Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Al Doggity on March 07, 2017, 11:36:30 AM
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chaffetz-house-oversight-committee-won-t-investigate-trump-s-voter-n730146
Speaking on CNN, the Utah representative said he does not see any evidence to back up Trump's tweets.
"We can't just investigate everything that's ever thrown out there by the Democrats, by the Republicans. We have to pick and choose," he said.
... or the so-called president of the united states? ???
-
"Although the committee will not look into Trump's voter fraud allegations, Chaffetz said congressional leaders will investigate the president's Saturday morning claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign, adding that "the president is directly asking and calling for" a probe. "
Can't wait to see the results of this. Pretty serious implications if Trump is lying about that one.
-
For clarity, someone posted this interview with Chaffetz here yesterday. How long before he confirms there will be no investigation into trump tower wiretapping due to lack of evidence?
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chaffetz-house-oversight-committee-won-t-investigate-trump-s-voter-n730146
Speaking on CNN, the Utah representative said he does not see any evidence to back up Trump's tweets.
"We can't just investigate everything that's ever thrown out there by the Democrats, by the Republicans. We have to pick and choose," he said.
... or the so-called president of the united states? ???
Trump would never make accusations without proof. ::) ::) ::)
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chaffetz-house-oversight-committee-won-t-investigate-trump-s-voter-n730146
Speaking on CNN, the Utah representative said he does not see any evidence to back up Trump's tweets.
"We can't just investigate everything that's ever thrown out there by the Democrats, by the Republicans. We have to pick and choose," he said.
... or the so-called president of the united states? ???
What do you mean by "so-called president"?
-
Trump would never make accusations without proof. ::) ::) ::)
You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?
-
You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?
There you go with the "conspiracy" again...it's an investigation based on information from the Intelligence Agencies.
...and I've never thought of myself as liberal.
-
You mean like all you liberals
1. We know that multiple people from his cabinet are willing to lie under oath about contact with Russian officials.
2. We know that multiple Republicans are also calling for an investigation into seedy Russian ties.
...so , no, not like that at all. ::)
-
There you go with the "conspiracy" again...it's an investigation based on information from the Intelligence Agencies.
...and I've never thought of myself as liberal.
An investigation into whether Trump conspired with Russia to win the election is a conspiracy theory. Not a shred of evidence.
-
1. We know that multiple people from his cabinet are willing to lie under oath about contact with Russian officials.
2. We know that multiple Republicans are also calling for an investigation into seedy Russian ties.
...so , no, not like that at all. ::)
Oh nos, not the "seedy Russian ties" again. lol . . . .
Why did you call him a "so-called president"?
-
An investigation into whether Trump conspired with Russia to win the election is a conspiracy theory. Not a shred of evidence.
The investigation is on Russian interference. If Trump wasn't involved he has nothing to worry about.
-
The investigation is on Russian interference. If Trump wasn't involved he has nothing to worry about.
The investigation that you folks have been clamoring for is about Trump conspiring with Russia to win the election. I know you don't want to say it, because it's pretty stupid when you actually repeat it out loud, but that's what this is about.
-
Oh nos, not the "seedy Russian ties" again. lol . . . .
Why did you call him a "so-called president"?
Because he's trash. A completely unqualified troll who is making a joke of the office. Before the end of the year even his die-hard fanatics won't even be able to pretend he has any integrity.
Why do you think Sessions and Flynn lied under oath about being in contact with Russia?
-
The investigation that you folks have been clamoring for is about Trump conspiring with Russia to win the election. I know you don't want to say it, because it's pretty stupid when you actually repeat it out loud, but that's what this is about.
Trump conspiring with Russia is a possibility but it could turn out to be something different. There is a lot of justification for thorough investigation. If you think that possibility is stupid, that is of no concern to me, as you are someone who literally pretends to forgets how to read when it is convenient for your argument.
And, seriously, why do you think Sessions and Flynn would deny communications with Russian officials?
-
The investigation that you folks have been clamoring for is about Trump conspiring with Russia to win the election. I know you don't want to say it, because it's pretty stupid when you actually repeat it out loud, but that's what this is about.
I have said on at least a few occasions that I don't think it altered the outcome.
