MovieChat Forums > Politics > Who takes the fall for Donald?

Who takes the fall for Donald?


Will Nancy be the only one blamed for Donald reelected.Will she retire or get voted out?

reply

What?

reply

Will Nancy be the only one voted out in 2021? I think minority Democrats see what is going on and go all out socialist voting out the white bunch.

reply

I don’t know what your talking about

reply

I was convinced Mulvaney was being the one forced to walk the plank to take the fall for Donnie today.

But with Perry out, DOJ backtracking from Trump/Barr, and Mulvaney getting buried there is no more room under the bus. LOLZ. They're going to have to dig a pothole to fit everything under that bus:

White House and Justice Department officials were angered Thursday after a combative news briefing by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in which he insisted President Trump did nothing inappropriate, but seemed to confirm that Trump's dealings with Ukraine amounted to a quid pro quo.


The bumbling statement he released shortly after trying to make us all forget what we just heard is the most hapless lying I’ve ever seen. He keeps screwing himself, his boss and the AG and he keeps on digging. He's going to end up in jail. His only move now is to resign. He should hire a lawyer, come to Congress and testify. He should be referred for indictment.

So I've sort of come full circle on this. I thought he was being forced to walk the plank, and now I think he's unwittingly set himself up to be the fall guy. Trump will make him admit to the crime. They tried to pin the whole thing on Perry but everyone laughed at them.

reply

Quick question. While Mulvaney spoke sloppily and was trying to make a larger point about how the US routinely withholds funding from countries for a variety of reasons (at least he didn't talk about visiting "57 states" or pledge to create jobs for "720 million" US women, and Obama and Biden weren't even being grilled by biased reporters when they did stuff like that), let's assume for a moment that the US did withhold money to get Ukraine to look into sources of election interference and/or corruption. So what?

Among countless other examples, wouldn't that be what Biden did when he used a billion dollars to extort Ukraine into firing a prosecutor? Did Biden break a law? Should he and/or Obama have been impeached?

reply

"look into sources of election interference"

luuuuuulz!!! You're such a brain dead conspiracy loon I'm sure when Mulvaney explained he held up aid over the mythical dnc-server-in-Ukraine-John-Solomon-fantasy you actually thought it was part of a legit and authorized DOJ investigation.

It's true you could possibly construct a legitimate argument for what Mulvaney said if John Durham (who is conducting that review for Barr) had gone to Kyiv and asked for this information and hadn't been getting it. Except when asked the Justice Dept responded “If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us”. LOOOOL!

In other words the Justice Department had nothing to do with your John Solomon DNC server fantasy aimed to absolve Russia of 2016 election interference being pushed by your Fuhrer. Meanwhile Mulvaney fully admitted to a quid pro quo.

So just in case you're keeping score at home:

Ambassador Bill Taylor testified there was a quid pro quo.
Fiona Hill testified there was a quid pro quo.
Fiona Hill also testified Bolton understood there was a quid pro quo and instructed her to report the quid pro quo to NSC lawyers.
Ambassador Sondland testified he only sent the infamous "no quid pro quo" text because the President repeatedly told him there wasn't. But we also know that he knew the President was full of shit.

How do we know?

Because after Trump told him there was no quid pro quo he immediately went to Ron Johnson and told him there was a quid pro quo. This is what caused Ron Johnson to confront Trump. This is how Ron Johnson turned out to be the bumbling and inadvertent prime whistleblower of the entire scandal since all the players-turned-whistleblowers started leaking to cover their ass when they found out Johnson knew.

And now, we've got Mulvaney on tape admitting to a quid pro quo and Chris Wallace making a lying exhibition out of Mulvaney's pathetic attempt to walk it back on Sunday.

Your fuhrer's "no quid pro quo" alibi is coming apart at the seams.

Good times!

reply

You dodged my question. And you keep making stuff up. The Constitution doesn't describe "legit and authorized DOJ" investigations. If anything the ultimate DOJ authority is the elected president. And Ukrainian officials have admitted to election interference in the US, so your bizarre "Solomon" fetish looks weirder and weirder.

We don't know exactly what the Never Trumper bureaucrats you list are saying because Democrats insist on having these "hearings" in secret so they can come out and lie and spin what was said to the media in this train wreck of an impeachment farce. Public hearings by Mueller, Lewandowski, and heck, even Kavanaugh haven't gone well for you and Democrats learned a lesson. Unfortunately it was the wrong lesson. But from the clues we have it appears to be rumor mongering and speculation at most, as the exchange with Sondland makes clear. I love the fake news spin about Sondland, btw. As if an article basically repeating what the text itself says, that Sondland is a direct witness to Trump telling him there's "no quid pro quo", but saying it in an ominous tone and tacking on something about Sondland not being psychic is somehow newsworthy.

You lie about Mulvaney of course, which completely discredits you. He never said there was a "quid pro quo" which is why you can't quote him doing so.

What's happening is a conflation, due to your and your comrades' mix of stupidity and dishonesty, between conditions applied for internal evaluation in the US and the fabricated myth of a "quid pro quo". The withholding was a pause for assessment. There was no horse trading with or pressure on Ukraine. We know there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine didn't even know about the aid being withheld until over a month after the phone call. That's a fact you can't get around no matter how much you spin. :)

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5dab3ffa7515b30fef642586/quid-pro-quo-totally-debunked-Ukrainians-didnt-even-know-about-the-aid-being-withheld


reply

You lie about Mulvaney of course, which completely discredits you. He never said there was a "quid pro quo" which is why you can't quote him doing so.


Here's the quote for you, since you've seemed to miss it the other thousand times it was posted or discussed on the forum since Thursday. This is the complete transcription between ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on Thursday:

“What you described is a quid pro quo,” Karl pressed. “It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well.”

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney answered. “We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they -- so that they would change their policies on immigration.”


In case you missed it I will shorten this for you:

Karl affirms with Mulvaney there was a 'quid pro quo' in the phone call with Ukraine.

