Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 9 - The Shi'ites Hit The Fan (Cont. in Part 10, see OP)

[beez]

The whistleblower complaint is hilarious.

Just how many people were involved in the cover up? Barr and Maguire have a lot of explaining to do.

I wonder how many officials are now thinking how stuffed they are?

 

[Admiral Byng]

The way it will end up being spun is Clinton was impeached and he stayed in office. An undeniable fact.

He was acquitted.

 

[Groin guru]

The whistleblower complaint is hilarious.

Just how many people were involved in the cover up? Barr and Maguire have a lot of explaining to do.

I wonder how many officials are now thinking how stuffed they are?

What about it is so hilarious?

Are you calling into question Michael Horowitz? So the Inspector General of the DoJ lied to save Trump?

 

[ChappyUK]

What about it is so hilarious?

Are you calling into question Michael Horowitz? So the Inspector General of the DoJ lied to save Trump?

For me it was Shifty's Mafia spin.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So basically you don't even know what law Trump has broken but you're pretty confident he didn't break it?

Go educate yourself.

What law is it?

 

[Chief]

What law is it?

Posted earlier in this thread.

 

[beez]

What about it is so hilarious?

Are you calling into question Michael Horowitz? So the Inspector General of the DoJ lied to save Trump?

The multiple attempts to cover up Trump's ineptness, stupidity, illegalities...

The ethical contradiction of the ADNI consulting the White House, its lawyers, the DOJ and the OLC, all of whom were an active party in the whistleblower complaint.

Not to mention how many White House officials, staffers, lawyers etc are involved - either explicitly or implicitly - in the cover up of Trump's... id?

 

[bourbons]

******* misogynist pig.

That's a "I don't know either" then I take it.

Who knows what the guy person has to say and if anyone will corroborate it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What law is it?

If you don't know, where does that leave your argument?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We can all tell - I mean what's smarter than repeating the same line over and over and then refusing to touch anything that might require you to rub two brain cells together.

You disappeared after the Mueller farce. Pop back as soon as this started yesterday. You're basically a bandwagon never trumper

Sometimes the basic facts need to be reiterated.

For example, when people like you are determined to deflect.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

yay it is good to be highly un-neurotic as well but we don't say that either.. we say we are just cantering towards the higher centrality... or something like that

Cantering.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Lucky I am

A) posting on a discussion forum, and
B) not Trump's lawyer

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a strange unit

Lucky to have been educated.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Are the Trumpets beavering away to devise new, more inane lies to counter the whistle-blower complaint?

Events outpace their alternative reality.

It's like a new version of Godwin's law.

The more information we get, the closer we get to Trumpets claiming "it doesn't matter if Trump broke the law".

Not long now. Tick tock. Tick tock.

 

[Mick F]

What law is it?

Google boorish.
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

If you don't know, where does that leave your argument?

Just state the law. But you won't because you're talking complete and utter rubbish

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Google boorish.
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns.

Thank you. I'll review.

 

[Saint Shags]

Maguire when asked if he spoke to Trump when he received the complaint = conversations are under executive privilege.
Maguire when asked if Trump asked for the identity of whistleblower = No.

So did he go to the Oval Office before Congress when he received the complaint?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just state the law. But you won't because you're talking complete and utter rubbish

Clearly I'm familiar with the relevant law. You aren't. I've been quoting it for 2 days. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm quite happy for you to pretend otherwise. It advertises your ignorance. You dont have the cards to bluff.

But the spectacle amuses me.

Do you admit you don't know the relevant law?

Keep asking. Prove my point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thank you. I'll review.

He'll review it! He'll review a federal law governing campaign donations and get back to us. I can't wait for your findings.

So this is the first time you've seen it?

What were your opinions based on up until now? Nothing?

Stop bluffing and just admit you have NFI.

 

[ChappyUK]

Clearly I'm familiar with the relevant law. You aren't. I've been quoted it for 2 days. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm quite happy for you to pretend otherwise. It advertises your ignorance.

Keep pretending to have an opinion without knowing what you're talking about. Your blunt force stupidity isn't going to cut the mustard. You dont have the cards to bluff.

But the spectacle amuses me.

Do you admit you don't know the relevant law?

Keep asking. Prove my point.

The law has been posted here so that knowledge has been shared.

The rest is just touch points to make you seem more knowledgeable than you actually are.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The law has been posted here so that knowledge has been shared.

The rest is just touch points to make you seem more knowledgeable than you actually are.

Be specific.

Rebut something I've said.

You can't.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The whistleblower complaint is hilarious.

Just how many people were involved in the cover up? Barr and Maguire have a lot of explaining to do.

I wonder how many officials are now thinking how stuffed they are?

The real issue is Biden. Right?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

At what point do the Trumpets reconsider whether this obvious corruption, obvious dishonesty and obvious arse-covering is worth defending?

I guess not yet.

 

[ChappyUK]

Be specific.

Rebut something I've said.

You can't.

All you've said is:

This is the law.
What Trump did was illegal.
Various insecure insults.

There really isn't more more to rebutt.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

All you've said is:

This is the law.
What Trump did was illegal.

Exactly.

Can you rebut that?

If not, what is your argument?

What was the last post where you made a point? You're staying involved but making no argument.