People on Getbig message boards don't decide who or what gets investigated. For example "you folks" wanted an investigation into voter fraud. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
-
Because he's trash. A completely unqualified troll who is making a joke of the office. Before the end of the year even his die-hard fanatics won't even be able to pretend he has any integrity.
Why do you think Sessions and Flynn lied under oath about being in contact with Russia?
Are you saying he was not legitimately elected president?
Session did not lie.
I don't know if Flynn lied or not (I say he probably did), but I'm glad Trump did the right thing by firing him.
-
I have said on at least a few occasions that I don't think it altered the outcome.
People on Getbig message boards don't decide who or what gets investigated. For example "you folks" wanted an investigation into voter fraud. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
You don't think what altered the outcome? Trump's "seedy ties to Russia"?
Nice straw man with the message board comment.
-
You don't think what altered the outcome? Trump's "seedy ties to Russia"?
Nice straw man with the message board comment.
If you want to play dumb, fine.
Trump acknowledges Russia role in US election hacking: aide - Reuters
Trump CIA pick Mike Pompeo agrees Russia behind U.S. election ...-Globe and Mail
Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election -New York Times
-
Are you saying he was not legitimately elected president?
I explained very clearly why I said "so-called". Where did I say anything about this? Textbook example of a straw man argument. ::)
Session did not lie.
I don't know if Flynn lied or not (I say he probably did), but I'm glad Trump did the right thing by firing him.
Sessions did lie, but let's pretend only Flynn did. Why do you think Flynn lied?
-
If you want to play dumb, fine.
Trump acknowledges Russia role in US election hacking: aide - Reuters
Trump CIA pick Mike Pompeo agrees Russia behind U.S. election ...-Globe and Mail
Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election -New York Times
None of those blurbs say much of anything. The people playing dumb are you folks who are too embarrassed to clearly spell out this whacky conspiracy theory.
-
I explained very clearly why I said "so-called". Where did I say anything about this? Textbook example of a straw man argument. ::)
Sessions did lie, but let's pretend only Flynn did. Why do you think Flynn lied?
A question is not an argument. ::) I was following up on your "so-called president" comment. As I'm sure you know, a number of your cohorts have used that "so-called president" moniker to question whether Trump was legitimately elected president.
Sessions did not lie and any reasonably intelligent person (who is not a hack), who listens to the context of the question and answer, along with the context of the questionnaire, can clearly see that.
As I said before in response to your same question about Flynn, I have no idea why he didn't tell the truth. What difference does it make?
-
None of those blurbs say much of anything. The people playing dumb are you folks who are too embarrassed to clearly spell out this whacky conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theories are Trump's specialty.
58 Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories (and Counting!): The Definitive Trump Conspiracy Guide
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/58-donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-and-counting-definitive-trump-conspiracy-guide
-
A question is not an argument. ::) I was following up on your "so-called president" comment. As I'm sure you know, a number of your cohorts have used that "so-called president" moniker to question whether Trump was legitimately elected president.
Yes, a question is an argument. Meanwhile, I answered your question and you invented a new answer that had no relation to anything I said... or any bearing on the topic of this thread. Textbook straw man argument. ::)
Sessions did not lie and any reasonably intelligent person (who is not a hack), who listens to the context of the question and answer, along with the context of the questionnaire, can clearly see that.
Only a hack could come to this conclusion. Why did he recuse himself from russian probes?
As I said before in response to your same question about Flynn, I have no idea why he didn't tell the truth. What difference does it make?
Yeah, what difference could Flynn lying about seedy ties to Russia possibly make? It's not like people from both parties are calling for investigations or anything. ::) Meanwhile, you spent three posts asking me why I used the phrase "so-called"... in a thread about a republican refusing to investigate the so-called president's claims of voter fraud. But you're no a hack, are you? ::) Funny how your ability to read others' minds seems to come and go so conveniently.
-
Yes, a question is an argument. Meanwhile, I answered your question and you invented a new answer that had no relation to anything I said... or any bearing on the topic of this thread. Textbook straw man argument. ::)
Only a hack could come to this conclusion. Why did he recuse himself from russian probes?