Mulvaney responded 'it's done all the time'. He didn't deny it, he didn't say 'no - I didn't say that at all', 'no there's never a 'quid pro quo' . He confirmed 'it's done all the time'.

reply

No, moron. "Quid pro quo" was Karl's language, not Mulvaney's. Karl was wrong. It's not a quid pro quo if the Ukrainians don't even know the funding is being withheld, let alone whatever factors the US is considering in its internal assessment.

reply

No, moron. "Quid pro quo" was Karl's language, not Mulvaney's. Karl was wrong.


Dipshit, if Karl was wrong, then why didn't Mulvaney tell him he was wrong? That was the opportune time, for him to say 'No, I didn't describe a quid pro quo, because there was none.' And that would've been the end of that. But he was honest, and didn't tell him no it wasn't a quid pro quo.

Mulvaney responded: 'It's done all the time'. That's called 'confirmation'.

Why in the world you can't follow this is beyond everyone (with a brain) who witnessed the presser.

reply

Mulvaney is a smart policy guy but a terrible public speaker who in his mind was trying to reply to a dozen or so questions from a hostile media at once. He couldn't correct every single false premise in every loaded question. He made the mistake of naively assuming good faith on the part of reporters.

His sloppy press conference is irrelevant. The fact that Ukraine wasn't even told about the aid being withheld proves there couldn't have possibly been any quid pro quo. If you weren't a mindless buffoon you'd see that.

reply

That collective thump you just heard was everyone's jaw dropping and hitting the floor at once around the world, after reading what you just posted above.

The most naive imbecile (chilone, elcamino, GD5150, Bubbathegut, etc - pick one, as there's many to choose from the T-rump cult) doesn't even buy what you're trying to sell.

reply

LOL! You should stick to speaking for yourself, halfwit. You have enough trouble doing that. Facts are facts. Don't blame me for demolishing your partisan narrative. I didn't make them up.

reply

You just insulted halfwits! ;)

reply

I know. I'd suggest "quarterwit" maybe, but doggiedaddy's relentlessly blind partisan stupidity is in a class all its own.

reply

Desperately try as you may, you didn't demolish anything. But do keep trying....it seems to fuel you.

reply

No desperate effort required to flatten you. You're barely light bag work.

reply

lulz. It's actually pretty obvious the mountain of effort you expend repeating your alt-reality propaganda here over and over as if you typing it will make it come true. Your stupidity really is just so breathtaking to watch.

reply

Nope. Debunking your idiotic BS is light bag work too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

reply

Yup. It's the brutal truth. Denying it won't make it hurt for you any less.

reply

Nope. Since you're here, why did you delete your own thread here?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da917d7756b796565708ae6/deleted

Poor eyedef. Were you that humiliated after you wrote a book-like op announcing your personal plans and spending several paragraphs mixing in crap like attacks on Trump....and no one responded?



reply

It's very entertaining - almost (but not quite) as entertaining as listening to Muvaney and Ghouliani in interviews.

reply

Indeed. Mulvaney is at least a halfway skilled gaslighter. krl97a is just such a comically blathering and incoherent dupe in comparison. :)

reply

LOL!

Damn, his ego is taking a battering on this forum today!

reply

That's about as realistic as your claim that the Trump administration was planning on rewriting the Statue of Liberty's plaque, Tucker Carlson was about to be fired several months ago, Adam Schiff told the truth about Trump's phone call, and countless other stuff.

LOL! Do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself as a mindless "yes" man?

reply

Your detachment from reality is mind blowing but I guess only someone that damaged would be an antifa member, as you are.

reply

If you would actually peruse this Constitution you're on about, you would find it says "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Therefore Future President Pelosi doesn't have to open her hearings to the public, or hold a vote to open an inquiry, or do ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR SAD CULT ARE WHINING ABOUT LIKE A LITTLE GIRL...You need to take Mulvaney's advice to heart: GET OVER IT!

reply

LOL! Still following me around crying because I called you out for being an obvious sock account, "Dick"? I never said Democrats don't technically have the right to have a sham process with no transparency or attempt to get to the truth (though technically the Constitution doesn't allow them to impeach except for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"; they'll ignore that and do it anyway). But due process and those precedents exist for good reason. This partisan railroad attempt has no credibility. It will flame out in the Senate and is already driving Trump's fundraising up to record shattering levels.

reply

I swear you're a plant here from the Solomon Conspiracy Cult solely for comic relief.

reply

Next time just use the initialism "SCC" so you don't have to type all that out, you poor TDS victim. Everyone will know what it means, lol. ;)

reply

Even if that were true, it's better than being a terrorist member of antifa, like you.

reply

"And you keep making stuff up."

lulz. Actually unlike your habit of making stuff up as soon as you're cornered on the facts, I don't make stuff up. Every piece of news I've gotten about the Ukraine scandal comes straight from the pages of the Wall Street Journal, so if you think I'm making stuff up you should take it up with Murdoch's paper of record.

Oh that's right, you don't know how to bypass paywalls and can't afford a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Gee shucks. That means you have no way of even verifying that what I'm telling you is true. I guess when your news comes free and hot off the presses of conspiracy fringer John Solomon's latest opinion column that means you get what you pay for.

Maybe you should consider finding a job so you can upgrade your source of news, since you're self admittedly too stupid to figure out how to bypass paywalls. You should at least strive for a little self respect instead of clowning yourself pushing fake news by a propagandist.

reply

Actually unlike your habit of making stuff up as soon as you're cornered on the facts, I don't make stuff up.

I literally just debunked your lie that I supposedly didn't link to the ABC news article proving you wrong on the earlier thread.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da894d49b5be6409beb1ae8/Who-takes-the-fall-for-Donald?reply=5daf8c5344f52f26441811a7

While your lies and faceplants have been well documented all over this board, you can't cite a single thing I've gotten wrong. That's how one sided these ass kickings I've been delivering to you are.

PS - While I actually did used to have a subscription to the WSJ and never said I can't bypass paywalls, I'm both employed and smart enough to ask "why bother?" in this digital age where info is all over the place anyway. There's no way you have a job though. And "every" piece of info you've gotten on Ukraine has supposedly come from the WSJ, lol? Seriously? No low rent leftist blogs? Apart from that being an obvious lie, you might want to diversify your sources.

reply

"The Constitution doesn't describe "legit and authorized DOJ" investigations. If anything the ultimate DOJ authority is the elected president."

