• 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!

Trump abruptly comes home early

ecco

Veteran Member
That's long been his problem, ie, the evidence being unseen.
"Unseen"?

There were dozens of cases where the evidence was seen and ruled "uncredible".

There were dozens of cases where the "evidence" wasn't seen because the courts ruled that the people suing had no standing. Whose fault is that? Couldn't the Trump surrogates figure out how to present cases properly?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sarcsm does not change the fact that the
"Fine people" quote is deliberately misrepresented.

At least you agree the Russian collusion thing was fake.

Now, who concocted it. why, and what did it cost on dollars and otherwise?
Hard to say whether it was even concocted at all There is no doubt that there was Russian interference in the election and that it supported Trump. Even Republicans agreed with that. And Trump did himself no help when he told the Russians to find Hillary's email accounts:

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

Trump gave the appearance of colluding with Russia so was it unreasonable to investigate him for that crime? And then to make it worse there was no doubt that there was obstruction from the Trump administration. In other words, they looked like a duck, they quacked like a duck. It was a bit surprising that they were not a duck.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Hard to say whether it was even concocted at all There is no doubt that there was Russian interference in the election and that it supported Trump. Even Republicans agreed with that. And Trump did himself no help when he told the Russians to find Hillary's email accounts:

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

Trump gave the appearance of colluding with Russia so was it unreasonable to investigate him for that crime? And then to make it worse there was no doubt that there was obstruction from the Trump administration. In other words, they looked like a duck, they quacked like a duck. It was a bit surprising that they were not a duck.

Can you spell stupid expensive political witch hunt, breach of trust and fat nothingburger?

You are more concerned with a lame joke about maybe the russians have her email than with the national security breach, lies, crime and coverup on hillarys part.

Of course they had her email, she left it wide open. As if they needed trump to suggest it.

She really should visit a jail for that.

Your crintons are a bigger disgrace even than trump, which takes some doing.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can you spell stupid expensive political witch hunt, breach of trust and fat nothingburger?

You are more concerned with a lame joke about maybe the rusdians have her email than with the national security breach, lies, crime and coverup on hillsrys part,

She really should visit a jail for that.

Was it a joke? It did not sound like a joke when he said it. Trump regularly would make illegal suggestions or claims only to have to walk them back and give the lame excuse "I was joking". And then once the investigation began due largely to his own big fat mouth they did obstruct the investigation. He could have been impeached for that alone, though Mueller recommended against prosecuting due to:

"Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.

Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” "

What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction - FactCheck.org

In other words he thought that Trump was definitely guilty of obstruction of justice but the harm to the country would be too great to justify prosecution. It was not a "nothingburger" just because there was no prosecutions. It told us that Trump was dishonest and willing to break the law. If he had done the same sort of acts as a private citizen he would have been prosecuted.

As to Hillary, perhaps she should have gone to jail. I am no fan of the Clintons. I thought that was the worst mistake that the Democrats could have made when it came to choosing a candidate. They found the only candidate that could lose to Trump.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Was it a joke? It did not sound like a joke when he said it. Trump regularly would make illegal suggestions or claims only to have to walk them back and give the lame excuse "I was joking". And then once the investigation began due largely to his own big fat mouth they did obstruct the investigation. He could have been impeached for that alone, though Mueller recommended against prosecuting due to:

"Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.

Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” "

What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction - FactCheck.org

In other words he thought that Trump was definitely guilty of obstruction of justice but the harm to the country would be too great to justify prosecution. It was not a "nothingburger" just because there was no prosecutions. It told us that Trump was dishonest and willing to break the law. If he had done the same sort of acts as a private citizen he would have been prosecuted.

As to Hillary, perhaps she should have gone to jail. I am no fan of the Clintons. I thought that was the worst mistake that the Democrats could have made when it came to choosing a candidate. They found the only candidate that could lose to Trump.

So for clarity, you honestly think, really-really believe ttunp is
SO STUPID he would solicit russian collusion in a tweet.

And ttrump was the onlr r she could have beaten.

You guys are being fools to join their teams as if they
were good guys v bad
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So for clarity, you honestly think, really-really believe ttunp is
SO STUPID he would solicit russian collusion in a tweet.

And ttrump was the onlr r she could have beaten.

You guys are being fools to join their teams as if they
were good guys v bad
It would not be the most idiotic thing that he ever tweeted. It is not out of character to him post such a thing and mean it.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Sarcsm does not change the fact that the
"Fine people" quote is deliberately misrepresented.
In what way? It is absolutely 100% accurate to say that Trump called people with neo-Nazi sympathies "very fine people". Why do you want to ignore that fact and instead focus on the fact that not everyone at the rally in question were openly Nazis?