Yeah, what difference could Flynn lying about seedy ties to Russia possibly make? It's not like people from both parties are calling for investigations or anything. ::) Meanwhile, you spent three posts asking me why I used the phrase "so-called"... in a thread about a republican refusing to investigate the so-called president's claims of voter fraud. But you're no a hack, are you? ::) Funny how your ability to read others' minds seems to come and go so conveniently.
A question is an argument?? LOL! Holy smokes . . . . :-\
Spoken like a true hack. You probably didn't even watch the clip of Sessions or read the questionnaire. And why are you asking me a question you know the answer too?
You sound awfully sensitive. Nothing in your response explains why it matters that Flynn didn't tell the truth. Who the heck cares?
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press. But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.
-
A question is an argument?? LOL! Holy smokes . . . . :-\
::)
Spoken like a true hack. You probably didn't even watch the clip of Sessions or read the questionnaire.
Of course I did.
And why are you asking me a question you know the answer too?
It's almost like that question is meant to be argumentative or something. ::)
You sound awfully sensitive. Nothing in your response explains why it matters that Flynn didn't tell the truth. Who the heck cares?
Yeah, it doesn't matter that he didn't tell the truth, but you also just posted that it's a good thing he was fired for it. Um, ok. ::)
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press. But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.
Except I have made at least 5 posts about this very topic in the last 24 hours. ::)
-
::)
Of course I did.
It's almost like that question is meant to be argumentative or something. ::)
Yeah, it doesn't matter that he didn't tell the truth, but you also just posted that it's a good thing he was fired for it. Um, ok. ::)
Except I have made at least 5 posts about this very topic in the last 24 hours. ::)
You watched the Sessions clip and read the questionnaire and are unable to see the context of the questions and answer. That's too bad. Partisanship interfering with your objectivity.
No my question was just a question.
YOU are the one who brought up Flynn, again. I could care less why he didn't tell truth. That's something important to you, not me.
I have not seen your posts. Did you create thread about it like you did with Flynn? Were your posts expressing concern about government spying on private citizens and the outrageousness of the leak by someone in the intelligence community to the media assuredly for partisan purposes?
-
I'm starting to get confused guys.
-
I'm starting to get confused guys.
Why?
-
You watched the Sessions clip and read the questionnaire and are unable to see the context of the questions and answer. That's too bad. Partisanship interfering with your objectivity.
::)
No my question was just a question.
... that you invented an answer to which had no relation to anything I had posted previously or the answer that I had just given you. ::)
YOU are the one who brought up Flynn, again. I could care less why he didn't tell truth. That's something important to you, not me.
Yet you are the one who said it's good that he was fired for lying... despite the fact that it's unimportant that he lied and no one should really care. That seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you can pull out a made up definition for contradictory that has no relation to the one everyone else uses that will explain why it isn't.
I have not seen your posts. Did you create thread about it like you did with Flynn? Were your posts expressing concern about government spying on private citizens and the outrageousness of the leak by someone in the intelligence community to the media assuredly for partisan purposes?
Yet, once again, you are more than capable of reading my mind and telling me how I'd react in a different situation, yet somehow you can't even hazard a guess as to why Sessions and Flynn lied. And once again, when it's convenient, you manage to lose the ability to do something as rudimentary as look at a post that is less than 24 hours old.
-
I'm starting to get confused guys.
Okay, I guess we're supposed to believe she's lying... but why didn't he give one example?
I haven't heard or read of any news organization saying that.
-
::)
... that you invented an answer to which had no relation to anything I had posted previously or the answer that I had just given you. ::)
Yet you are the one who said it's good that he was fired for lying... despite the fact that it's unimportant that he lied and no one should really care. That seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you can pull out a made up definition for contradictory that has no relation to the one everyone else uses that will explain why it isn't.
Yet, once again, you are more than capable of reading my mind and telling me how I'd react in a different situation, yet somehow you can't even hazard a guess as to why Sessions and Flynn lied. And once again, when it's convenient, you manage to lose the ability to do something as rudimentary as look at a post that is less than 24 hours old.
I asked a question, but I see that you don't understand the difference between and question, a statement, and an argument.
LOL. The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter.
As I've said repeatedly on this board, I don't read every thread or every post in every thread. If you want to point me to whatever you posted I'll be happy to read it.