And this is you demonstrating once again your gaping ignorance of the Constitution and the law that your little crypto-fascist mind will never understand. Your wannabe fuhrer has no authority to order investigations period, let alone investigations into political opponents. Judicial investigations require convincing a grand jury there is probable cause to initiate an investigation based on available evidence.

But then again, I remember exposing you for not even knowing what a grand jury was some months back, so no surprise there.

Your little John Solomon inspired DNC-server-in-ukraine fake news hail mary is such total lunacy completely devoid of evidence that the DOJ wouldn't even touch it.

So once again, you've exposed your neofascist colors in expressing your clownish idea your fuhrer has Constitutional authority to open investigations based on his personal whim. God you're such a farcical little clown.

reply

LOL! I love when you start busting out the "fuhrer" and "crypto-fascist" idiocy. That's when even your dim intellect perceives how trounced your position is and you start panicking by throwing a hodgepodge of deranged BS everywhere.

I had to explain to you how grand jury secrecy works, you lying clown. In fact due to your gross ignorance I've had to give you such a broad education on legal concepts and other topics that you should be paying me tuition.

You know nothing about the Constitution or how the US government works. The president is perfectly within his authority to direct federal investigative resources in directions he deems important, as long as due process isn't violated (it wasn't), and order all sorts of investigations, from criminal to intelligence. He's also free to make whatever requests he wants to further those aims from other heads of state. And he's allowed to fire Comey or any ambassador he wants any time for any reason he wants, and yet your pathetically desperate Democrat leaders are reportedly planning to make the anti-Trump ambassador's firing an article of impeachment, underscoring what a farce it is. Maybe they'll include a "mean" tweet as an article of impeachment, or an "inspiring" AOC speech.

You never did answer my question above that started this exchange:

Let's assume for a moment that the US did withhold money to get Ukraine to look into sources of election interference and/or corruption. So what?

Among countless other examples, wouldn't that be what Biden did when he used a billion dollars to extort Ukraine into firing a prosecutor? Did Biden break a law? Should he and/or Obama have been impeached?

reply

lulz. Actually I had to educate you on the 6e exception to grand jury secrecy law in an impeachment inquiry. You were so ignorant of this fact you had to go scurrying off to lawfare to confirm what I told you. And as always, I love to clown you over your illiteracy from reading the court petition to know the 6e exception had been invoked as impeachment was cited 84 times and commenced out of Judiciary Committee the full House had granted prior authority to initiate in an earlier vote.

But I digress, the fact that DOJ officials "responded in near real time, telling reporters they were utterly confused and angry over the suggestion that aid was tied to Ukraine’s cooperation with US Attorney John Durham's probe into the origins of the 2016 FBI Russian collusion case" according to TrumpTV kind of kills your idea of the president's absolute authority to fabricate a bonkers DNC server conspiracy theory as a legit DOJ investigation doesn't it? Of course you believe your fuhrer can order investigations because he is your god king and your object of personal worship. You like the idea of subordinating yourself to his dictatorial rule. But it's really just cryptofascist tools like Bill Barr and neofascist pseudo-intellectuals hangers on like yourself that ascribe to the fringe Unitary Executive theory that (a GOP) president can order DOJ to investigate political opponents. That's what Federalist Society brainwashing does to the conservative mind.

The rest of us are sane and understand DOJ must stand as an independent bulwark against presidential overreach because we believe in checks and balances our system was founded on. Preventing devolving into the banana republic of your strongman fantasy is the strength of our Democratic institutions beginning with an independent judiciary free from political interference and prosecutions. Congress's long standing acquiescence to this convention is an implicit endorsement and I'm hopeful your fuhrer's overreach provokes a SCOTUS case ruling.

reply

Wrong. I had to educate you about 6e and when it does and doesn't apply, and the fact that it prohibited Barr from releasing the grand jury material. You initially thought he was just free to release it whenever he chose and you ignorantly attacked him for "stonewalling". You even misread the law at one point and incorrectly said it "required" Barr to release material, as opposed to a court deciding. After that you stumbled into trying to ape Nadler's disingenuous, under the radar legal arguments that you pulled off a liberal blog, but that and the fact that Democrats are breaking all precedent and principles of due process, transparency, and fundamental fairness with this fake inquiry is another topic.

Actually DOJ officials not knowing about the aid being tied to investigating the 2016 election interference (not "political opponents") seems to undermine the Democrat narrative that aid was tied to the investigation, lol.

you believe your fuhrer can order investigations because he is your god king and your object of personal worship....But it's really just cryptofascist tools like Bill Barr and neofascist pseudo-intellectuals hangers on like yourself that ascribe to the fringe Unitary Executive theory that (a GOP) president can order DOJ to investigate political opponents.

LOL! There it is. I love when you're sputtering so bad that you bust out the insane "fuhrer"/"fascist" BS. Watching...and maybe contributing a little....to meltdowns in unsavory serial liars is a guilty pleasure of mine. You're not smart enough to realize how much setting Godwin's Law on fire and tossing it in the dumpster discredits you.


Of course as a libertarian (the opposite of a "fascist", btw) I'm all for checks and balances. That's why I want office holders accountable through elections (e.g. Trump) being the ultimate authorities on executive action, rather than rule by an unelected career federal bureaucracy that's been proved to have corrupt elements abusing their power for partisan reasons. The Constitution didn’t create the powerful office of President to be a figurehead. Any honest legal expert in the country would tell you that of course he has the authority to direct investigations, criminal, intelligence, and otherwise. Due process protects individuals from government abuse, regardless of where it comes from. There are no due process violations in asking a new government if they’re sincerely fighting corruption, and making sure they’ve looked at a specific case involving a billion dollars of US tax payer money that appears to be part of a serial global influence peddling scheme at Americans’ expense. In the phone call Trump even suggested they set up contact between the nations’ attorneys general. The president was doing his job just fine.

