Trump Under Fire

[ChrisJones 7,975]

18 hours ago, green lurchers said:

Do you mean Schiff the liar yawwwn  and muller the errrm 

As per the current insinuation from the White House. When Mueller releases his report it has to go by the Don's approval. Don can legally veto it's release via his Attorney General. He can redact any or all of the release. He can release some, all, or none, of the report.

What the Schiff is saying that if the White House attempts to bury any of the report they will subpoena Mueller. Question him and then fully publicize the Q&A to get around any potential gagging of the report that the Trump administration may attempt. This is good for transparency. The public want to know what the actual f*ck has been going on.

9 hours ago, Francie said:

Well sure thats gran mueller cant lie under of oath (sic)

Well he could but then he'll end up in the same boat that the people he's already investigated. All this talk of witch hunts and lies this investigation has yielded 37 indictments and 4 prison sentences. Most of it is already laid out in the public domain. I thought you'd be pleased with crooked political activists being caught, tried, and convicted of fraud etc. Isn't that what we wanted to see? The American justice system is actually trying to circumnavigate a massive cover up and stop decades of Kennedy-esque conspiracies. I thought you'd be into that, mate!

Edited February 26, 2019 by ChrisJones

[scothunter 12,609]

As long as it's the other side though Chris. Lol

f***ing sad as f**k it's the new politics. 

My man can lie Nd steal and commit treason but that's ok cz he hates Muslims and spics.

 

[green lurchers 16,621]

Get real the trey gives it to you straight but hey that’s not wat you want is t lol  sad as fk anyone who stands by them dems  get a fkn grip nah  u divvi cnts , 

Keep banging on bout trump plz explain Benghazi ??? You can’t can ya  ? actually Benghazi no laughing matter but hey can you get round that ?? fkn Jesus wept shame on use 

Edited February 26, 2019 by green lurchers

[green lurchers 16,621]

On 25/02/2019 at 15:30, ChrisJones said:

58 ex-national security officials to denounce Don's 'emergency declaration' at southern border.

" “The President’s actions are at odds with the overwhelming evidence in the public record, including the administration’s own data and estimates,” the former officials said. "

 

So glad your not a bias  Brexit reporter we’d be on the slippery slide to hell with that doom and forever gloom report  maybe you should interview a family that has lost a loved one down to an illegal scumbag so loved by the dem fake media ? Ok skip that fundamental issue eh mate feel sure thers plenty evidence let’s not forget the meth and fentinal moved over the border by the loved ones  eh 2009  the border is fkn flooded  and and dem fake bias ne ws that contradicts is bullshit news   

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by green lurchers

[VOON 1,317]

 

 

[VOON 1,317]

 

 

[Lenmcharristar 9,734]

FAKE NEWS ABOVE

[Francie 6,368]

 funny an true.

 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

On 26/02/2019 at 19:06, green lurchers said:

Get real the trey gives it to you straight but hey that’s not wat you want is t lol

Mate? Is that the same Trey Gowdy that ran a house select committee to investigate Benghazi? The same Trey Gowdy that spent 2½ years and nearly $8millionUSD investigating then senator Clinton and ultimately found no evidence of wrong doing?

On 26/02/2019 at 20:55, green lurchers said:

So glad your not a bias

Of course I'm bias. I'm an unapologetic Libertarian and I demand transparency of those that take my tax money and run my affairs. Unless you're still insinuating that I'm somehow supporting the Democrats despite repeated claims that I'm a Libertarian!

On 26/02/2019 at 20:55, green lurchers said:

maybe you should interview a family that has lost a loved one down to an illegal scumbag so loved by the dem fake media ?

That would be extremely difficult to do. Interviewing anyone that's lost of loved one is a harrowing experience but how is any of what I posted in the previous link biased?

I'm sure I've mentioned this several times over several years but I'll try again. I have no issue with spending federal tax dollars on border security with Mexico, or even Canada for that matter. Providing the civilian oversight on spending is present I have no issue with increasing that federal spending either providing that money spent is done correctly and is fully accountable the whole way through. As a Libertarian I believe that one of the purposes of the federal government is national security and I agree with all that there has to be a balanced bi-partisan approach to securing the borders. Funnily enough so does everyone in the article I posted.

The disagreement here isn't the funds allocated.

If Don can demonstrate why we have to spend an extra $7bnUSD on the southern border I'll accept that. The problem is that he can't. He cannot argue his point and has now shifted the narrative to one of national emergency despite having the ability in the first two years of his presidency to write himself a blank cheque at any time. Security experts across the nation and more importantly in the regions effected by the study have concluded overwhelmingly that a gigantic multibillion dollar wall spanning nearly 2000 miles is money not best spent in the interests of border security. The evidence is overwhelming. It's empirical and it's easily researchable. The people that control the borders want better technology and boots on the ground to tackle the real problems facing trafficking and cartel violence and I wholeheartedly support giving them extra funding to do their jobs providing that money isn't spunked away in true government fashion.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

On 26/02/2019 at 19:06, green lurchers said:

Keep banging on bout trump plz explain Benghazi ??? You can’t can ya  ? actually Benghazi no laughing matter but hey can you get round that ?? fkn Jesus wept shame on use 

From the mouth of the great man himself...