-
I asked a question, but I see that you don't understand the difference between and question, a statement, and an argument.
Oh, feel free to make up a new definition that will suit you. Don't forget to try to twist something I've already said completely around while you're doing it.
LOL. The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter.
::) How are concurrent house probes not related to each other? The article mentions seedy Russian ties multiple times.
As I've said repeatedly on this board, I don't read every thread or every post in every thread. If you want to point me to whatever you posted I'll be happy to read it.
No one expects anyone to read every thread, but in that one post you hit all the notes I frequently criticize you for: willful ignorance, making up false positions for others, the pretense of lacking the ability to interpret information like a human being. You can happily and easily find the posts yourself. If you choose not to, it is of no concern to me , but it does reinforce what I've said about you multiple times.
-
Oh, feel free to make up a new definition that will suit you. Don't forget to try to twist something I've already said completely around while you're doing it.
::) How are concurrent house probes not related to each other? The article mentions seedy Russian ties multiple times.
No one expects anyone to read every thread, but in that one post you hit all the notes I frequently criticize you for: willful ignorance, making up false positions for others, the pretense of lacking the ability to interpret information like a human being. You can happily and easily find the posts yourself. If you choose not to, it is of no concern to me , but it does reinforce what I've said about you multiple times.
I just looked at the article again. I didn't see any reference to "seedy Russian ties multiple times." Are talking about the same article at the start of this thread?
No, I'm going to search through your post history. I don't a give rip.
-
I just looked at the article again. I didn't see any reference to "seedy Russian ties multiple times." Are talking about the same article at the start of this thread?
Right from the article:
Chaffetz said he has spoken with House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who on Sunday released a statement saying his panel would make inquiries into whether Obama illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.
Doubts were raised over the committee's credibility after reports surfaced that Nunes, a Republican lawmaker, had made calls to reporters in order to challenge stories about Russia at the request of the White House.
No, I'm going to search through your post history. I don't a give rip.
Yes, it would be hard to imagine you doing so. It would also be hard to imagine you clicking on the most obvious of the 12 threads that have been active today. Quite frankly, considering you have declined to verify information from links you've posted YOURSELF and you just pretended you didn't see any mentions of Russia in the story posted in the opening post, I have a feeling you would find an excuse not to click/read/understand even if I did hotlink right to my comments.
-
Right from the article:
Chaffetz said he has spoken with House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who on Sunday released a statement saying his panel would make inquiries into whether Obama illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.
Doubts were raised over the committee's credibility after reports surfaced that Nunes, a Republican lawmaker, had made calls to reporters in order to challenge stories about Russia at the request of the White House.
Yes, it would be hard to imagine you doing so. It would also be hard to imagine you clicking on the most obvious of the 12 threads that have been active today. Quite frankly, considering you have declined to verify information from links you've posted YOURSELF and you just pretended you didn't see any mentions of Russia in the story posted in the opening post, I have a feeling you would find an excuse not to click/read/understand even if I did hotlink right to my comments.
Are you friggin kidding me? Those are not multiple references to "seedy ties to Russia." ::) Your reading comprehension really sucks.
No, I'm still not going to search your post history. I'm sorrynotsorry that it's so important to you. :'(
-
Are you friggin kidding me? Those are not multiple references to "seedy ties to Russia." ::) Your reading comprehension really sucks.
Multiple references: check
About investigation into the administration's ties to russia during campaign: check
... but somehow, they aren't multiple references into russian ties. ::) OK. I guess they were being sarcastic.
No, I'm still not going to search your post history. I'm sorrynotsorry that it's so important to you. :'(
Why would you looking at my post history be important to me? You are the one said, "i'd happily read something that is super easy to find if you point me to it", and I declined to do so based on your history. How does any of that translate to you looking at my old posts being important to me?
-
Multiple references: check
About investigation into the administration's ties to russia during campaign: check
... but somehow, they aren't multiple references into russian ties. ::) OK. I guess they were being sarcastic.
Why would you looking at my post history be important to me? You are the one said, "i'd happily read something that is super easy to find if you point me to it", and I declined to do so based on your history. How does any of that translate to you looking at my old posts being important to me?