I’m concerned, while you’re hypocritically not, about Obama officials LYING TO FISA COURTS TO OBTAIN WARRANTS TO SPY ON POLITICAL OPONNENTS. That involves actual law breaking and due process violations. I’m also concerned about those officials using foreign assets to SET UP Trump campaign staff, for which evidence is mounting.

That you’re just fine with that, and with Trump haters using the full power of the federal government to baselessly investigate a duly elected president, his family members, and his associates in a witch hunt for 3 years, destroying peoples’ lives through petty “gotcha!” process crimes and brute force (bankrupting them with legal fees) proves what a disingenuous partisan clown you are.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED THE QUESTION: WAS BIDEN’S ADMITTED QUID PRO QUO….FIRING THE PROSECUTOR IN EXCHANGE FOR A BILLION DOLLARS—“ILLEGAL” OR NOT?

Your cowardly dodging also discredits you. At least kicking your ass here has been fun. You’re still my favorite punching bag, eyedef.



reply

lulz. I don't know why you think you can convince me of your "alternative facts" that you knew what 6e was when you didn't even understand the function and role of a grand jury. It's telling you didn't post the link as you usually do because you know if you did it'd show I schooled you on 6e. But this is your MO and what you always do when cornered on the facts. Like I said, you had to run off and study up on a lawfare article by Wittes to educate you, and even then you were too illiterate to read a court petition to know that 6e had been invoked. It's clear to me you're just trying to convince yourself of your own fabrications.

So once again, I've caught you lying red handed. And as usual, whenever you start gaslighting, that's always my cue to stop reading your inane gibberish designed to save face and declare victory. Its been wild watching how you hard right conspiracy fringers ape your fuhrer by adopting his victim complex to complain about no one taking you seriously.

reply

I love how you clumsily try to attack me for not posting a link in a post where you (as usual) don't support your claims with any links. You even concede that I "usually do".

You falsely accused Barr of stonewalling by not releasing grand jury material. I educated you on the fact that he's legally prohibited from doing so. You googled it and stumbled across the secrecy law I was referring to. Then you misread it and falsely claimed he's "required" to release it to any national security officials who ask for it, and claimed that congressmen are national security officials (not even the argument Democrats are making; the law spells out that it's talking about preventing terrorist attacks, not partisan attempts to nail a president, and Congress isn't mentioned). I corrected you by pointing out the law is all about restricting release, and only says that a "court" "may authorize" release under specific narrow circumstances. Your entire attack on Barr was ignorant partisan hackery. He was just complying with the law. Here are some links:

eyedef: "What makes your point a complete farce is that Barr's DOJ refuses to share the grand jury material from Mueller's investigation with congress in the 40% of the Mueller Report that was redacted."

krl97a: "That's because it's ILLEGAL to share that grand jury information, moron...It's illegal so citizens are protected from being smeared by one sided, unproved, damaging info when they haven't been tried and haven't had the opportunity to present a defense...And where did you get "40%" redacted, LOL? Only a small percentage of the Mueller report was redacted and Nadler was among the group of leaders invited to view the unredacted version (obviously not including grand jury material). He refused, underscoring how disingenuous this farce is.”
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d3cf774d0d7e45c4f957172




reply

eyedef: “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6e, the rule requires "[a]n attorney for the government" to disclose grand jury material involving "foreign intelligence information … to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties." Members of the House Intel Committee are "national security officials" and are thereby entitled to receive grand jury materials implicating foreign intelligence Barr is denying them”

krl97a: “I'm glad you finally found Rule 6 but your reading comprehension sucks. First, it doesn't "require" the government attorney (Barr) to do anything but keep grand jury material secret. It says it "may" be released to certain people in narrow exceptions. You literally misread the wording. Next, those exceptions you list are executive officials whose normal duties include stopping threats, not politicians in congress. Driving home this point is the section requiring those receiving the information to "only" use it in the course of their duties and to keep it secret, which isn't what Nadler and his cronies have in mind.

If you knew anything at all about history, law, or politics you'd understand that grand jury secrecy is vital to cherished American values like innocent until proven guilty and the government not smearing uncharged people, along with eliciting information from witnesses who might be reluctant to speak publicly.

Congress has never been included among the exceptions listed. At times some have even proposed bills to change that, like in the 1980s when the DOJ argued against it saying the bill would trash separation of powers (a vital constitutional principle) by usurping the executive's enforcement powers (the bill didn't pass).

By your logic congressmen should have routine access to this material, obliterating not just the law's letter but spirit, where publicizing the info is the rare exception, not the norm.

That's likely why Dems have been pushing the "judicial proceedings" exception more than your insipid argument, the Nixon era ruling's reasoning being that impeachment was a special kind of legal proceeding, but that fails too due to multiple differences between the two cases, including there being no impeachment inquiry or proceedings underway.”
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d3ec78b2232a5721f3e0e4b

Law text: “Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:… (vi) an attorney for the government; or”

“An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence… to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties…Any official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

Democrats aren’t even making that absurd argument you tried, but are claiming an exception under the “judicial proceeding” argument. What does the law say on that?

“(E) The court may authorize disclosure—“

I quoted from experts at sites like lawfare and Rollcall while proving you wrong so anyone else reading our exchange wouldn’t have to just take my word for it. Using supporting evidence is how argumentation works, dimwit.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d3f76550b25b80834d12e66

reply

You just completely made up the lie about me somehow not knowing what a grand jury is ( obvious BS since I had already been educating you about grand jury process and principles as quoted above, lol) after you were humiliated by me busting you for lying about having read the Mueller Report, and doubling down on your ridiculous claim that “40% of it was redacted”


eyedef: “It is about 40% redactions. I know because unlike you I've actually read the Report whereas you rely on right wing talking heads to interpret the report for you.

krl97a: “You mean "right wing talking heads" like the radical leftists at vox, LOL!

"total content redacted - 7.25%"

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart

They even provide a helpful visual. Oh look, they also include a line about 40% of the PAGES HAVING a redaction (mostly small lengths).

