robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 4 hours ago, User said: The only thing proving to be obnoxious is you. You lied repeatedly in one thread and instead of having enough integrity to own up to that you are going to be obnoxious yourself in other threads trying to troll me now. Are you in the right thread? This is not about how Democrats tried to remove Trump from the Ballot illegally. Neither was Colorado. You don't even know it WAS CO REPUBLICONS who filed the lawsuit to get Trump removed. LMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, User said: I guess you will ignore all those classified documents he had in his possession all over his properties. It was less than a dozen which were returned immediately while Trump had hundreds which HE TRIED TO HIDE. AKA Biden had NONE of the INTENT Trump had. Your FALSE EQUIVALENCES are PATHETIC. Edited June 17 by robosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 15 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes we know that the MAGA CULT like you believes everything the CONMAN says. That's nothing to brag about. Duh https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/ Have a warm and fuzzy day... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, User said: LOL. Yes, it was illegal. Of course, just as I figured though, you are here crying about democracy while you defend literally taking someone off the ballot. So much for Democracy. The Constitution clearly says that Trump should not be on the ballot. The effort was defeated cause they said Congress had to do it. Duh 1 hour ago, User said: Yes, you are here defending taking the GOP nominee for President off the ballot on specious legal theories. It was illegal and obviously specious. You don't get to pretend like you care about defending Democracy when you are here defending ruining Democracy. You and others on the left are fully willing to burn every norm to the ground to get Trump. Nothing is noble, just, or righteous about what you are doing. You don't know what you're talking about but continue to LIE about what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, robosmith said: It was less than a dozen which were returned immediately while Trump had hundreds which TRIED TO HIDE. AKA Biden had NONE of the INTENT Trump had. Your FALSE EQUIVALENCES are PATHETIC. This is absolute BULLSHIT! Biden's collection of classified documents were all over the place and collected while he was a senator and VP. NOT the POTUS! That means he had to steal and/or smuggle the documents out of sciffs. That's done on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, User said: you are here defending taking the GOP nominee for President off the ballot on specious legal theories. Citizens elect their representatives who make decisions on their behalf, that can be challenged in the court of law. No one is above the law. No nominee not former president not the Pope in Vatican can be above the law in a democracy. How is this not obvious? To who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 3 minutes ago, Nationalist said: This is absolute BULLSHIT! Biden's collection of classified documents were all over the place and collected while he was a senator and VP. NOT the POTUS! That means he had to steal and/or smuggle the documents out of sciffs. That's done on purpose. You don't even know that very few classified documents are confined to SCIFs. Since I had a TS/SCI clearance, I know far more about it than you ever will. From the Hur report: Quote Twice in 2017, Mr. Eiden visited the National Archives SCIF to review his classified notecards while writing his book. Yet he kept his notebooks, which also contained classified information, in unlocked drawers at home. .... Ve do not, however, believe this evidence would meet the government's burden at trial~particularly the requirement to prove that Mr. Eiden intended to do something the law forbids. Consistent with statements Mr. Eiden made during our interview of him and arguments made by the White House Counsel and Mr. Biden's personal counsel, we expect Mr. Eiden's defense at trial would be that he thought his notebooks were his personal property and he was allowed to take them home, even if they contained classified information. AKA, it was concluded that NO ILLEGAL INTENT could be PROVEN. Same as with unmarked emails that were SENT to Hillary on the NIPRNet. which is confined to UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. Just because notes were taken about TS/SCI classified documents does not mean that ALL of the document's content was classified to that HIGHEST level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 38 minutes ago, robosmith said: RepubliCONS don't get to invent evidence and LIE in state court about crimes. True - only democrats are allowed to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 8 minutes ago, myata said: Citizens elect their representatives who make decisions on their behalf, that can be challenged in the court of law. No one is above the law. No nominee not former president not the Pope in Vatican can be above the law in a democracy. How is this not obvious? To who? Right, so citizens elect their representatives to make decisions like we are talking about here with passing a law to move criminal actions against the President to Federal Courts. So, what is your problem with this? 31 minutes ago, robosmith said: The Constitution clearly says that Trump should not be on the ballot. The effort was defeated cause they said Congress had to do it. Duh Um... no. The Constitution says no such thing. 34 minutes ago, robosmith said: It was less than a dozen which were returned immediately while Trump had hundreds which HE TRIED TO HIDE. AKA Biden had NONE of the INTENT Trump had. Your FALSE EQUIVALENCES are PATHETIC. So, what is your point here? Saying Biden broke the law less than Trump did still means Biden broke the law. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 37 minutes ago, robosmith said: Neither was Colorado. You don't even know it WAS CO REPUBLICONS who filed the lawsuit to get Trump removed. LMAO Yeah, lets pretend like it was not supported and cheered on by Democrats. Just like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 36 minutes ago, robosmith said: The Constitution clearly says that Trump should not be on the ballot. Well we know that's not true. And the supreme court says it's not true. And they noted that it was interfering with democracy to try thata crap. You have no problem with people breaking the law as long as it's the dems who are doing it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 44 minutes ago, robosmith said: I already told you which is why you need to put a LITTLE effort into understanding: No CHANGE to the law would be necessary if he wasn't seeking special privileges for Trump. Duh It is unfortunate that you STILL can't understand. You claimed: "Johnson wants to codify making former POTUS above the law. 