Did he say they never met? Couldn't find a link .
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I thought Trump said he never knew Epstein.
It's so difficult to keep track of the pedophiles Trump has partied with.
A Video Shows Trump And Jeffrey Epstein Laughing And Discussing Women's Looks At A 1992 Mar-A-Lago Party
It's so difficult to keep track of the pedophiles Trump has partied with.
A Video Shows Trump And Jeffrey Epstein Laughing And Discussing Women's Looks At A 1992 Mar-A-Lago Party
He said he "never knew Epstein"? Where is that said?
Can it be proven he didn't say it?
Idk if he said it or not, I was just adding onto the post by Rags ...
The words that come out of Trump's mouth are so temporary. One week someone is a great American, a loyal freind ... the following week, he hardly knows the same person.
Yeah, well, that looked exactly like 3 whiny bitches standing around complaining about their boss.
True but it doesn't change the fact that Trump looks like a little girl that got her feelings hurt.
Last edited:
Mean girls
Well no. Trump is the first U.S. President in quite some time that actually told corresponding members they need to start paying their share of funding to NATO. For the obvious reasons of not paying their obligation, several weren't happy. No need to complicate the simple.
I agree, Trump has called them all out on this point. Bravo to him.
But let's not act like it's their own personal money. That's not why he's disrespected.
Remember when groups of world leaders stood around laughing at a President?
Me neither.
This is from the report from the Majority Staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment...
Let that sink in for a minute.
The impeachment report is literally a document in which they're trying to make the claim they can deduce President Trump's inner thoughts. That they can read his mind.
Are you kidding me? We're going to impeach the President of the United States based on the opinion of strangers about his inner motivation. Seriously? Is that the country we live in now?
On a side note, one that I think it hilarious, the report also references the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as precedent for such an impeachment. I don't know if the Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee are ignorant of history (very plausible) or they know it and are banking on the public being ignorant of history (equally plausible, very likely), but Andrew Jackson's impeachment was widely and forcefully considered to be a partisan sham.
History might not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
The House Democrats really and truly actually said:
Let that sink in for a minute.
The impeachment report is literally a document in which they're trying to make the claim they can deduce President Trump's inner thoughts. That they can read his mind.
Are you kidding me? We're going to impeach the President of the United States based on the opinion of strangers about his inner motivation. Seriously? Is that the country we live in now?
On a side note, one that I think it hilarious, the report also references the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as precedent for such an impeachment. I don't know if the Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee are ignorant of history (very plausible) or they know it and are banking on the public being ignorant of history (equally plausible, very likely), but Andrew Jackson's impeachment was widely and forcefully considered to be a partisan sham.
History might not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
Last edited:
Come on Turtle, get with the program. It's 2019 and in a few weeks it will be 2020. So old George was off by 35 years. The Thought Police are real and Trump is guilty of Thought Crimes and will pay with his life. I can't believe how s...My screen just flickered. There it goes again. Um, ah, this isn't good. My head hurts. I'm logging of...
So let me ask this, do you think he did something wrong or do you not care? If you think he didnt do anything wrong thats one thing, but if you dont care well then that signals the begining of the end, we already have a good portion of the population that thinks that the law does not apply to them, and now if people dont care if the president broke the law why should anyone follow the law?
And there's the problem. Trumps supporters dont care.
He didn't do anything wrong, but more importantly he didn't commit a crime. The President has the constitutional plenary power to conduct foreign policy any way he sees fit. If you think he's doing it wrong, that's still not a crime.
If you think Trump committed a crime, any crime at all, that rises to the rises to the level of Impeachment standards set forth in the Constitution, you need to let the House Democrats know right away, because so far they haven't been able to come up with one. And they've been all over it for more than 3 years.
Do keep in mind that a mere accusation of a crime is not at all the save as having committed a crime. The Constitution gives just four things for which a a President can be impeached; treason, bribery, high crimes, and (high) misdemeanors. That's it. Just the four. Abuse of power ain't on the list. Doing something wrong ain't on the list. Beating Hillary is definitely not on the list. Being orange and being bad ain't on the list, either. Also not on the list is anything the Constitution or the Congress gives explicit power to do.
Impeachment is, and has always been, a political manuver. A crime doesn't need to have been committed.
Why the supporters of Blotus keep bringing this up is beyond me.
Impeachment a political judgment call, crime not required
WASHINGTON (AP) — The conditions for impeaching a president are set out in a passage of the Constitution that is short enough to be a tweet and puzzling enough to be argued over more than two centuries later.
apnews.com
Last edited:
Ok, so he used his elected office to further his personal agenda (being re elected) fine, I dont like it, but is it right? Hell no!!!! If he would have admitted he did wrong and moved on we wouldnt be talking about it, but instead he treated the investigation into a which hunt, so as far as I am concerned the obstruction of justice is what gets me ticked off. He actively told people under his command to not appear before congress to testify, if that isnt obstruction of justice, I dont know what is.