You probably read that somewhere and got confused, resulting in your factually absurd claim that 40% of the report was redacted. Or else you read it on a low rent leftist blog that confused it and then you lied about it. Maybe you're not smart enough to understand the difference between the two facts.”
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40aece2e205525653540b6

No one could have read through the Mueller report and believed that almost half of it was blacked out. What made your faceplant so devastating was how obnoxiously you had been going around lying about having read it and falsely accusing me and others of not having done so.

Then, while sputtering around red-faced, you made up your “grand jury” lie out of thin air, and went on to defend your idiocy by claiming that you had never seen me “cite anything but right wing talking points”, when all the sources I had posted on that entire thread at that point had been Democrat leader quotes (via The Hill), vox (leftist), lawfare (establishment site, anti-Trump), Bloomberg (leftist), and Rollcall (Democrat).

All you do is try to ape Democrat talking points, and your reading comprehension and knowledge base are so deficient that you often don’t even do that right. Kicking your ass here has been fun, eydef, as always. You’re still my favorite punching bag. ;)

reply

DAMN ~ you beat up KKK97a pretty bad on this one. LOL! Give him time to lick his wounds. Even I laid off for a while - giving him time to heal from the bruising I gave his ego.

reply

Remember when you mindlessly praised eyedef for spreading the "important fact" that the Dayton shooter (an Antifa supporting leftist) was a "Republican" (because the idiot read an article about a completely different story and got confused), LOL?

Do you ever get tired of being a mindless, brownnosing bitch?

KKK97a

You're just embarrassing yourself even more than usual at this point, doggiedaddy. You're the one who needs to limp away to heal your bruises.

reply

Oh you mean that time when I admitted to my mistake over the Dayton shooter long before you even showed up and you were so desperate for the win you tried to pretend you called me out? Yeah I remember when that happened and it was hilarious!

You were so obviously tired of all the losing and abject humiliation I'd subjected you to that it was really all you had to latch onto. Good times!

reply

Ha Ha, no. Actually that post was about doggiedaddy, who never has admitted his mistake. It was truly hilarious how he followed you off the cliff like that. And yet you routinely rely on his mindless, worthless yapping as your chief ally and crutch when you're really getting steamrolled.

But it's also one of countless examples that objectively showcase your atrocious reading comprehension. That's one reason you've lost every debate I've seen you have here, often in humiliating fashion.

reply

lolz. Who are you to be complaining about anyone else not admitting mistakes given all the times you gaslight sooner than ever admitting to your own mistakes? rofl. Your crass hypocrisy is off the charts. /fade

reply

You haven't quoted any "mistakes" I've made, while I've been easily citing yours, and you keep lying about me "gaslighting", again with no evidence.

fade

You certainly have.

reply

BTW, you announced you were going to be gone a week just a few days ago (after no one on the board had asked) in an insanely long, several paragraph rambling thread op. Why are you back so early? Presumably the woman whom you had saved up for to finally take your virginity backed out once she saw and smelled you up close. Poor eyedef.

Hey, at least the $1,500 you borrowed from a loan shark to top off the $1,700 the prostitute passed on won't have to be paid in installments at 70% interest.

But what happened to your thread? Did you delete the meandering, pointless novella in humiliation just because no one replied to it? Heck, I may be the only one who even skimmed part of it. Oh well.

reply

What? lolz. God you're so fun to point at and clown because most of the time you're just spitting incoherent gibberish while foaming at the mouth.

Reaching for 'your momma' insults because you know you're owned on the facts while your fuhrer is getting clowned and exposed is priceless! Oh poor baby. You want to take some time out in the corner and come back after you've had some private time alone to regain your composure? lolololoollz.

reply

Oh man, I expected a hostile reply but you're really pissed. Why did you delete your own thread, eyedef?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da917d7756b796565708ae6/deleted

It was such an awesome thread op, LOL.

reply

lolz! You should post the link to the thread where I exposed you for being a John Solomon dupe. That was good times.

reply

I can't post links to your fevered dreams. Thank goodness. Don't dodge the question. You deleted your own thread I did link to in real life. Why? What did you finally decide was wrong with it, LOL?

reply

Ah here it is, I found it:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d8abea437f40a0511c69eb2/Democrats-go-off-the-cliff-The-lunatics-are-in-firm-control-of-the-party-of-Impeachment?reply=5d91f044f7d93f60a77187fb

Looks pretty real to me where you were trying to peddle the thoroughly discredited Firtash affidavit by the corrupt and fired prosecutor Shokin of your John Solomon inspired fantasy. Just wondering if you've been following all the news lately about how Rudy was waving around that debunked affidavit on Fox News as his fake "proof" of Biden wrongdoing?

Also loved how you tried to claim ABC News backed you up too when you provided no links from ABC and just falsely asserted they supported your debunked John Solomon fantasy.

Good times.

reply

LOL! The affidavit hasn't been debunked and I linked to and quoted ABC just a couple of posts away on the same thread (not for the first time), you drooling moron.

"More than once, after his father engaged in diplomacy on behalf of the United States in foreign countries, Hunter Biden conducted business in the same country….

Ethics experts interviewed by ABC News said these are legitimate questions about possible past and future conflicts of interest...

"Biden was acting not like a U.S. vice president, but as an individual," Shokin told ABC News, "like the individual interested in having me removed -- having me gone so that I did not interfere in the Burisma investigation.""


https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/biden-sidesteps-questions-sons-foreign-business-dealings-promises-63820806

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d8abea437f40a0511c69eb2/Democrats-go-off-the-cliff-The-lunatics-are-in-firm-control-of-the-party-of-Impeachment?reply=5d9438aedb263a56f3379eb0

As has been repeatedly pointed out, you're a joke.

Great times.

reply

What laws were broken again?

God you're so bad at this.

reply

LOL! Are you asking me or ABC?

Time to cut your losses, clown.

reply

What's been repeatedly pointed out? That you're crying about conflicts of interests of Hunter Biden who was never an elected official while ignoring the conflicts of your fuhrer doled out to his own kids they were completely unqualified for? Tell me exactly how Jared was at all qualified to be paid on the public dime to be Ambassador to Middle East Peace?