🤮" You keep dishonestly trying to change the subject to "seeking special privileges" now. My understanding of your dishonest here is just fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 26 minutes ago, robosmith said: You don't even know that very few classified documents are confined to SCIFs. Since I had a TS/SCI clearance, I know far more about it than you ever will. Bully for you. All that means is the government will give clearance to id1ots. From Hur's report... Quote “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” During Hur’s investigation, FBI agents recovered “marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan” and “notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods” And then he let Brandon off the hook because Brandon is a demented old fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 30 minutes ago, User said: Right, so citizens elect their representatives to make decisions like we are talking about here with passing a law to move criminal actions against the President to Federal Courts. So, what is your problem with this? Um... no. The Constitution says no such thing. So, what is your point here? Saying Biden broke the law less than Trump did still means Biden broke the law. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. Biden didn't break the law because the law REQUIRES INTENT. Duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Bully for you. All that means is the government will give clearance to id1ots. From Hur's report... And then he let Brandon off the hook because Brandon is a demented old fool. He couldn't prosecute a sitting POTUS. Duh. That's how Trump escaped prosecution for 10 counts of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. And Hur couldn't prove INTENT. And you didn't know that cause you a demented old fool and a Canuck. Edited June 17 by robosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 29 minutes ago, User said: You claimed: "Johnson wants to codify making former POTUS above the law. 🤮" You keep dishonestly trying to change the subject to "seeking special privileges" now. My understanding of your dishonest here is just fine. Let me spell it out for you since you're a child. Special privileges means "above the current law." AKA a carve out for POTUS status that does NOT EXIST. You really are dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 33 minutes ago, User said: Yeah, lets pretend like it was not supported and cheered on by Democrats. Just like you. You're the one who was caught IGNORANTLY claiming that Democrats were trying to do what RepubliCONS DID. And instead of admitting you f'ed up, you're changing the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: Biden didn't break the law because the law REQUIRES INTENT. Duh Biden talked to his ghost writer about the classified documents... he did have intent. Duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: You're the one who was caught IGNORANTLY claiming that Democrats were trying to do what RepubliCONS DID. And instead of admitting you f'ed up, you're changing the subject. No, There were more instances than the Colorado one, the Democrat AG of Maine removed him from the ballot. Again all cheered on by the left... I did not F up, you are just being dishonest as usual. 10 minutes ago, robosmith said: Let me spell it out for you since you're a child. Special privileges means "above the current law." AKA a carve out for POTUS status that does NOT EXIST. You really are dense. LOL, you are so dishonest. Now you change "above the law" to "above the current law" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Since I had a TS/SCI clearance, I know far more about it than you ever will. What that about the same time you was training dragons whilst riding a snowboard down a lava flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 29 minutes ago, robosmith said: He couldn't prosecute a sitting POTUS. Duh. That's how Trump escaped prosecution for 10 counts of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. And Hur couldn't prove INTENT. And you didn't know that cause you a demented old fool and a Canuck. Nobody can take classified documents from a scif without intent. You're just a liar robo-bot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, User said: a law to move criminal actions against the President to Federal Courts. The alleged crime has to be prosecuted where it was committed. He wasn't the president at the time it was alleged to have been committed. This pointless attempt to draw attention will not pass. I'm tired of misrepresentations and outright lies. You want to be dumb? be it. Yes, you have the right. I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, User said: Biden talked to his ghost writer about the classified documents... he did have intent. Duh. Hur says he didn't so YOU'RE LYING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, User said: No, There were more instances than the Colorado one, the Democrat AG of Maine removed him from the ballot. Again all cheered on by the left... I did not F up, you are just being dishonest as usual. You said Colorado, LIAR. 1 hour ago, User said: LOL, you are so dishonest. Now you change "above the law" to "above the current law" Of course "the law" is the current law. Like I said, there would be no need to change the law if the current law already gave Trump the special privileges HE WANTS. You really are dense. 1 hour ago, Legato said: What that about the same time you was training dragons whilst riding a snowboard down a lava flow. Whatever you want to believe, TROLL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted June 18 Author Report Share Posted June 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: Nobody can take classified documents from a scif without intent. You're just a liar robo-bot. They can when they're personal notes. In that case, they are not even necessarily needing classified protections. You're just a Dunning Kruger IGNORAMUS. Edited June 18 by robosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.