Tump's cave-in continues!

[BasicHumanUnit]

I wish to thank you for your several posts in the last page or two proving my point that you trumpanzees and trump are still playing the victim EVEN tho the GOP controls all three Branches of Government. I appreciate your effort to show that you will still work to claim victimhood despite that.

You....are a certifiable imbecile.
You make stupid statements like the one above with apparently no knowledge whatsoever that the process is still according to rules and that Democrats still have a say. How many Democrats voted FOR the changes to health care? Do you even know?

If REAL Republicans actually controlled all 3 branches of government every change they wanted would become law. When was the last time it actually happened just like that?

You are complaining because the process worked in your favor. What a jack wagon.

 

[bodecea]

Considering that FAR more merited Special Investigation during the Obama years with VERIFIED scandals such as the IRS fiasco......only the white witch got any scrutiny.....Obama....free pass......Holder.....off the hook.....Lynch...free pass

A free pass for the black people? WHY?!? Noone of ANY color should get a free pass when doing wrong. Trump included.....but nothing's been found has it?

So all the Left has to do is put another person of color in the White House and they are untouchable regardless of their actions?

Is that right?

Fascinating.

 

[bodecea]

The President is HEAD of one of the branches and if his party controls the other two......well, you get it....but you want to pretend you don't. (Like pretending someone called someone else a racist when no such thing was said)

And what power does Trump have over McCain, a Senator in "his" party?

Apparently none....and that's why everyone is calling him a traitor.......we know what you trumpanzees really consider him a traitor to....and it's not America.

So stripped of your partisan spin, what you just did there was admit that your crap about Trump "controlling" the three branches of government was indeed, crap.

THanks.

I wish to thank you for your several posts in the last page or two proving my point that you trumpanzees and trump are still playing the victim EVEN tho the GOP controls all three Branches of Government. I appreciate your effort to show that you will still work to claim victimhood despite that.

they'll be the first to scream "WE WON" in your face, then blame everyone else for failing to pass legislation.

F'em.

Winning is great........but when it comes to running a country, that should be the beginning....not the end all and be all with everything else afterwords just whining and complaining and being the victim.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

they'll be the first to scream "WE WON" in your face, then blame everyone else for failing to pass legislation.
F'em.

As far as I can tell, trump still has about 3.5 years......you folks love to count your chickens before the eggs hatch don't you?

Democrats are salivating in expectation of taking over the House and Senate next year.....we'll see.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17824667

What was the felony what is the name and badge number of the officer who he directed to commit it?

No officer has followed through. So there is no crime and no name or badge number tied to a crime. Are you really that stupid.

lol so he incited to a felony that you can't name? God you're fucking dumb.

The felony is assault.

And what officer did he direct to commit assault? Once again it is only unprotected speech if it is likely to cause imminent lawless action, the statute you referenced was in regards to a direct specific felony not a blanket off the cuff comment.

 

[Faun]

Great.

Yet more evidence that conservatism is a cult.

Prove Gloria Steinem ever said, "if banning guns and ammunition can save just one child, then it should strongly be considered."

That is a liberal talking point. Lol

In other words, in typical conservative fashion, you lied.

Well, you did get one thing right ... you said that's what it's like for a conservative to converse with me.... you cultists have to lie.

Just Google it. She is an anti gun activists. Lol

Another Ironic Post......keep them coming, we need some humor here.

So she is a gun supporter?

Of course not -- that does not prove she said that quote.

Now on to part B -- prove she ever wore that shirt.....

 

[bodecea]

I wish to thank you for your several posts in the last page or two proving my point that you trumpanzees and trump are still playing the victim EVEN tho the GOP controls all three Branches of Government. I appreciate your effort to show that you will still work to claim victimhood despite that.

You....are a certifiable imbecile.
You make stupid statements like the one above with apparently no knowledge whatsoever that the process is still according to rules and that Democrats still have a say. How many Democrats voted FOR the changes to health care? Do you even know?

If REAL Republicans actually controlled all 3 branches of government every change they wanted would become law. When was the last time it actually happened just like that?

You are complaining because the process worked in your favor. What a jack wagon.

Still reaching for that Victimhood with both tiny hands, I see.

 

[Faun]

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17824667

What was the felony what is the name and badge number of the officer who he directed to commit it?

No officer has followed through. So there is no crime and no name or badge number tied to a crime. Are you really that stupid.

lol so he incited to a felony that you can't name? God you're fucking dumb.

The felony is assault.

And what officer did he direct to commit assault? Once again it is only unprotected speech if it is likely to cause imminent lawless action.

It was an instruction from the president in charge of the Justice Department to any and all law enforcement officers.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

What was the felony and what was the officers name and badge number who he incited to commit it?

The felony need not be commited for it to be a crime. Inciting others to commit a felony is still a crime; even if no felony was committed.

• § 7. Inciting to felony
  
  A person who endeavors to incite, procure or hire another person to commit a felony, though a felony is not actually committed as a result of such inciting, hiring or procuring, shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $500.00, or both. (Amended 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 15; 1981, No. 223 (Adj. Sess.), § 23.)

What was the felony and what was the name and badge number of the officer who he directed to commit it? For incitement to fail the clear and probable danger test of the 1st amendment the speech must be direct, specific, and likely to cause imminent unlawful action.

Your continued desperation is no longer even noted; but still dismissed.

A badge number is not required as Trump made his instructions to any and all officers. Incitement does not have to target a specific individual; such as inciting others to riot.

As it is, Trump is already being sued for inciting violence and the federal judge on the trial said, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command." -- and no badge number was necessary.

Get them out of here is a command to kick people out for disrupting a private event, that is not a felony nor an incitement to a felony. And yes the incitement has to be direct amd specific, it must be shown to likely cause imminent unlawful action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

Trump's instructions to law enforcement officers was specific and directed towards any and all LEO's; and such an order, coming from the president who's responsible for the Department of Justice, is a call for imminent unlawful action. And as demonstrated, in Vermont, a felony need not be commited. Inciting a felony is a criminal offense in itself even without a felony being committed.

lmfao it was a blanket off the cuff joke so fucking spare me your nonsense.

 

[bodecea]

The felony need not be commited for it to be a crime. Inciting others to commit a felony is still a crime; even if no felony was committed.

• § 7. Inciting to felony
  
  A person who endeavors to incite, procure or hire another person to commit a felony, though a felony is not actually committed as a result of such inciting, hiring or procuring, shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $500.00, or both. (Amended 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 15; 1981, No. 223 (Adj. Sess.), § 23.)

What was the felony and what was the name and badge number of the officer who he directed to commit it? For incitement to fail the clear and probable danger test of the 1st amendment the speech must be direct, specific, and likely to cause imminent unlawful action.

Your continued desperation is no longer even noted; but still dismissed.

A badge number is not required as Trump made his instructions to any and all officers. Incitement does not have to target a specific individual; such as inciting others to riot.

As it is, Trump is already being sued for inciting violence and the federal judge on the trial said, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command." -- and no badge number was necessary.

Get them out of here is a command to kick people out for disrupting a private event, that is not a felony nor an incitement to a felony. And yes the incitement has to be direct amd specific, it must be shown to likely cause imminent unlawful action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

Trump's instructions to law enforcement officers was specific and directed towards any and all LEO's; and such an order, coming from the president who's responsible for the Department of Justice, is a call for imminent unlawful action. And as demonstrated, in Vermont, a felony need not be commited. Inciting a felony is a criminal offense in itself even without a felony being committed.

lmfao it was a blanket off the cuff joke so fucking spare me your nonsense.

Ha Ha...a joke...ha ha.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17824529,

They incited it through their violent rhetoric, if you are calling people mass murderers that is a call to violence against the accused so shove you BS pal.

Why do you continue to show how stupid you are?

There is no call to murder Republicans anywhere in that link.

Even if a Democrat accused Republicans mass murderers which they didn't, it cannot be presumed it is a call to murder them. It's a call to vote them out office so they can do no harm.

Labeling Republicans mass murderers is a call to violence.

Then calling Democrats un-American and traitors would also be a "call to violence" using your....ahem...logic.

Except it's democrats accusing Trump of treason you stupid fuck.

 

[jknowgood]

That is a liberal talking point. Lol

In other words, in typical conservative fashion, you lied.

Well, you did get one thing right ... you said that's what it's like for a conservative to converse with me.... you cultists have to lie.

Just Google it. She is an anti gun activists. Lol

Another Ironic Post......keep them coming, we need some humor here.

So she is a gun supporter?

Of course not -- that does not prove she said that quote.

Now on to part B -- prove she ever wore that shirt.....

Lol, prove Russia collusion. She is against guns and she is proud of abortion. Proof enough.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

What was the felony and what was the name and badge number of the officer who he directed to commit it? For incitement to fail the clear and probable danger test of the 1st amendment the speech must be direct, specific, and likely to cause imminent unlawful action.

Your continued desperation is no longer even noted; but still dismissed.

A badge number is not required as Trump made his instructions to any and all officers. Incitement does not have to target a specific individual; such as inciting others to riot.

As it is, Trump is already being sued for inciting violence and the federal judge on the trial said, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command." -- and no badge number was necessary.

Get them out of here is a command to kick people out for disrupting a private event, that is not a felony nor an incitement to a felony. And yes the incitement has to be direct amd specific, it must be shown to likely cause imminent unlawful action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

Trump's instructions to law enforcement officers was specific and directed towards any and all LEO's; and such an order, coming from the president who's responsible for the Department of Justice, is a call for imminent unlawful action. And as demonstrated, in Vermont, a felony need not be commited. Inciting a felony is a criminal offense in itself even without a felony being committed.

lmfao it was a blanket off the cuff joke so fucking spare me your nonsense.

Ha Ha...a joke...ha ha.

Yes as evidenced by the context it wasn't a serious order you laughable moron.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Which officer did he direct to commit a felony? What was the felony? What's the officers badge number you lying fuck?

Any officer. The felony is assault.

Again that's not how the law works you stupid fuck, incitement to violence is only prohibited if it fails the clear and probable danger test IE it has to be direct, specific, and likely to cause imminent unlawful action. Now post the quote where Trump directs an officer to commit a felony.