Like I said, your Firtash manufactured affidavit would never have qualified as a legitimate source in an actual news column. But it was fun exposed you as a bitter little John Solomon fake news goon.

reply

You're definitely still pissed, lol. Oh no. You spent the $1500 on wine coolers and chocolate ice cream to douse your sorrows, didn't you? And now you're on the hook with the loan shark. That's why you came back early. Poor eyedef.

Whatever's happening in your personal life doesn't absolve you though. I love moments like this. You just lied by claiming I only quoted John Solomon and not ABC. I just proved you completely wrong by posting quotes and a link to the ABC story, as well as a link to where I had already quoted it long ago in the thread in question just a couple of posts from where you linked to (thanks for that link, btw, saved me some time ;)).

Do you have the class and honesty to admit you were wrong? Of course not. You just angrily engage in some diversionary babble and further illustrate your mindless ignorance. Kushner was overtly serving on the government's behalf. It's no shadier than JFK making his brother attorney general or Bill Clinton or Obama delegating policy stuff to their wives.

Hunter landed a gig on the board of a private company that stood to benefit from his VP dad being the point man to the country it's located in and the industry it's in. That's shady, especially when the larger pattern involving China is considered, along with Biden's admitted extortion to get the prosecutor fired.

I'm not sure why you're still crying about the "affidavit" when Shokin has repeated the same thing elsewhere, including to ABC news. You've really got to learn to cut your losses.

But it was fun exposed you as a bitter little John Solomon fake news goon.

Rewrite this so it's a coherent sentence rather than random words crazily shoved together.

reply

looolz! Again, why can't you cite the law that was broken?

Because you know what you're complaining about is a giant nothingburger.

While your fuhrer broke actual laws that I had to spoonfeed to you because you couldn't figure out what they were yourself [52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) in case you need a reminder] you're crying about Hunter Biden who broke no laws.

LOLOLOLOLOL! So sad. Really proves how you're incapable of thinking for yourself whether the right wing talking points even make sense in light of the real crimes committed by your fuhrer.

And of course this is a big deflection anyway because you were trying to push a debunked affidavit by Shokin that alleged far more than just a conflict of interest while falsely claiming ABC news confirmed that bogus affidavit. Or maybe you were too illiterate to read the affidavit you were pointing to. Whatever, you're a joke either way. You might want to get up to speed on what your own bogus John Solomon citations even said. /fadetoblack

reply

Yeah, multiple "fuhrer"s. You're really battered and red faced now, lol.

I mocked you for falsely accusing me of not linking to an ABC story where Shokin repeats the claim made in his affidavit, and for denying the article exists. I proved you wrong by linking to the article and to where I had linked to it before. The rest of your post is diversionary garbage as you're again left surprised and sputtering. I'm not surprised you're fleeing the thread. You're a joke.

The affidavit hasn't been "debunked" no matter how many times you repeat that with no supporting argument. Nor is it clear why you're fixated on the "affidavit" and the country and case it was filed for, or constantly crying about "John Solomon", when Shokin has repeated his claims to various media outlets, as I just embarrassed you by proving.

I didn't claim Biden had broken any laws. I said it looks "shady" and like potential influence peddling corruption meriting investigation.

In fact this exchange started when I asked you if Biden's admitted extortion was illegal, a question you've dodged in cowardly fashion all the way through, since you're pretending Trump's non-existent extortion was illegal. But it's noteworthy how quickly you dismissed the importance of ethics concerns and conflict of interest.

The laws I already had in mind and figured you'd cite after I finally pushed into you looking some up have been rejected as not remotely applying to Trump's call, as we've established. Citing non applicable laws only highlights your clownish ignorance.


reply

luuuuuulz!!! You're such a brain dead conspiracy loon I'm sure when Mulvaney explained he held up aid over the mythical dnc-server-in-Ukraine-John-Solomon-fantasy you actually thought it was part of a legit and authorized DOJ investigation.


Oh my God, this is the funniest response ever to that Narcissistic Tool!

reply

Ugh. I know eyedef desperately needs help but you're forcing it, doggiedaddy. That wasn't remotely funny or substantive.

reply

Whooops! Classic response from someone suffering from NPD.


Bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!

reply

Classic laugh of a Batman villain. Talk about narcissism...

reply

Good times indeed! I could no longer resist the urge to join in the fun...

reply

Just switch back to your eyedef...er....whatever your primary account is and drop the pathetic charade, dick.

reply

You never answered my question: Do you wear women's panties when you post as female socks?

reply

I don't post with socks. I don't need to.

reply

I didn't know you were that freaky you had a fetish for wearing female undergarments.

Are you sure you're not one of those deeply repressed conservative closet cases? If you are that would really go a long way toward explaining your relentless christo-fascist trump-worship. You and Lindsey G must be two peas in a pod.

reply

Are you sure you're not one of those deeply repressed conservative closet cases?


I'm betting he is! No doubt in my mind....

reply

Keep me out of your sick fantasies, please. Especially given your wishful comments below about how you want to feel "loved". I do get a kick of exploring the extent of your delusions in other areas though.

your relentless christo-fascist trump-worship. You and Lindsey G must be two peas in a pod.

Lindsey Graham didn't even vote for Trump, lol. He voted for McMullin. And you've escalated to "christo"? There's really nowhere else you can go rhetorically. That's the problem with habitually spewing BS.

reply

lulz. Hit too close to home on calling out your closeted christofascism? Yeah I saw a netflix documentary on you c-street loons recently.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80063867

reply

Looks like stupid conspiracy theorizing laced with anti-Christian bigotry. Not surprised you lapped it up.

reply

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

reply

Finally. Now that you're logged back into your "eyedef" account, answer the question.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da894d49b5be6409beb1ae8/Who-takes-the-fall-for-Donald?reply=5daf27d80a28fb7d5b64729a

reply

What question?

All I see is a link to a post where I'm clowning you.

Thanks for the link though.

reply

No, it literally links to my post where I'm clowning you.

The question is why did you delete your own thread op? Why are you afraid to answer?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da917d7756b796565708ae6/deleted

reply

loooooolz!!!

