire Ant Mounds to assist in usual investigations on Lands of Many Nations--just maybe(?)!)

After making a video-taped confession of extorting the Ukraine Prime Minister, former Vice President Biden has the Constitutional Right to REMAIN SILENT, anything that he says may be used against him, ....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So in Ukraine, there was a potential extortionist replaced with a less-well-credentialled prosecutor. In Ukraine nothing out of the ordinary appears to have been alleged. The new one--with whatever dispensations--is apparently to have been regarded an improvement.

There are no investigations of Joe Biden reported, or directly cited, in the phone call transcript. Presumption of innocence of criminal wrong-doing by Joe Biden applies.

Allegations buy the House of Representatives apply--but to Trump and those people, in concurrence with absence of any Civil Rights of US national--likely no matter where they are.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Mounds better able maybe to stabilized even Mira Lago--a Mission Impossible, just like TV!)

There are no investigations of Joe Biden reported, or directly cited, in the phone call transcript.

Great. Then he has nothing to worry about.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution is a written document, and case-law volumes fill up entire buildings all over the USA.

1. The conflict of interest is not the subject of the phone call.
2. Vice-President Biden's office was not apprised of the new Hunter Biden employment.
3. The subject of the Russian annexation of Crimea does appear in the background.
4. The USA and entire continents had further condemned also that.
5. The Republicans are trapped into acknowledging that the Vice-President had widespread concurrence--and even on advice from the Obama White House: To proceed with the anti-corruption demand in that matter.
6. The President of the Ukraine--Merkel and the other named leadership--were not cited as having created allegations against Joe Biden.
7. That by itself weighs in too heavily.
8. An entire range of officials all over--on-board or not with the Crimean Annexation--were mentioned, and in the context of being replaced.
9. No ties to Vice-President Biden were alleged.
10. The aid became an outcome of the phone call, but was only legal due to the Congressional appropriation.
11. The Faithful Execution of the Laws gap is significant--many would say--way beyond just a breach of the law.

The Republicans are even stuck with the problem that the Crimean Annextion was actually a basis to not meet with Vladimir Putin.

So any traveler from the USA does not lose US Constitutional protections--on that basis--even airlines can believe in. . .and then it's on the Cruise Lines, the fishing tours, the train companies: And the circus dog acts.

What Poochie can believe in: So can . . . .voters. Citizenship applies internationally, even to Blacks(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Need more Fire Ant Mounds.. . .For France(?!))

You keep mentioning that there's case law, but I can't help but notice that you haven't actually included an example of where the constitution OR legal precedent prohibit opening an investigation in absence of existing allegations from leadership in the country where the alleged potential corruption occurred.

Now, if the investigation starts going into Biden's private documents without first establishing probable cause, then you have an obvious argument. Calling President Trump's suggestion that an investigation be opened a violation of privacy, though. . . quite a stretch, no?

Next, I'm no expert, but I find it hard to believe that the mere fact that Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid contingent upon the firing of a prosecutor who just happened to be looking into a company that had hired his son despite a breathtaking lack of qualifications wouldn't, in and of itself, qualify as probable cause. Perhaps you could clear that up for me, and I'm not saying that sarcastically. If there's case law that proves me wrong on that, I'd appreciate you pointing it out.

Minor final point, you keep mentioning that Biden's office was never appraised of Hunter Biden's employment. Hunter is Joe's SON. Acting as though the fact that the Ukranians never officially appraised the VP's office of that fact, somehow means that Joe Biden was even POSSIBLY acting in ignorance of his son's position at the company under the scrutiny of the prosecutor whose job he demanded, strikes me as incredibly disingenuous. If I'm mistaking your purpose in reiterating that point, I apologize for the accusation, but seriously. . . in what way is that fact meaningful?

the problem is case law doesnt apply to the constitution,,,thats a tactic the progressive use to subvert the constitution

 

[Muhammed]

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

You seem to be very confused. The Prosecutor General who Biden got fired shortly after a sniper tried to get rid of him via assassination (A case that is still under investigation BTW) is PG Viktor Shokin. You and many other Biden apologists here keep claiming that he was corrupt. Fair enough, you are entitled to your uninformed opinion.

