3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Every criminal investigation is called that by someone, tired You shouldn't call your betters idiots. But, what else can the lowly do, I guess Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. Well, just by the lower half of the board, so, like, so what. You come in here everyday and demonstrate yourself to be an irrational hysteric with serious mental issues and it does not seem to bother you too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Well, just by the lower half of the board, so, like, so what. You come in here everyday and demonstrate yourself to be an irrational hysteric with serious mental issues and it does not seem to bother you too much. And by the lower half you mean the upper 3/4’s right? Clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 43 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I'm not the one claiming a president can cheat in elections to win, and then he is safe to do it again as long as he is president. That's seriously stupid. And dangerous That's not how a republic works. A republic is a nation of laws, not a nation ruled by someone above the law The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Koko78 said: The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence. You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. So funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. So funny Do you even understand what Cy Vance is pretending to investigate? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 54 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Mr. Trump’s legal position contradicts clear Supreme Court precedent. In U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office tapes subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. In Clinton v. Jones, a unanimous court held that a sitting president can be forced to testify in response to a subpoena in civil litigation. Taken together, these cases make it clear that the president is not immune from investigation, whether criminal or civil, while he is in office. I am not sure what this source is- probably your own imagination- but the right wing extremist at the NY times itself states Clinton voluntarily testified at the trial. He could have kept the subpoenas until he was done as president but did not. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/us/politics/clinton-testimony-grand-jury.amp.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. So funny The neat thing is that all Trump has to do is to make an Executive Order extending his term another several years. He can thank Obama for making what would have been previously unconstitutional now constitutional. On the same note McConnell should thank Harry Reid for allowing him to get 100's of judges and 2 SCOTUS justices approved. You dems really know how to grease the skids for the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 4 hours ago, Koko78 said: Federalist Nos. 65 & 66. Did you have a specific section of those to sight? Because Impeachment in Federalist 65 clearly states that impeachment will be for POLITICAL crimes against society Quote A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. This does not in anyway claim civil law is canceled for one man just because he is president, it allows for corruption, abuse of power and such to be addressed. The civil law still prevails. And from 66, boy did they foresee this Trump crowd coming! Quote So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue. ?And so far even as might concern the corruption of leading members, by whose arts and influence the majority may have been inveigled into measures odious to the community, if the proofs of that corruption should be satisfactory, the usual propensity of human nature will warrant us in concluding that there would be commonly no defect of inclination in the body to divert the public resentment from themselves by a ready sacrifice of the authors of their mismanagement and disgrace. PUBLIUS. 2 hours ago, B-Man said: 1) That's a justice department opinion not a constitutional fact 2) She is much, much smarter than Trump. Her daddy didn't leave her $450 though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. So funny If the President breaks a law to win the election is that considered a High Crime and/or Misdemeanor? Edited May 11, 2020 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I am not sure what this source is- probably your own imagination- but the right wing extremist at the NY times itself states Clinton voluntarily testified at the trial. He could have kept the subpoenas until he was done as president but did not. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/us/politics/clinton-testimony-grand-jury.amp.html No, the court ruled he was not immune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones 4 hours ago, Koko78 said: Do you even understand what Cy Vance is pretending to investigate? Yes, and you are desperate to change the subject. Lame, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 On 5/9/2020 at 10:07 AM, Joe in Winslow said: Was considering an electric box for convenience. Thoughts? Really interested in trying to make my own kielbasa. ...have both an electric box and pellet smoker.......use electric for smaller stuff but the pellet unit is great for larger stuff.......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: No, the court ruled he was not immune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones Do you even read what you link to? It states the court can not compel him to show up to court and he can put it off if he shows it will interfere with his constitutional duties, he chose not to allow his lawyers to handle it until his term was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Yes, and you are desperate to change the subject. Lame, lol Change the subject? Good lord man! This is the subject of the thread YOU started. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realtruelove Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I have this squirrel that keeps digging up the flowers in the planters hanging from the railing on my deck. Every day I go back out and fix the planters and replant the flowers and every day the squirrel comes back and digs them up. I named her Tiberius. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Do you even read what you link to? No he does not. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 hours ago, realtruelove said: I have this squirrel that keeps digging up the flowers in the planters hanging from the railing on my deck. Every day I go back out and fix the planters and replant the flowers and every day the squirrel comes back and digs them up. I named her Tiberius. Hmmmm. Now if you hit her over the head with a rock every time she dug up your flowers and she still came back? Then and only then would she be worthy of the name Tiberius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. He's not the guy with the tiny baby hands problem. So I'm not so sure about the laughingstock thing. 13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: When are you going to learn? How often do you need to be corrected? Maybe you should brush up on the serial comma before you put on the grammar police badge tonight. 11 hours ago, Koko78 said: The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence. Obstruction of justice was a hoax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts