Opalescent
Banned
- Joined
- May 12, 2020
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 8
Your assumption would be correct. IMHO he's a regular John Mitchell.
Obamagate!
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
"Well, we're gonna have to leave it there..." LMAO. Damn, the Trump enablers at Fox and elsewhere are so ****** right now.
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lawyer <a href="https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BradMossEsq</a> shuts down <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ObamaGate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ObamaGate</a>, destroys every numbskull <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IMPOTUS?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IMPOTUS</a> argument and leaves Fox News host speechless in one brilliant 60-second summation. Case closed! (via <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Acyn</a>) <a href="https://t.co/D7OpBtK6fW">pic.twitter.com/D7OpBtK6fW</a></p>— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/1260057654258470912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lawyer <a href="https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BradMossEsq</a> shuts down <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ObamaGate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ObamaGate</a>, destroys every numbskull <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IMPOTUS?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IMPOTUS</a> argument and leaves Fox News host speechless in one brilliant 60-second summation. Case closed! (via <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Acyn</a>) <a href="https://t.co/D7OpBtK6fW">pic.twitter.com/D7OpBtK6fW</a></p>— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/1260057654258470912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
I'm sure you can grasp the concept that a lawyer can be wrong.
enter Steeltime...<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2a008290075125adde2d7b849b06a0bb.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fsteelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>
Ugh, it's already giving me a headache. You can't even have fun with elftards anymore.
Why should you believe CNN? I mean we could go back and forth on this all day, but cross examining members isn't the way you go about it here.
You need to offer opposing viewpoints for debate. I know it may be asking a lot, but try and back up your arguments with facts.
You will get banned if you don't straighten up.
It really does happen.
I've seen it.
I'm serious.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,076
- Reaction score
- 11,804
- Points
- 113
Slick Willy?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,952
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,076
- Reaction score
- 11,804
- Points
- 113
Is this man your new "Avenatti" hero?
Sure the president can order an investigation. A legal investigation. That's not what happened.
This is fairly long but this is a MUST WATCH. Dan Bongino lays it all out and cites every legal document, conversation, interview, article etc. to back it up. General Michael Flynn is indeed a political prisoner. The Obama Administration was the most corrupt Administration in modern U.S. history. I know some will say "well, yeah" but this is just a truly great summation:
Last edited:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
New rules in the Trump/Barr era:
Collusion is now patriotic.
Emoluments are now entitlements.
Lying to the FBI now makes you a victim.
Attempting to safeguard US elections from clandestine foreign interference is now the real crime.
Carry on.
Collusion is now patriotic.
Emoluments are now entitlements.
Lying to the FBI now makes you a victim.
Attempting to safeguard US elections from clandestine foreign interference is now the real crime.
Carry on.
Did you think that up all by your self? Or did you just find a meme?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,952
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
God, it's easier than mocking elfie, but I cannot simply pass this up.
Trump did not collude. Your bizarre, unfounded insistence to the contrary is not evidence. You may not have heard, but this guy named Mueller - a dude who could barely remember his name and was a figurehead on an investigation run by a hand-picked group of (D)ims - and his team spent two years and $40 million investigating the purported collusion. What did they find?
Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
From that right-wing site, NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion
You don't even know what emoluments are, do you? Emoluments are referenced in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 as follows: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
So the slavering lefties bleating about the emoluments clause - like ******* Orating Crap - are usually not lawyers and too dumb to understand what the clause was designed to do or why.
First, every ******* President since Washington has accepted gifts that the President takes upon leaving office. Couple examples:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/foreign-leaders-showered-obama-with-gifts-in-his-final-years/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...vernments-guess-what-we-sent/article11570646/
Oh, and about that clause and guests staying at locations actually owned by interlocking corporations, of which Trump is an officer, but where Trump does not get "paid" for having guests stay at the facility. The money goes to a corporation, which pays its shareholders. Officers receive compensation, but while Trump is in office, his finances are not run by him or his family, and are instead run by something called a "blind trust." No, that does not mean (D)im voters and their belief in lying, corrupt, thieving (D)ims but instead refers to management and decision-making unknown to and uncontrolled by (i.e., "blind") the owner, i.e., the corporation, or its shareholders (tens of thousands of them in Trump real estate) or officers.
Also, the Federal Court has looked at your and ******* Orating Crap emoluments allegations - you know, judges, actually instructed in these things and not screeching ninnies inaccurately paraphrasing something from Reddit, which incorrectly quoted Media Matters, which made up something from whole ******* cloth. And the court said THIS about the stupid, inane, asinine, ridiculous emoluments claim:
From the right-wing New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/trump-hotel-emoluments-constitution.html
You don't pay attention to the news, do you? First, Flynn did NOT - repeat, Tibs, say it after me - he did NOT lie to the FBI. The FBI claims to have "lost" the record of the statement, called a 302, but in reality they had to destroy it because the original showed what the questioning agents, including ******* Stryzk for crying out loud, concluded:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/james-comey-michael-flynn-fbi-russia/2018/02/12/id/842983/
Oh, and the threats under the "Logan Act"? What a ******* joke. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under that law, for the reason that long ago the DOJ rightly concluded it violated the separation of powers since it was Congress trying to regulate foreign affairs - a power delegated solely and uniquely to the Executive branch. Further, the Logan Act violates the 1st Amendment since it can be used as a weapon against political opponents. Sound familiar ...?
The Logan Act Is Awful and No, It's Not Going To Be Used Against John Kerry
This law is always being invoked in order to threaten political opponents, showing how it violates free speech protections.
https://reason.com/2019/05/14/the-l...-its-not-going-to-be-used-against-john-kerry/
Further, the only judge ever to examine the idiotic Logan Act noted that the law was unconstitutionally vague with terms such as "defeat" and "measures." (See, Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F.Supp. 72, 89 [Logan Act likely unconstitutional because of vague wording, violation of the 14th amendment, citing examples as “defeat” and “measures"; judge invited Congress to amend the act to fix the unconstitutional vagueness - a request Congress has never acted on.)
So the left's prized Logan Act, the only wrongdoing EVER alleged against Flynn you are probably shocked to learn since Media Matters fails to investigate anything and instead just re-publishes garbage, is unconstitutionally vague, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the 1st Amendment, and has never actually been used to prosecute ... anybody. Ever.
So Flynn did not lie. Further, the Logan Act claim is specious. Finally, since you are not a lawyer, you wouldn't know this, but our governments don't have some magic power to do anything they want and investigate anybody they want, for no reason. I get that you and your ideological ilk worship the old Soviet Union and its plenary, unfettered police power, but here in the United States - where I live - governments have to have a valid reason for the investigation to begin with. The situation with Flynn? No such reason, at all, ever.
That's why the FBI used counterintelligence, since no judge would ever have granted them a warrant to investigate ... nothing, based on nothing, where Flynn was not even charged with a crime. The FBI claimed to be monitoring Kislyak when using the FISA approach, but repeatedly lied about the support for that goat-**** and has been excoriated by the FISA judge and an inspector general for 17 documented lies [funny how they are not facing jail time, ehh? Care to explain??], but they were ******* lying to the FISA court, abusing the FISA system, and spying on Flynn to hurt Trump. There's a name for that ...
Illegal. "The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of all in our 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' was interpreted to cover telephone conversations and eventually emails and text messages. So today, if the government wants information contained in those communications, it needs to obtain a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment states can only be given by a judge — and only upon a showing of probable cause of evidence of a crime contained in the communications it seeks.
https://reason.com/2016/04/28/fourth-amendment-usa-freedom-act/
What is the effect of the illegal spying? The evidence gathered - where, to be fair to Flynn, the evidence showed he committed no crime since the Logan Act is the Three Stooges of law, entertaining but not taken seriously by any thinking being - is thrown the **** out.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), is a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade taxes. Police illegally seized his business records and made copies, and sought to use that evidence in a tax evasion case. The question the court dealt with was whether or not evidence that was not forged or falsified but was obtained illegally could be used in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (as an aside - he fought bravely in the Civil War), was that to permit admission of such evidence would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule in effect 100 years later.
This must be your own creation. Even the drug-addled dimwits at Media Matters have not gone to that level.
"Safeguard US elections?" You mean safeguards like actual proof of eligibility to vote that your buddies attack at every level? Or updating voter rolls to remove dead people? Or doing away with the patently fraudulent "motor voter" laws that register every person who gets a license with voter registration, no proof of voter eligibility needed??
And "foreign interference?" You must mean ******* Facebook ads?? And "interference" such as supposedly $100k in Facebook ads swinging an election, over the billion dollars Hildabeast spent, and like the $650 million Bloomy spent to win American Somoa??
"Interference" like that, you mean??
So to sum up, Tibs:
Trump did not collude. Your bizarre, unfounded insistence to the contrary is not evidence. You may not have heard, but this guy named Mueller - a dude who could barely remember his name and was a figurehead on an investigation run by a hand-picked group of (D)ims - and his team spent two years and $40 million investigating the purported collusion. What did they find?
Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
From that right-wing site, NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion
Tibs said:
You don't even know what emoluments are, do you? Emoluments are referenced in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 as follows: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
So the slavering lefties bleating about the emoluments clause - like ******* Orating Crap - are usually not lawyers and too dumb to understand what the clause was designed to do or why.
First, every ******* President since Washington has accepted gifts that the President takes upon leaving office. Couple examples:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/foreign-leaders-showered-obama-with-gifts-in-his-final-years/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...vernments-guess-what-we-sent/article11570646/
Oh, and about that clause and guests staying at locations actually owned by interlocking corporations, of which Trump is an officer, but where Trump does not get "paid" for having guests stay at the facility. The money goes to a corporation, which pays its shareholders. Officers receive compensation, but while Trump is in office, his finances are not run by him or his family, and are instead run by something called a "blind trust." No, that does not mean (D)im voters and their belief in lying, corrupt, thieving (D)ims but instead refers to management and decision-making unknown to and uncontrolled by (i.e., "blind") the owner, i.e., the corporation, or its shareholders (tens of thousands of them in Trump real estate) or officers.
Also, the Federal Court has looked at your and ******* Orating Crap emoluments allegations - you know, judges, actually instructed in these things and not screeching ninnies inaccurately paraphrasing something from Reddit, which incorrectly quoted Media Matters, which made up something from whole ******* cloth. And the court said THIS about the stupid, inane, asinine, ridiculous emoluments claim:
From the right-wing New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/trump-hotel-emoluments-constitution.html
Tibs said:
You don't pay attention to the news, do you? First, Flynn did NOT - repeat, Tibs, say it after me - he did NOT lie to the FBI. The FBI claims to have "lost" the record of the statement, called a 302, but in reality they had to destroy it because the original showed what the questioning agents, including ******* Stryzk for crying out loud, concluded:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/james-comey-michael-flynn-fbi-russia/2018/02/12/id/842983/
Oh, and the threats under the "Logan Act"? What a ******* joke. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under that law, for the reason that long ago the DOJ rightly concluded it violated the separation of powers since it was Congress trying to regulate foreign affairs - a power delegated solely and uniquely to the Executive branch. Further, the Logan Act violates the 1st Amendment since it can be used as a weapon against political opponents. Sound familiar ...?
