Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Do YOU support the CONSTITUTION?
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.
Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Do YOU support the CONSTITUTION?
The difference being the word "IF." Trumps conspiracy wasn't about "IF."So if you and Joe Blow discuss a notion on how to cheat on obtaining some money from an agency which is funded by the US treasury, and contemplate doing so, is it your contention that nothing further is required for you to have engaged in a conspiracy?
I asked you if you support the constitution? Remember the question? Answer it.Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.
After the election is what we are talking about. Try again.That is meaningless since she did nothing but sit around and perhaps text. Her acts, thoughts and opinions are not transferable to her husband.
Every election is about overthrowing the previous government.
It would be the duty of any American citizen to bring attention to election fraud. She's a great American.Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.
I asked you if you support the constitution? Remember the question? Answer it.
Is this true or not? Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.I asked you if you support the constitution? Remember the question? Answer it.
People haven't talked about it because if they really did and were serious about it, half of Washington would have to resign in disgrace. Our current president wouldn't be able to deal with Ukraine, etc.Imagine if a Supreme Court justice was married to a radical activist who defended a group charged with sedition, encouraged a rally challenging election results, and gave out awards to people with an interest in cases appearing before the Court.
As it turns out, you don’t have to imagine. That’s a description of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
For years, Ginni Thomas has been a walking conflict of interest that everyone has seemingly agreed not to talk about. It’s not as if she tried to hide. She’s been a fixture in conservative circles since the 1980s. She has had her own lobbying firm for more than a decade.
![]()
Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?
Behind closed doors, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is working with many groups directly involved in controversial cases before the Court.www.newyorker.com
See my previous post to you, and than answer MY question.Is this true or not? Making a plan with the Chief of Staff to the president to overturn an election, is a plan of action, not speech.
It isn't her duty to bring attention to election fraud that hasn't been proven, while mounting a plan to forcibly stop a legal election with a chief of staff, because of her non-existent proof of election fraud.It would be the duty of any American citizen to bring attention to election fraud. She's a great American.
You didn't say anything, which is the typical post of a Trumpaholic.People haven't talked about it because if they really did and were serious about it, half of Washington would have to resign in disgrace. Our current president wouldn't be able to deal with Ukraine, etc.
She didn't bring attention to election fraud. Remember, it doesn't exist without proof.See my previous post to you, and than answer MY question.
Imagine the son of a sitting POTUS making fortunes in from very corrupt countries like Ukraine, Russia and China.Imagine if a Supreme Court justice was married to a radical activist who defended a group charged with sedition, encouraged a rally challenging election results, and gave out awards to people with an interest in cases appearing before the Court.
As it turns out, you don’t have to imagine. That’s a description of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
For years, Ginni Thomas has been a walking conflict of interest that everyone has seemingly agreed not to talk about. It’s not as if she tried to hide. She’s been a fixture in conservative circles since the 1980s. She has had her own lobbying firm for more than a decade.
![]()
Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?
Behind closed doors, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is working with many groups directly involved in controversial cases before the Court.www.newyorker.com
Sure it is. Funny how the democrats who contested and tried to decertify every presidential election they lost since 2000 can't seem to remember it.It isn't her duty to bring attention to election fraud that hasn't been proven, while mounting a plan to forcibly stop a legal election with a chief of staff, because of her non-existent proof of election fraud.
This answers the question as to if I support the Constitution; Do you?I asked you if you support the constitution? Remember the question? Answer it.
But, nothing illegal was done. Glad you agree you useless fuck.Look folks, the dissenting retarded judge and his random remarks that only remind us he is still living on planet delusional.![]()
![]()
You know, with judges like this Loon who try and change the argument, it's pretty obvious he won't be leaving planet delusional anytime soon.
Than why is your side fighting so hard to stop the right from looking into it? If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't do that. Would you?She didn't bring attention to election fraud. Remember, it doesn't exist without proof.
Do bad that is a lie, just like the stolen election lie. You folks are losers.Imagine the son of a sitting POTUS making fortunes in from very corrupt countries like Ukraine, Russia and China.
Goldfish memories. They can't tell one side of the bowl from the other.Sure it is. Funny how the democrats who contested and tried to decertify every presidential election they lost since 2000 can't seem to remember it.![]()
Oh but it was. On planet delusional, I understand your rules are different. Carry on.But, nothing illegal was done. Glad you agree you useless fuck.
This answers the question as to if I support the Constitution; Do you?