At least you agree the Russian collusion thing was fake.
Nope. There was a lot of good reasons to investigate possible collusion, such as the Trump family and campaign's many ties with Russia and the fact that Russia attempted to interfere in the election. When stuff like that happens, it is absolutely correct to investigate. Or are you against investigations?

Now, who concocted it. why, and what did it cost on dollars and otherwise?
Is this an attitude you to have to ALL federal investogations into possible corruption, or do you just not understand how they work?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
In what way? It is absolutely 100% accurate to say that Trump called people with neo-Nazi sympathies "very fine people". Why do you want to ignore that fact and instead focus on the fact that not everyone at the rally in question were openly Nazis?


Nope. There was a lot of good reasons to investigate possible collusion, such as the Trump family and campaign's many ties with Russia and the fact that Russia attempted to interfere in the election. When stuff like that happens, it is absolutely correct to investigate. Or are you against investigations?


Is this an attitude you to have to ALL federal investogations into possible corruption, or do you just not understand how they work?

The "fine nazi" thing is unsupportable if you
read the whole statement. SOME fine is not EVERYBODY.
Like "maga kid" bssed one one selected photo and a false
narrative. A leftist narrative. Did you jump to conclusions
on thst one?

Good reason to investigate,but four years and what, 50
million dollars could not turn up a real resson. Nothing.
Hillarys dossier about golden showers. Honestly,
that is like, the good guys dolng due diligence in the publuc good?

Concocted politically motivated "investigations"
are not cool. Does that need clarification?
 
So for clarity, you honestly think, really-really believe ttunp is
SO STUPID he would solicit russian collusion in a tweet.
Trump has done many, many stupid things by tweet.

Self-control and carefulness are not his strengths. His strengths are shamelessness and audacity. So yes, he would be and has been that stupid.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Trump has done many, many stupid things by tweet.

Self-control and carefulness are not his strengths. His strengths are shamelessness and audacity. So yes, he would be and has been that stupid.
Im satified that basis for collusion investigation
was as thin as you indicste.

Have the last word if you like, none of this is my deal.
 

Dave Watchman

Active Member
What is this new evidence?

If I knew I'd tell you.

Do you know?

No. Trump said it, not me.

It's from the Trump tweet.

Or is this just another sad Trump ploy to get more money?

I didn't know he was running a ploy to get more money.

Maybe I should run one too.

How do you do it?

Look, I can tell you lefties are getting agitated, so I probably shouldn't post this.

But here goes anyway.

We have heard of the 10 days of darkness.

We have heard that the military courts cleared their calendars for 10 days.

Well now Ted Cruze just said they will not certify the election on the 6th until 10 days of "emergency" audits are done.

Joint Statement from Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-Elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, Tuberville
January 2, 2021
|
202-228-7561


WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021:

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

Joint Statement from Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-Elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, Tuberville | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
 

Dave Watchman

Active Member
Pence Welcomes Efforts by Lawmakers to Object to Electoral College Votes on Jan. 6: Report
By Janita Kan
January 2, 2021 Updated: January 2, 2021

Vice President Mike Pence said he welcomes efforts by lawmakers to challenge Electoral College results in the upcoming congressional joint session on Jan. 6, when the votes are formally counted, according to a statement sent by his chief of staff to reporters.

Vice President Chief of Staff Marc Short issued the statement on Saturday saying that Pence, who will be presiding over the Jan. 6 session as president of the senate, is open to considering planned objections by Republican House members and senators to Electoral College votes cast for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Short added that the vice president also welcomes efforts by lawmakers to present evidence of election irregularities and alleged voter fraud before Congress during that session.

“Vice President Pence shares the concerns of millions of Americans about voter fraud and irregularities in the last election,” Short said in the statement sent to media outlets.

This comes after a group of 11 Republican senators announced their intention to challenge the electoral college votes from contested states earlier on Saturday. The group, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), said the 2020 election “featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations, and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.”

The allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election “exceed any in our lifetimes,” they said, adding that this “deep distrust” of U.S. democratic processes “will not magically disappear” and “should concern us all,” whether or not elected officials or journalist believe the allegations.

“It poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations,” the senators wrote in their statement, while calling on Congress to appoint an electoral commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election results.

They added that they intend to object to the votes unless and until the emergency 10-day audit is completed.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was the first senator to announce his plans to object earlier this week. Forty House members plan on objecting to electoral votes, according to a tally by The Epoch Times.

Objections during the joint session must be made in writing by at least one House member and one senator. If the objection for any state meets this requirements, the joint session pauses and each house withdraws to its own chamber to debate the question for a maximum of two hours. The House and the Senate then vote separately to accept or reject the objection, which requires a majority vote from both chambers.