So whaddabout this special investigation then? Don has had the house, the senate, and the presidency and for the first two years he could have opened any number of investigations into the Clintons and the Obamas but he didn't. Why?!

Investigating Clinton was one of his election promises and despite 10 Benghazi hearings he was more than willing to open an 11th and probably more if the 11th investigation didn't yield different results to the previous 10? Right?

Can you explain why the people's champion, self proclaimed swamp drainer, Donald J Trump dropped this well played ball?

[Francie 6,368]

2 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

From the mouth of the great man himself...

So whaddabout this special investigation then? Don has had the house, the senate, and the presidency and for the first two years he could have opened any number of investigations into the Clintons and the Obamas but he didn't. Why?!

Investigating Clinton was one of his election promises and despite 10 Benghazi hearings he was more than willing to open an 11th and probably more if the 11th investigation didn't yield different results to the previous 10? Right?

Can you explain why the people's champion, self proclaimed swamp drainer, Donald J Trump dropped this well played ball?

Its on his todo list chris he very busy lol

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

Its on his todo list chris he very busy lol

I don't doubt it mate. I hear that executive time is a real drain!

[green lurchers 16,621]

3 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

Mate? Is that the same Trey Gowdy that ran a house select committee to investigate Benghazi? The same Trey Gowdy that spent 2½ years and nearly $8millionUSD investigating then senator Clinton and ultimately found no evidence of wrong doing?

Of course I'm bias. I'm an unapologetic Libertarian and I demand transparency of those that take my tax money and run my affairs. Unless you're still insinuating that I'm somehow supporting the Democrats despite repeated claims that I'm a Libertarian!

That would be extremely difficult to do. Interviewing anyone that's lost of loved one is a harrowing experience but how is any of what I posted in the previous link biased?

I'm sure I've mentioned this several times over several years but I'll try again. I have no issue with spending federal tax dollars on border security with Mexico, or even Canada for that matter. Providing the civilian oversight on spending is present I have no issue with increasing that federal spending either providing that money spent is done correctly and is fully accountable the whole way through. As a Libertarian I believe that one of the purposes of the federal government is national security and I agree with all that there has to be a balanced bi-partisan approach to securing the borders. Funnily enough so does everyone in the article I posted.

The disagreement here isn't the funds allocated.

If Don can demonstrate why we have to spend an extra $7bnUSD on the southern border I'll accept that. The problem is that he can't. He cannot argue his point and has now shifted the narrative to one of national emergency despite having the ability in the first two years of his presidency to write himself a blank cheque at any time. Security experts across the nation and more importantly in the regions effected by the study have concluded overwhelmingly that a gigantic multibillion dollar wall spanning nearly 2000 miles is money not best spent in the interests of border security. The evidence is overwhelming. It's empirical and it's easily researchable. The people that control the borders want better technology and boots on the ground to tackle the real problems facing trafficking and cartel violence and I wholeheartedly support giving them extra funding to do their jobs providing that money isn't spunked away in true government fashion.

Treys investigation against the corrupt Clinton bought fbi involved for 8 mill and a one eyed blind man can tell Clinton was helped big time by the fbi on more than a zillion accounts  but hey if your saying you can see no wrong doing then you git tickets to a diff ball game now mueller and 40 mill into collusion and a ant man with half a cell can read that between the lines crack on n Chris you the man

Edited February 28, 2019 by green lurchers

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Press release following the summit in Vietnam...

NK were willing to de-nuclearize some areas in exchange for lifting all sanctions. Don's not happy with the areas up for negotiation and has walked away pending further negotiations. No deal. Honestly, this seems like the best result we could have expected from the summit. I know Don was expecting more but recent weeks have seen the WH scale back their expectations from the meeting and rightly so as it played out. As Don's mentioned there have been no further nuclear tests and that is definitely progress.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, green lurchers said:

Treys investigation against the corrupt Clinton bought fbi involved for 8 mill and a one eyed blind man can tell Clinton was helped big time by the fbi on more than a zillion accounts  but hey if your saying you can see no wrong doing then you git tickets to a diff ball game now mueller and 40 mill into collusion and a ant man with half a cell can read that between the lines crack on n Chris you the man

I'm out of likes for today so I'll have to give you a in lieu of a like!

You've either not read what I posted or deliberately attempting to misconstrue it. I'm guessing a bit of both.