I just realized what you're getting at and I can't decide what I find more funny: that you think you caught me in some gigantic gotcha moment or the fact that you're so obsessed with my posts that you hang on my every word. All because I chose to delete a post I made regarding Trump's catastrophic northern syria decision making because I no longer agreed with my previous conclusions on his motivations.

Don't worry kid, I'll post an update soon. That's what intelligent people do when new evidence comes to light at odds with their previous hypothesis. But I know hardened fringers like you wouldn't know anything about that.

reply

LOL! Is that how you finally decided to spin it after all this time? You couldn't figure out that I was talking about (and linking to) the thread op you typed consisting of maybe 10 or more paragraphs which you led off by announcing that you were supposedly leaving for a week and wouldn't be able to post? Guess it slipped your mind that you typed and deleted it days later. Sure. That's not insanely unbelievable or anything.

Even if that was true you wouldn't have to delete it. You could have just updated it or posted something new. Deletion is trying to hide, like you're ashamed. I always stand by my posts.

I hate to burst your deluded bubble but I only skimmed it for a few seconds so I'm hardly hanging on your every word. I did think it was funny that you thought anyone would want to read all that garbage and when you returned early I checked and saw the thread had been deleted. Maybe you figured it would disappear since no one replied to it. Whoops.

You still haven't answered why you returned early, contrary to your claim of being away a week, despite making a big show of leaving. You just quietly snuck back in without a big announcement befitting your importance, lol.

Smart money's still on the-prostitute-you-hired-to-take-your-virginity-falling-through theory.

That's what intelligent people do when new evidence comes to light at odds with their previous hypothesis.

Is that why you still deny the Meuller report cleared Trump of collusion even after I educated you otherwise with all those quotes from the report? Because you're not intelligent? Even most national Democrats, not a bright bunch, didn't pretend that, opting instead to focus on the "obstruction" BS. In fact you almost never admit you're wrong on anything, no matter how overwhelmingly that's been objectively proved.



reply

Nah I just don't typically read your posts all the way through because you so often gaslight and ramble about incoherent gibberish, but this time you kept it short so I did. What's especially amusing is how you're now trying to play it off like you weren't mesmerized by every word when of course you were. Else you wouldn't have read to the final line where I said I'd be out till "the end of the week". Is that a "big show of leaving" to you? Aw. I take it you must have really missed me. I feel loved.

I have no doubt you took such a clear interest in my cogent critique of your god king because it rang true. You'll just have to have to wait patiently until I decide to opine my revised commentary on his globally humiliating fuckup in Syria on my own time.

I'm still tickled silly you're treating this like some big gotcha because you're so desperate to claim some kind of win. Reminds me of the time I admitted to the Dayton shooting mixup that you tried to take credit for later. You just ended up making your inferiority complex far too obvious. ;D

reply

Actually I think you led off by announcing you were allegedly leaving for a week, but it doesn't matter anyway because it's common to skim over the middle and notice the final line. And it's a little late to be making up quotes that can't be verified since you deleted the post. Oh well. I was just curious.

But if believing I was "mesmerized by every word" makes you feel better about yourself, then you go right ahead and do that, Bucko!

I have no doubt you took such a clear interest in my cogent critique of your god king because it rang true.

To be clear, this is the post you claimed you deleted because you decided it's wrong?

I don't even remember what the Trump hating part was about, except that it seemed to be meandering. The usual self indulgent, speculative BS one would expect from a poster who routinely calls his opponents "fuhrer" and "fascists!".

As for an "inferiority complex" and a desperate need to claim some kind of "win", given your comments right here (you even...ugh...wishfully used the word "loved") you're clearly projecting and protesting a bit much.


reply

lulz! You really don't have be so hostile about admitting you're a fan. I just hate to see you spin your wheels like this trying to make up really poor excuses as to why you didn't read it, but did, but didn't, but did.

Yeah, uh-huh. Of course you did fanboy. It's just that your reading comprehension suffers since I said Wednesday I'd be out till the end of the week and that's exactly what happened. I just hate to see you reaching this desperately for some gonzo gotcha just because you suck at reading comprehension. But it's ok that you're an admitted fanboy. Like I've said before, you already made your inferiority complex far too obvious, so this is just additional confirmation. You'll just have to excuse me as I abstain from reading any further of your absurd and unconvincing vacillations of what you did and didn't read. /fade

reply

You just typed two paragraphs trying to convince yourself that I'm your "fan", LOL, proving what I just said about you protesting too much and projecting, from your poor reading comprehension to your inferiority complex making you act out.

reply

Oh, it's just going to get better from here on in...I promise you.

reply

Man, you're sore from being constantly owned all over this board.


PS - Taylor reportedly admitted he has no first hand knowledge of Ukraine knowing the aid had been withheld, so no quid pro quo. So much for the Democrat hope of the week. Like I said, it was speculation and rumor mongering by chattering anti-Trump swamp rat dunces.

reply

Mulvaney gave us all we needed in the presser he called for on October 17. And just to make sure we have everything, he did an interview with Chris Wallace on October 20...just to make sure.

So we're all set, thank you.

reply

I've already refuted Chris Wallace's incompetent performance. You still can't explain how there can be a quid pro quo if Ukraine didn't know about it. It requires both parties' knowing involvement by definition.

reply

I've already refuted Chris Wallace's incompetent performance.


In your mind you did.

In reality, you didn't.

reply

“There is not a quid pro quo.” “I’ve never said there is a quid pro quo because there isn’t.” - Mulvaney, Wallace interview

reply

you funny man

reply

"You were asked specifically by Jonathan Karl, was investigating Democrats one of the conditions for holding up the aide? Was that part of the quid pro quo? And you said, it happens all the time," - Wallace, Wallace interview.

reply

Cherry-picked "gotcha!" attempt by juxtaposition that ignores all the times Mulvaney explicitly said there was no quid pro quo. You leave out that Mulvaney goes on to point out the obvious to Wallace, that he wasn't stopping to correct every piece of flawed wording in every loaded question he was getting.

If your best example doesn't even have Mulvaney using the phrase "quid pro quo" then you've got nothing. Plus there's all the evidence debunking it, like the fact that Ukraine didn't even know about the aid being withheld, that you keep avoiding.

reply

If your best example doesn't even have Mulvaney using the phrase "quid pro quo" then you've got nothing.