If both candidates receive less than 270 electoral votes on Jan. 6, then a contingent election is triggered in which each state’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, while the vice president is decided by a vote in the U.S. Senate.

Democrats and several Republican senators have opposed the plans to challenge the electoral college results. Republican Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) issued statements on Saturday to reaffirm their support that they would back the electoral college votes that were cast for Biden.

Similarly, Senate Democrats rebuked efforts by their Republican colleagues.

“Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th, and no publicity stunt will change that,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said in a statement.

“This pathetic, opportunistic stunt is an attack on our democracy. It’s un-American & unconscionable. Votes have been counted, recounted, certified, & all challenges totally discredited. Time to govern & get things done,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a separate statement.

The Republican senators acknowledged in their statement on Saturday that they expect Democrats and a few Republicans to vote against them but they added that “support for election integrity should not be a partisan issue.”

“A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20 would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People,” the Republican senators said.

Pence Welcomes Efforts by Lawmakers to Object to Electoral College Votes on Jan. 6: Report
 

Dave Watchman

Active Member
Trump Live:


Live President Trump: "The Most Important Speech I have Ever Made" Trump Rally LIVE in Dalton, GA 1/2/21
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Pence Welcomes Efforts by Lawmakers to Object to Electoral College Votes on Jan. 6: Report
By Janita Kan
January 2, 2021 Updated: January 2, 2021

Vice President Mike Pence said he welcomes efforts by lawmakers to challenge Electoral College results in the upcoming congressional joint session on Jan. 6, when the votes are formally counted, according to a statement sent by his chief of staff to reporters.

Vice President Chief of Staff Marc Short issued the statement on Saturday saying that Pence, who will be presiding over the Jan. 6 session as president of the senate, is open to considering planned objections by Republican House members and senators to Electoral College votes cast for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Short added that the vice president also welcomes efforts by lawmakers to present evidence of election irregularities and alleged voter fraud before Congress during that session.

“Vice President Pence shares the concerns of millions of Americans about voter fraud and irregularities in the last election,” Short said in the statement sent to media outlets.

This comes after a group of 11 Republican senators announced their intention to challenge the electoral college votes from contested states earlier on Saturday. The group, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), said the 2020 election “featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations, and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.”

The allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election “exceed any in our lifetimes,” they said, adding that this “deep distrust” of U.S. democratic processes “will not magically disappear” and “should concern us all,” whether or not elected officials or journalist believe the allegations.

“It poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations,” the senators wrote in their statement, while calling on Congress to appoint an electoral commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election results.

They added that they intend to object to the votes unless and until the emergency 10-day audit is completed.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was the first senator to announce his plans to object earlier this week. Forty House members plan on objecting to electoral votes, according to a tally by The Epoch Times.

Objections during the joint session must be made in writing by at least one House member and one senator. If the objection for any state meets this requirements, the joint session pauses and each house withdraws to its own chamber to debate the question for a maximum of two hours. The House and the Senate then vote separately to accept or reject the objection, which requires a majority vote from both chambers.

If both candidates receive less than 270 electoral votes on Jan. 6, then a contingent election is triggered in which each state’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, while the vice president is decided by a vote in the U.S. Senate.

Democrats and several Republican senators have opposed the plans to challenge the electoral college results. Republican Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) issued statements on Saturday to reaffirm their support that they would back the electoral college votes that were cast for Biden.

Similarly, Senate Democrats rebuked efforts by their Republican colleagues.

“Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th, and no publicity stunt will change that,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said in a statement.

“This pathetic, opportunistic stunt is an attack on our democracy. It’s un-American & unconscionable. Votes have been counted, recounted, certified, & all challenges totally discredited. Time to govern & get things done,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a separate statement.

The Republican senators acknowledged in their statement on Saturday that they expect Democrats and a few Republicans to vote against them but they added that “support for election integrity should not be a partisan issue.”

“A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20 would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People,” the Republican senators said.

Pence Welcomes Efforts by Lawmakers to Object to Electoral College Votes on Jan. 6: Report
This would be believable if you found a reliable source. This source is wrong almost as often as it is correct, and I am being generous:

The Epoch Times - Media Bias Fact Check
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Unseen"?

There were dozens of cases where the evidence was seen and ruled "uncredible".

There were dozens of cases where the "evidence" wasn't seen because the courts ruled that the people suing had no standing. Whose fault is that? Couldn't the Trump surrogates figure out how to present cases properly?
I'll clarify...
Real evidence....the kind that would sway a judge...that is
the kind that was unseen. We'd hear promises that they'd
later present some. Never did.
 
Top