The problem is, when you assert that PG Shokin was corrupt that implies that he committed a crime. Yet PG Shokin has never been convicted of any crime. He's never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And when pressed to cite the specific law that you Biden apologists are so convinced that Shokin violated, you guys always come up with nothing. All you can come up with is vague unsubstantiated rumors that he is corrupt.

However, there definitely is a corrupt prosecutor involved and that Is Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Biden wanted Shokin fired and replaced with a "solid guy". Fair enough. But there was a snag, Biden's "solid guy" didn't really have solid credentials. Usually becoming the top prosecutor in the land requires some decent credentials for you to even be considered for the position and Ukraine was no exception. Specifically, under Ukrainian law you had to have a law degree and at least 10 years of experience practicing law to be eligible for the Prosecutor General position.

However, Biden's "solid guy" Lutsenko didn't have quite 10 years experience practicing law. Or 9 years experience. Actually he didn't have any experience. Nor did he have a law degree or ever enroll in law school for that matter. He wasn't even qualified to be a paralegal. Poor Joe. But then...

HOLY SHIT! They changed the law! Now Joe Biden's "solid guy", or anyone else for matter, was eligible for the Prosecutor General job, and whuddayano, Joe got his solid guy into office. Lutsenko had no credentials but at least he wasn't corrupt, right? Wrong, actually Lutsenko was an ex-con. Joe Biden's solid guy had recently done hard time after being convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office.

"Solid guy" indeed.

Think about that. What would you think if a US president nominated a felon convicted of abuse of office with no law degree to be the US Attorney General and the Senate confirmed him?

Would you suspect that there was some kind of shenanigans going on?

I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

Many thanks.

That's not all. Ukraine's Special Bureau of Investigations has filed more charges against Lutsenko, but he fled the country on July 29 a few days after Trump's phone call with president Zelenskiy.

Biden got a corrupt guy with no law degree who did prison time for abuse of power installed into the Prosecutor General's office and he illegally abused his power of office again.

Who would have thought that could happen?

 

[easyt65]

Can any snowflake show me in the Constitution where a VP has the Constitutional Right to extort another nation's leader / PM, as Biden admitted to doing in his video-taped confession?

 

[mascale]

Case law is reliant on the Constitution. Volumes of Supreme Court opinions even exist. Before Civil War, USA: Case law even went to the Supreme Court in the matter of US Constitutional protections, even beyond the US borders. Outcome is that The US President is required to faithfully execute the Laws of the United States--clearly including its Constitutional protections, e. g. Amendments 4, 5, and 6: Beyond the US borders.

So even in the transcript of the phone call, "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that. So what ever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

So the particular prosecutor had an unsavory reputation. There could have been charges--they could have been baseless. Getting rid of the prosecutor was considered desirable among other nations even. Consider that: Vladimir Putin was not acting in the best interests of the United States, or Ukraine--and some even finally conclude, even Crimea--even then. Preventing a prosecution of a Trumped up charge--(just sayin')--on behalf of a US National was only alleged to be illegal in the phone call: And even without so-stating.

It is noted that the Vice-President had Presidential authority in the matter, even.

Infer from this: The criminal interpretation of US Law is that the White House has no authority to faithfully execute the laws of the United States at all! It's in the parody/transcript/paraphrase--that deflected the deflectors from the core problem of what is shown. "Biden went around around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . .Sounds horrible to me!' (It is alleged that usual jurisprudence was not to be involved(?)!) A US National was protected from possible extortion(?)--and given the exorbitant pay rate, to boot. There is implication, however, in the transcript/parody/paraphrase that something criminal should have been alleged, since some of the "talkers" got into a sweet batch and suddenly thought so(?). Worldwide everyone notices that the Constitution empowers the Executive to do what Biden did.