Says you, citing yourself, with absolutely zero proof.

Says Schenck v. US, Dennis v. US and Brandenburg v. Ohio educated.


Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Courtcase based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless actionand is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]

Great, then it sounds like Trump is guilty. His instructions to law enforcement officers to commit police brutality is imminent.

Bullshit it was an off the cuff joke not a serious directive and it sure as hell wasn't a call to imminent lawless action, imminent here means immediately as in an incitement to riot.

 

[Faun]

In other words, in typical conservative fashion, you lied.

Well, you did get one thing right ... you said that's what it's like for a conservative to converse with me.... you cultists have to lie.

Just Google it. She is an anti gun activists. Lol

Another Ironic Post......keep them coming, we need some humor here.

So she is a gun supporter?

Of course not -- that does not prove she said that quote.

Now on to part B -- prove she ever wore that shirt.....

Lol, prove Russia collusion. She is against guns and she is proud of abortion. Proof enough.

I didn't say there was collusion. You're idiotically claiming Steinem made a comment she didn't make and wore a shirt she didn't wear.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Just Google it. She is an anti gun activists. Lol

Another Ironic Post......keep them coming, we need some humor here.

So she is a gun supporter?

Of course not -- that does not prove she said that quote.

Now on to part B -- prove she ever wore that shirt.....

Lol, prove Russia collusion. She is against guns and she is proud of abortion. Proof enough.

I didn't say there was collusion. You're idiotically claiming Steinem made a comment she didn't make and wore a shirt she didn't wear.

No she wore the shirt:

‘I Had an Abortion’ Shirt Sales Stir Controversy at University of North Carolina Wilmington

 

[bodecea]

Your continued desperation is no longer even noted; but still dismissed.

A badge number is not required as Trump made his instructions to any and all officers. Incitement does not have to target a specific individual; such as inciting others to riot.

As it is, Trump is already being sued for inciting violence and the federal judge on the trial said, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command." -- and no badge number was necessary.

Get them out of here is a command to kick people out for disrupting a private event, that is not a felony nor an incitement to a felony. And yes the incitement has to be direct amd specific, it must be shown to likely cause imminent unlawful action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

Trump's instructions to law enforcement officers was specific and directed towards any and all LEO's; and such an order, coming from the president who's responsible for the Department of Justice, is a call for imminent unlawful action. And as demonstrated, in Vermont, a felony need not be commited. Inciting a felony is a criminal offense in itself even without a felony being committed.

lmfao it was a blanket off the cuff joke so fucking spare me your nonsense.

Ha Ha...a joke...ha ha.

Yes as evidenced by the context it wasn't a serious order you laughable moron.

Ha ha...a joke....ha ha

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yesterday, President Trump continued his ineffective leadership by attacking his attorney general, threatening special counsel Mueller and raised speculation on all but his most lickspittle admirers that his taxes and finances are hiding serious legal complications for he and his family.

What is his game plan?

Tell us what specifically was incorrect in what he said? Sessions shouldn't have caved he didn't do anything deserving of recusal, there was no conflict of interests and Mueller is staffing democratic activists wjo are leaking to the press like a sieve and Mueller is stepping outside of his investigative purview because he can't find any Russian collusion.

No Russian collusion? LOL Are you that fucking stupid?

Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting

What did they collude about and show me the evidence that she was working for the Russian government and while you're at it do you have evidence that Trump was aware of the meeting? She didn't bring anything to the table so there was no collusion on anything and nothing to report to authorities you stupid ****** dick taking faggot.

God damn, you are really fucking stupid aren't you. The e-mail stated that she represented the Russian government,

But she didn't you stupid fuck.

and the three of them, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner, met her with that understanding. In other words, they were eager to collude with the Russian government on interference in a US Presidential election. The bastards should be standing in the docket for treason.

She didn't present anything at the meeting so what did the collude about and just who gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the US you stupid faggot? You must be thinking of the former chimp in chief Obama who went out of his way to make a special exception to grant 1500 known and documented terrorist asylum in the United States. That's aid and comfort to thousands of declared enemies of the United States, time for the treasonous ****** to hang I suppose.

If I believe that I'm hiring a hit man to kill my wife and the hit man is actually an undercover officer am I not guilty of a crime even though no one was killed?

 

[jknowgood]

Just Google it. She is an anti gun activists. Lol

Another Ironic Post......keep them coming, we need some humor here.

So she is a gun supporter?

Of course not -- that does not prove she said that quote.

Now on to part B -- prove she ever wore that shirt.....

Lol, prove Russia collusion. She is against guns and she is proud of abortion. Proof enough.

I didn't say there was collusion. You're idiotically claiming Steinem made a comment she didn't make and wore a shirt she didn't wear.

She wore the shirt, part of a photo shoot in 2004. Did you also know she had an illegal abortion in 1957? Glad to see you stick up for garbage.

 

[Old Rocks]

There was Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. This is proof of that.

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone


On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

This was forwarded to Manafort and Kushner, and both agreed to go to the meeting. We have only their word, known liars, at to what was agreed to in that meeting.