Jump to content

Adam Shiff


baddog

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

For one he flat out lied about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, simply made up stuff and made it appear as he was reading it straight from the 

5 minutes ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

Imagine still believing it’s not a uniparty.

 

This is just another distraction to keep the poors and peanut brains occupied and mad at each other, while the politicians miraculously accumulate significant amounts of wealth while holding public office 

 

@Unwoke

Before you get too jaded, check out Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, one of, if not the most honorable people in the Senate.  Net worth in 2018 reported at $268,000. Hardly a significant amount of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, baddog said:

Lmao…couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. 
 

Rep. Matt Gaetz introduces 'PENCIL' resolution barring Adam Schiff from accessing classified information

 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at

This is the hidden content, please

“During My Time as CIA Director and Secretary of State, I Know He Leaked Classified Information” – Mike Pompeo on Adam Schiff!

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schiff, endlessly telling everyone of the proof he had on Trump’s Russian Collusion.  The man, and his followers, are right out of 1984 with the Ministry of Proof, and doublethink.  I dusted that old book out and reading it again after about 45 years.  Interesting (scary) how the Dems are following it, almost like a blueprint.  Say/do one thing today.  Tomorrow blame it on Republicans, and their electorate eats it up.  I’ve no idea how the folks don’t see it.  Don’t want to?  It’s a head scratcher for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hagar said:

Schiff, endlessly telling everyone of the proof he had on Trump’s Russian Collusion.  The man, and his followers, are right out of 1984 with the Ministry of Proof, and doublethink.  I dusted that old book out and reading it again after about 45 years.  Interesting (scary) how the Dems are following it, almost like a blueprint.  Say/do one thing today.  Tomorrow blame it on Republicans, and their electorate eats it up.  I’ve no idea how the folks don’t see it.  Don’t want to?  It’s a head scratcher for sure.

Scary how the Repubs are following it, almost like a blueprint. Say/do one thing today. Tomorrow blame it on the Democrats and their electorate eats it up. I have no idea how folks don’t see it. Don’t want to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Scary how the Repubs are following it, almost like a blueprint. Say/do one thing today. Tomorrow blame it on the Democrats and their electorate eats it up. I have no idea how folks don’t see it. Don’t want to?

Can’t see what’s not there. Why don’t you try posting links rather than your opinions every now and then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UT alum said:

Scary how the Repubs are following it, almost like a blueprint. Say/do one thing today. Tomorrow blame it on the Democrats and their electorate eats it up. I have no idea how folks don’t see it. Don’t want to?

Or this, use the little grey cells nature gave you to post an original thought rather than having to simply use someone else’s thoughts and simply changing the words?  Too hard?  Evidently.  Are you even aware how many times Schiff claimed to have proof of Trump’s involvement in Russian Collusion?  Me neither but the number would be staggering.  So for you to support him is proof that you fall for doublethink.  Really guy, you should be able to see this.  How you can’t is simply mind boggling to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UT alum said:

Scary how the Repubs are following it, almost like a blueprint. Say/do one thing today. Tomorrow blame it on the Democrats and their electorate eats it up. I have no idea how folks don’t see it. Don’t want to?

Did you realize Shiff leaked classified intel to the press?  Or do you not know this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TxFan said:

We finally agree, imagine the big names on that list! We already know who associated with him

Heidi Fleiss’ list was released and lots of people from all walks of life were exposed. She wasn’t involved in sexual predation of minors, so that list was probably safe enough to release. 
 

Back on topic….Shiff is one huge POS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 1:13 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

Can’t see what’s not there. Why don’t you try posting links rather than your opinions every now and then?

The only links I ever see on here are the ones that confirm the poster’s biases.  I prefer to read different points of view and then form my own. It’s called independent thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

The only links I ever see on here are the ones that confirm the poster’s biases.  I prefer to read different points of view and then form my own. It’s called independent thought.

Then you aren't reading all the links, many are hard news that aren't biased one way or another.

I don't care to see one's point of view in a news story, hard news stands on it's own, the rest is commentary.

There are others on here that are capable of independent thinking also, heck, we even spell and do math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 5:26 PM, baddog said:

Heidi Fleiss’ list was released and lots of people from all walks of life were exposed. She wasn’t involved in sexual predation of minors, so that list was probably safe enough to release. 
 

Back on topic….Shiff is one huge POS

I’d like to revisit Heidi Fleiss’ list for a minute. Her list had all the weirdos on it. You know, men who liked having sex with women and such as that. Epstein’s list….. one can only imagine! It’s really why it hasn’t been released. 
Bug eyed Shiff is crying about losing his position….boo hoo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, UT alum said:

The only links I ever see on here are the ones that confirm the poster’s biases.  I prefer to read different points of view and then form my own. It’s called independent thought.

Would you like to share those links to different points of view so us rubes can be enlightened to the same truth to which you are exposed? Of course you won't. It's called lying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...