Damn, you're really simple. Like short-bus simple. Thank God you're on the conservative side.

reply

I accept your surrender, moron.

reply

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

There's that deranged laugh again. You're not holding Commissioner Gordon hostage are you?

reply

LOOOL!

He really is short bus olympic team material. For him, it's only a "quid pro quo" if Mulvaney says the words "it was a quid pro quo".

reply

I guess that's what they're feeding the simple-minded viewers over at FOX News. I'm so glad he's over on the conservative side.

reply

Whatever you say, Quid Pro Bro!

reply

You're the delusional one. Give it up.

reply

NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO QUO

Catchy huh? It's my death metal song I just wrote-Yeah, I'm a musician, that's how I have the time to wank off on a politics board all day long-What's your excuse?

reply

Got any songs out we can listen to?

reply

Make up your mind Quid Pro Bro, am I a sock or not?

reply

I didn't think so.

reply

Do you even think? I've yet to see evidence of anything beyond a hamster running on a wheel.

reply

You've got drool on your keyboard, you bland dimwit.

reply

LOL! Squeak squeak squeak squeak as the wheel turns. :)

reply

^*"squish" "squish"*

reply

You OK there, krl97a?

reply

Wipe off your keyboard, dteam6. That's disgusting.

reply

Ewww...what goes on inside that brain of yours?

reply

I was talking about your drooling problem. What are you talking about? Actually...never mind. Keep that to yourself.

reply

LOL!

reply

"PS - Taylor reportedly admitted he has no first hand knowledge of Ukraine knowing the aid had been withheld, so no quid pro quo."

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

God you're such a ditz. Read the devastating opening statement of the House transcript of Taylor that was just released to the press you airhead. Taylor testified to investigators Sondland had expressed to him in phone conversations that the aid was being withheld in part as part of a push for the investigations. Sondland was the President's point man on this whole scandal you sad little clown.

reply

Actually, you dimwitted buffoon, his opening statement (too bad Democrats haven't released a transcript of his questioning or any cross examination) confirms that the Ukrainians didn't even know the aid was being withheld. He tells about the Ukrainian president's aide, Yermak, calling him with concern the day after the withholding had been publicized in Politico on Aug. 29, over a month after the phone call.

Yermak evidently didn't know why because he asked Taylor why. Taylor said he felt “embarrassed that I could give him no explanation for why it was withheld".

The official State Department letter finally notifying Ukraine of the withholding didn't give a reason either. The aid was released a few days later.

So much for any pressure, extortion, or horse trading regarding the military aid (aka quid pro quo). He even reiterates Sondland telling him multiple times that Trump clearly said he doesn't want a "quid pro quo".

The rest of Taylor's opening statement was self aggrandizing garbage about his own biography (he has a Comeyesque whiff about him), and inferences filled with logical leaps and based on shreds of second hand info that it's fair to say Sondland, Volcker, and others interpret differently.

But he admitted to being friends with the disgraced anti-Trump ambassador, Masha Yovanovitch, so much so that he privately sought her blessing before accepting his appointment. His slimy statement makes it clear he's a never Tumper hack who hated Trump from the beginning and never gave him a fair chance or any benefit of the doubt. Paranoid drama queens like this, who ignore the fact that Trump has done far more for Ukraine and against Russia than Obama's 8 years of appeasement did, have skewed priorities. They've invented problems where there were none, and have weakened the country, not strengthened it.

reply

Quid Pro Bro just doesn't know when to quit...

reply

Hey Eyeboogers, if the democrat idiots can force thru 6 or 7 more investigations, they might find some Russian dressing on Trump's tie. Hah!

reply

I agree. More people here will find out you're a terrorist member of antifa and you won't have any credibility even with the hardcore left.

reply

Consider sticking around. You fit right in here and we're happy to have you. ;)

reply

I was thinking yesterday that this place is full of people who are probably lucky they actually know each other...
But then I realized that after the literally thousands of posts - you DO know each other. This place is like a big family having thanksgiving dinner everyday!!
And that's kinda cool.

reply

I meant to say "Don't actually know each other".

reply

No one ever does.

reply

Delusional.

reply

She is in it for the long haul. No retirement

reply

yup, most in washington are addicted to all the arguing and fighting...

reply

He won't be re-elected.

reply

Not one of the democratic "hopefuls" stand a chance! Numbers numbers numbers.

reply

Don't you mean numb nuts, numb nuts, numb nuts? ;)

reply

How can he be re-elected when he's no longer in Office ?

reply

Indulging in fantasy again? Hallucinogens? Self indulgence?
Hey Doggiedaddy... who's the President? Just wanna hear you say it, bro.

reply

You didn't answer the question. You only posted nonsense, but didn't answer the question.

Let's try again...

How can he be re-elected when he's no longer in Office?

reply

Who. Is. The. President. Doggiedoer?

reply

Answer. The. Question. Crazycruz.

reply

After you, Labradorlover.

reply

I asked first, T-rumptard.

reply

So what, Shephardshagger?
Heh heh

reply

Where ya at, Rottieraper?
Hah!

reply

Ah don't scurry away, little Beagleboinker! I've got a whole list here, 200 give or take. Hours worth. So don't punk out, Poodlepervert. There's dozens of lil doggies to love on ya.
Haha this is so much fun ;)

reply

LOL!

reply

Deleted the Ted Cruz comment, did you? Nothing's ever really gone on the internet, genius.

reply

You've got that right Doggie!!! Maybe Orange Head will be impeached, hopefully.

reply

You don't know that.

reply

I wrote "hopefully"

reply

slimone: "He won't be re-elected."

You mean you meant to?

reply

el camino, your brilliant political insights continue to amaze and delight...Your talents are clearly wasted on this board, perhaps you should seek a more lucrative calling: I hear Nikki Haley is looking for a campaign manager!

reply

This isn't CNN... leave the politics elsewhere... we talk about art

reply

LOL

reply

Art Vandelay? One of the finest architects I've ever had the pleasure to work with...

reply