Republicans claim that Constitutional duties, applied in any matters of US Nationals in any foreign business: Are prima facie corruption. Since they will not so-state, then there commences a crumbling defense of The Presidency in any trial that comes up. They are left with the outcome that Biden appears to have noted.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Ant Mounds away!)

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So the one basis answer is that since before the Civil War, the Executive has to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, here and there(?). There in fact may include even Mars, walking in space, or on the moon. Ukraine would generally be said included.

PROTECTION OF AMERICAN RIGHTS OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ABROAD

The White House claims it did not collude with the Russians, for example, in 2016. No one seems to suggest that it is following the laws of the United States--Amendments 4, 5, and 6--in the matter of the quid pro quo of the Ukraine Presidential phone call. Holding up defensive capability of an impacted strategic partner could be thought by some an Act of War, even(?).

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(US Republicans and Fire Ant mounds: Two things that seem to go together well(?)--starting at the top!)

You keep saying that the white house is violating these amendments and telling us that there's case law, yet you've cited exactly ZERO specific instances of violations and ZERO instances of the case law that backs up your point. Just some random information page on the history of the sixth amendment, and the text of the fifth amendment?

It's growing more and more obvious that you don't actually have anything even resembling the specific legal knowledge to back up any of your claims.

 

[mascale]

In the link in what Not2Bsubjugated cited there are words, little numbers--that denote footnotes and source--even with parentheses. Basis origin caselaw, applicable to Amendments 4, 5, and 6--which are bulwark: Is noted.

It's growing more and more obvious that the Republicans don't actually have anything even resembling the specific legal knowledge to back up any of their claims! (Parody/transcript/paraphrase stuff).

For everything else start with ACLU, or schools, textbooks, sources generally known worldwide. Allegations posed tend to have basis.

law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/protection-of-american-rights-of-person-and-property-abroad

The Republicans are claiming to have the defense of criminal phone call--easily even construed an Act of War! They envision a White House making all kinds of phone calls to foreign leaders about tourists embarking worldwide(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Mounds at points of entry--sounds like a lot of business!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the link in what Not2Bsubjugated cited there are words, little numbers--that denote footnotes and source--even with parentheses. Basis origin caselaw, applicable to Amendments 4, 5, and 6--which are bulwark: Is noted.

It's growing more and more obvious that the Republicans don't actually have anything even resembling the specific legal knowledge to back up any of their claims! (Parody/transcript/paraphrase stuff).

For everything else start with ACLU, or schools, textbooks, sources generally known worldwide. Allegations posed tend to have basis.

law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/protection-of-american-rights-of-person-and-property-abroad

The Republicans are claiming to have the defense of criminal phone call--easily even construed an Act of War! They envision a White House making all kinds of phone calls to foreign leaders about tourists embarking worldwide(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Mounds at points of entry--sounds like a lot of business!)

Republicans don't actually have anything even resembling the specific legal knowledge to back up any of their claims!

Maybe they're waiting for you to back up your claims......first?

The Republicans are claiming to have the defense of criminal phone call

Can you rephrase....in English? Your crazy dialect is difficult to understand.

easily even construed an Act of War!

Ditto.

 

[mascale]

ToddsterPatriot: Can't read the link, current events--and in fact claiming inability to follow along a simple phrase.

"Mascale" is not even spelled, "The Democrats," or "The Liberals," or "The Left," My heritage is Penn Quaker, from 1683: But no person even speaks officially for the Religious Society of Friends.

"Crow: James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Great Mounded Fire Ants: Leave volume of yelling even up to others(?)!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot: Can't read the link, current events--and in fact claiming inability to follow along a simple phrase.

"Mascale" is not even spelled, "The Democrats," or "The Liberals," or "The Left," My heritage is Penn Quaker, from 1683: But no person even speaks officially for the Religious Society of Friends.

"Crow: James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Great Mounded Fire Ants: Leave volume of yelling even up to others(?)!)

Which link backed up your claim that the President needs a warrant for his phone call?

 

[iceberg]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?