A reference to Russian "interference in the election" is not a reference to "seedy ties to Russia." That's retarded.
Once again, this is something you brought up. You mentioned your multiple posts about the government spying on Flynn and the release of that information to the media. I was just trying to be polite by offering to read them. Doesn't matter to me.
-
You assholes gave me hell for calling the PissGate dossier "Fake" instead of "Unsubstantiated"
But now Russian "interference in election" = "Seedy Russian Ties"?
-
A reference to Russian "interference in the election" is not a reference to "seedy ties to Russia." That's retarded.
Of course. Nowhere in that quote did they use the phrase "seedy ties to Russia", so it's obviously mocking without being sarcastic, but not really, even though it's exactly that but the nuance is probably lost on you.
Once again, this is something you brought up. You mentioned your multiple posts about the government spying on Flynn and the release of that information to the media. I was just trying to be polite by offering to read them. Doesn't matter to me.
No. YOU said this:
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press. But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.
And then I said, I've addressed this multiple times within the past 24 hours. If you choose not to look at extremely easy to find posts, it makes no difference to me. Considering you are currently trying to make the argument that multiple references to ties with Russia actually are something other than that, obviously it's not something that would be important to me.
-
You assholes gave me hell for calling the PissGate dossier "Fake" instead of "Unsubstantiated"
But now Russian "interference in election" = "Seedy Russian Ties"?
Are you joking? Your last post in this thread was this video:
-
LOL. The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter.
oh, and let's back this up a little. The only reason I brought up Flynn because this was your first contribution to the thread:
You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?
-
Are you joking? Your last post in this thread was this video:
PRESS RELEASES 02.02.17
Statement on Trump Lifting Sanctions on Putin’s Intelligence Thugs
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after President Trump lifted sanctions on the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service and successor to the KGB:
“U.S. intelligence agencies have thoroughly detailed the Russian security services’ brazen assault on American democracy in support of candidate Donald Trump. Less than two weeks after walking into the White House, President Trump lifts sanctions on the Russian Security Service. Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present.
-
Of course. Nowhere in that quote did they use the phrase "seedy ties to Russia", so it's obviously mocking without being sarcastic, but not really, even though it's exactly that but the nuance is probably lost on you.
No. YOU said this:
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press. But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.
And then I said, I've addressed this multiple times within the past 24 hours. If you choose not to look at extremely easy to find posts, it makes no difference to me. Considering you are currently trying to make the argument that multiple references to ties with Russia actually are something other than that, obviously it's not something that would be important to me.
Only a hack would see a comment to "Russian interference" as Trump's "seedy ties to Russia.
You are the one who brought up Flynn.
-
oh, and let's back this up a little. The only reason I brought up Flynn because this was your first contribution to the thread:
You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?
Ok? And? I didn't say anything about Flynn.
-
PRESS RELEASES 02.02.17
Statement on Trump Lifting Sanctions on Putin’s Intelligence Thugs
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after President Trump lifted sanctions on the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service and successor to the KGB:
“U.S. intelligence agencies have thoroughly detailed the Russian security services’ brazen assault on American democracy in support of candidate Donald Trump. Less than two weeks after walking into the White House, President Trump lifts sanctions on the Russian Security Service. Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present.
This is a PRESS RELEASE from Nancy Pelosi. And it criticizes Trump's behavior AFTER he took over the White House, in spite of what even his team acknowledged about the election.
-
Ok? And? I didn't say anything about Flynn.
Flynn lied about his seedy ties to Russia. That was definitely related to the point you brought up.
-
Flynn lied about his seedy ties to Russia. That was definitely related to the point you brought up.
I asked this earlier, but can you explain precisely what "seedy ties to Russia" means and who it involves?
-
I asked this earlier, but can you explain precisely what "seedy ties to Russia" means and who it involves?
Seedy ties are ties that appear to be illicit in nature. This may be manifested in various ways, from lying under oath at a congressional hearing to refusing to release tax returns to appearing to have knowledge of illegal hacks ahead of the general public. These seedy ties seem to involve multiple members of the Trump administration and have resulted in bipartisan calls for probes to determine their extent.