The Logan Act Is Awful and No, It's Not Going To Be Used Against John Kerry
This law is always being invoked in order to threaten political opponents, showing how it violates free speech protections.
https://reason.com/2019/05/14/the-l...-its-not-going-to-be-used-against-john-kerry/
Further, the only judge ever to examine the idiotic Logan Act noted that the law was unconstitutionally vague with terms such as "defeat" and "measures." (See, Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F.Supp. 72, 89 [Logan Act likely unconstitutional because of vague wording, violation of the 14th amendment, citing examples as “defeat” and “measures"; judge invited Congress to amend the act to fix the unconstitutional vagueness - a request Congress has never acted on.)
So the left's prized Logan Act, the only wrongdoing EVER alleged against Flynn you are probably shocked to learn since Media Matters fails to investigate anything and instead just re-publishes garbage, is unconstitutionally vague, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the 1st Amendment, and has never actually been used to prosecute ... anybody. Ever.
So Flynn did not lie. Further, the Logan Act claim is specious. Finally, since you are not a lawyer, you wouldn't know this, but our governments don't have some magic power to do anything they want and investigate anybody they want, for no reason. I get that you and your ideological ilk worship the old Soviet Union and its plenary, unfettered police power, but here in the United States - where I live - governments have to have a valid reason for the investigation to begin with. The situation with Flynn? No such reason, at all, ever.
That's why the FBI used counterintelligence, since no judge would ever have granted them a warrant to investigate ... nothing, based on nothing, where Flynn was not even charged with a crime. The FBI claimed to be monitoring Kislyak when using the FISA approach, but repeatedly lied about the support for that goat-**** and has been excoriated by the FISA judge and an inspector general for 17 documented lies [funny how they are not facing jail time, ehh? Care to explain??], but they were ******* lying to the FISA court, abusing the FISA system, and spying on Flynn to hurt Trump. There's a name for that ...
Illegal. "The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of all in our 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' was interpreted to cover telephone conversations and eventually emails and text messages. So today, if the government wants information contained in those communications, it needs to obtain a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment states can only be given by a judge — and only upon a showing of probable cause of evidence of a crime contained in the communications it seeks.
https://reason.com/2016/04/28/fourth-amendment-usa-freedom-act/
What is the effect of the illegal spying? The evidence gathered - where, to be fair to Flynn, the evidence showed he committed no crime since the Logan Act is the Three Stooges of law, entertaining but not taken seriously by any thinking being - is thrown the **** out.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), is a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade taxes. Police illegally seized his business records and made copies, and sought to use that evidence in a tax evasion case. The question the court dealt with was whether or not evidence that was not forged or falsified but was obtained illegally could be used in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (as an aside - he fought bravely in the Civil War), was that to permit admission of such evidence would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule in effect 100 years later.
Tibs said:
This must be your own creation. Even the drug-addled dimwits at Media Matters have not gone to that level.
"Safeguard US elections?" You mean safeguards like actual proof of eligibility to vote that your buddies attack at every level? Or updating voter rolls to remove dead people? Or doing away with the patently fraudulent "motor voter" laws that register every person who gets a license with voter registration, no proof of voter eligibility needed??
And "foreign interference?" You must mean ******* Facebook ads?? And "interference" such as supposedly $100k in Facebook ads swinging an election, over the billion dollars Hildabeast spent, and like the $650 million Bloomy spent to win American Somoa??
"Interference" like that, you mean??
So to sum up, Tibs:
- No collusion per Mueller and the Forget-me-Knots and NPR
- No emoluments according to the facts and a Federal court
- No lying to the FBI since he did not lie.
- No crime since the Logan Act is a relic piece of unconstitutional crap.
- No possible valid police power since no crime, and no crime = no admissible evidence.
- The lie about foreign interference is too dumb for anybody to believe, given the massive, endless push by the same screaming ninnies to allow illegals (non-citizens) to vote.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
LOL, you may want to let Trump in on your little secret.
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,952
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Okay, good point in giving credibility to Trump and not the FBI.
You're doing that here, you know. Or hadn't you noticed?
Similar threads
