• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As Arranged, Trump Has Been Acquitted

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
So? USMCA is just a modification of NAFTA which Dems never opposed in mass to begin with.

Which shows that the House can waste time passing bills it knows has zero chance of passing the Senate. A lot of people in Congress are lawyers. They are completely capable of seeing the outcome of their proposals. The Senate is not subservient to the House
Remember, you said, "Yes like the Dems didn't whine for 3 years about Russia Collusion babble then watch it blow up in their face. They were completely willing to work with Trump.... /s"

I just showed you that they have. Now you want to move the goal posts.
Also, remember 188 House Democrats voted to support Trump's "space force" bill.

The problem is, it's difficult to work with someone who not only takes their ball and goes home with it, but hurls insults at everybody on his way out, unless he gets exactly what he wants.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
We're going to vote alright - for Trump. You liberals don't even have a decent candidate this time around (not that you had one last time either). Here's your top three losers:

1. Pete Buttigieg – an unrepentant Sodomite who wants to make HIS HUSBAND the First Lady / Man in the White House. Yuck.
2. Bernie Sanders – the resident, pie-in-the-sky, math-challenged Socialist / Communist.
3. Elizabeth Warren – Pocahontas. Painful to watch and listen to. Probably won't last too much longer.

And then there's unrepentant fornicator "Little Mike" Bloomberg, who is in an incestuous relationship with his shack-up girlfriend. Interesting that he spent $200 million and came in at less than 1% of the voting in Iowa, LOL.

That’s the current “brain trust” of the Democratic Party, LOL.

b651cd0e0ed57d8bc89cf65259c58dbf.jpg
It's totally cool that Trump is an "unrepentant fornicator" though, right? :rolleyes:
The double standards from Trump supporters are simply stunning.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Remember, you said, "Yes like the Dems didn't whine for 3 years about Russia Collusion babble then watch it blow up in their face. They were completely willing to work with Trump.... /s"

I just showed you that they have.
Where has it been shown that Trump colluded with Russians in the 2016 election?
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
We're going to vote alright - for Trump. You liberals don't even have a decent candidate this time around (not that you had one last time either). Here's your top three losers:

1. Pete Buttigieg – an unrepentant Sodomite who wants to make HIS HUSBAND the First Lady / Man in the White House. Yuck.

The "ew! Gross! Ichy-poo! I can't handle homosexuality!" is the argument of a homophobe.

2. Bernie Sanders – the resident, pie-in-the-sky, math-challenged Socialist / Communist.

Democratic-socialist. There's a difference. Why math-challenged?

3. Elizabeth Warren – Pocahontas. Painful to watch and listen to. Probably won't last too much longer.

And then there's unrepentant fornicator "Little Mike" Bloomberg, who is in an incestuous relationship with his shack-up girlfriend. Interesting that he spent $200 million and came in at less than 1% of the voting in Iowa, LOL.

That’s the current “brain trust” of the Democratic Party, LOL.

b651cd0e0ed57d8bc89cf65259c58dbf.jpg

I see you are swayed by schoolyard, reality TV antics...
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Where has it been shown that Trump colluded with Russians in the 2016 election?
Scroll back a bit and you'll notice I was responding to the latter half of the comment. ... "they were completely willing to work with Trump.... /s"



Though the Mueller Report shows Trump attempted many times to collude with Russia. The only reason it didn't work out was because many of his minions did not follow his orders.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Scroll back a bit and you'll notice I was responding to the latter half of the comment. ... "they were completely willing to work with Trump.... /s"



Though the Mueller Report shows Trump attempted many times to collude with Russia. The only reason it didn't work out was because many of his minions did not follow his orders.
Do we have excerpts showing this?
I'm skeptical because this would be big news,
but I've heard nothing supporting it.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Do we have excerpts showing this?
I'm skeptical because this would be big news,
but I've heard nothing supporting it.
Volume I.

Also, it's stated therein that they had an incomplete picture of what had happened due to the fact that they had received very little documentation or communications from the White House; they had been given false or incomplete testimony in other cases, and flat out refusal to provide any testimony at all in other cases.

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts."

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Volume I.

Also, it's stated therein that they had an incomplete picture of what had happened due to the fact that they had received very little documentation or communications from the White House; they had been given false or incomplete testimony in other cases, and flat out refusal to provide any testimony at all in other cases.

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts."

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
This doesn't sound at all like evidence for the claim of collusion.
At best it's a basis for suspicion.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This doesn't sound at all like evidence for the claim of collusion.
At best it's a basis for suspicion.
It's not evidence for the claims of collusion. It's an explanation as to why it was difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the little evidence they were provided with. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (*cough*impeachment hearings/senate trial*cough*)

Read all of Volume I. I can't quote the entire thing.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
It's totally cool that Trump is an "unrepentant fornicator" though, right? :rolleyes:
The double standards from Trump supporters are simply stunning.

Nice try. Trump repented of his sins when he became a Christian. Paula White led him in the Sinner's Prayer. Your liberal Sodomite and fornicator hasn't.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
The "ew! Gross! Ichy-poo! I can't handle homosexuality!" is the argument of a homophobe.

If Sodomite Pete Buttigieg wants to play the Christian then he needs to play by the rules. So get a new dog to run around the arena. Your slur has fleas.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's not evidence for the claims of collusion. It's an explanation as to why it was difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the little evidence they were provided with. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (*cough*impeachment hearings/senate trial*cough*)

Read all of Volume I. I can't quote the entire thing.
With all the effort by so many to discover collusion, if
none has yet turned up, then it appears to be unfounded.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That seems a shaky foundation for belief.
Didn't Trump prevent people with knowledge from testifying under oath?

Didn't his Senate minions decide that further information was uneccessary as the results had already been determined?

You might think that Trump's successful efforts to obstruct the inquiry means more than Trump is good at avoiding consequences for his unethical behavior. But I don't.
That's all it means. Trump can get away with selling out US national security interests because 51 of our Senators need his support to stay in power.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Didn't Trump prevent people with knowledge from testifying under oath?

Didn't his Senate minions decide that further information was uneccessary as the results had already been determined?

You might think that Trump's successful efforts to obstruct the inquiry means more than Trump is good at avoiding consequences for his unethical behavior. But I don't.
That's all it means. Trump can get away with selling out US national security interests because 51 of our Senators need his support to stay in power.
Tom
You don't know what you were prevented from knowing.
To believe that it's what you hope for is reckless.
 
Top