-
What do you mean by "so-called president"?
settle down
It's just the same as Trump referring to Federal judges as "so called" judges
Trump is setting the standards now so that kind of reference is totally acceptable
-
Seedy ties are ties that appear to be illicit in nature. This may be manifested in various ways, from lying under oath at a congressional hearing to refusing to release tax returns to appearing to have knowledge of illegal hacks ahead of the general public. These seedy ties seem to involve multiple members of the Trump administration and have resulted in bipartisan calls for probes to determine their extent.
Thanks. So you have identified the following:
1. Lying under oath at a Congressional hearing, which I assume refers to Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador.
2. Trump refusing to release his tax returns.
3. Trump appearing to have knowledge of illegal unspecified hacks, which I assume refers to the WikiLeaks release of Podesta's emails.
Anything else?
-
maybe they'll get around to investigating whether Trump and his newly appointed Commerc Secretary (who btw is 80) had any involvement in money laundering for Putin and his friends. If there is anything here it would make PissGate look like, well a bucket of piss in comparison
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article135001474.html
-
maybe they'll get around to investigating whether Trump and his newly appointed Commerc Secretary (who btw is 80) had any involvement in money laundering for Putin and his friends. If there is anything here it would make PissGate look like, well a bucket of piss in comparison
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article135001474.html
There's too much on the table to start into The Bank of Cyprus ordeal right now. That possible shitstorm will have to wait.
-
maybe they'll get around to investigating whether Trump and his newly appointed Commerc Secretary (who btw is 80) had any involvement in money laundering for Putin and his friends. If there is anything here it would make PissGate look like, well a bucket of piss in comparison
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article135001474.html
NOW we're getting somewhere!!! I love a good conspiracy!
By a vote of 72 to 27, the Senate confirmed Mr. Ross...
Why such a large majority?
-
NOW we're getting somewhere!!! I love a good conspiracy!
By a vote of 72 to 27, the Senate confirmed Mr. Ross...
Why such a large majority?
Good question, I was wondering the same thing.
I don't know a damn thing about Ross but on the surface the money laundering has ties with Ackermann formerly of Deutsche Bank.
-
Wait, three MILLION illegal votes, and they won't even investigate?
Why is that, you suppose?
-
Wait, three MILLION illegal votes, and they won't even investigate?
Why is that, you suppose?
They're too busy photoshopping more people in the inauguration crowd. ;D
-
Wait, three MILLION illegal votes, and they won't even investigate?
Why is that, you suppose?
Pence is working on that so we're sure to get the truth about that soon
-
Pence is working on that so we're sure to get the truth about that soon
House Oversight chair: We won't probe Trump's voter fraud claims
-
House Oversight chair: We won't probe Trump's voter fraud claims
they know it's bullshit but it's not like Pence can tell that to Trump
-
They're too busy photoshopping more people in the inauguration crowd. ;D
:D
-
they know it's bullshit but it's not like Pence can tell that to Trump
Reminds me of this old Twilight Zone episode. Everyone kissing the li'l monster's ass outta fear.
-
Wait, three MILLION illegal votes, and they won't even investigate?
Why is that, you suppose?
Inconvenient truth.
Do you really think they would want to expose that? You have quite a few politicians and city officials all over the country supporting sanctuary cities for illegals. So you think they are going to care if these illegals vote? Fuck no, they want that. The only thing they are sorry about is that only 3 million voted and not 10!
I would say supporting sanctuary cities qualifies as treason and breaking the law. All political whores supporting sanctuary cities should be arrested immediately and charged with Treason! Fuck these scumbags!
-
I'm starting to get confused guys.
Open up the libel laws. I want to see the MSM sued left and right. Drain the swamp and drain their pocket books. The MSM needs to be bankrupted. They are fake and useless to us now.
-
Inconvenient truth.
Do you really think they would want to expose that? You have quite a few politicians and city officials all over the country supporting sanctuary cities for illegals. So you think they are going to care if these illegals vote? Fuck no, they want that. The only thing they are sorry about is that only 3 million voted and not 10!
I would say supporting sanctuary cities qualifies as treason and breaking the law. All political whores supporting sanctuary cities should be arrested immediately and charged with Treason! Fuck these scumbags!
Nothing to investigate, probably. Another bullshit lie is all.