Treasonous Conspiracy!

[DCT]

56 minutes ago, baddog said:

Poor little libs. Their leader has committed treason and they can’t handle it. Facts destroy their narrative every time. Can’t even offer up a rebuttal. Pretty comical really, but not surprising. The democratic party has been sinking dramatically and this should drown it. Now they can call themselves the communist party, which is where they have been heading for years. Obama, the leader of the lgbtq and the woke party is going down. It needed to happen.

What possible interest would the US government have in keeping Epstein’s clients secret? Oh…" Vance said in a post on X on Dec. 30, 2021. Vance pointed in his post to a right-wing activist's claim that Biden's Justice Department made a deal to keep a "little black book" of Epstein associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking contacts secret.

Trump administration created the narrative and ran on a promise.  
Could there be a little black book?  If this is a hoax why Ghislaine Maxwell serving a 20 year sentence?

 

[baddog]

1 minute ago, DCT said:

What possible interest would the US government have in keeping Epstein’s clients secret? Oh…" Vance said in a post on X on Dec. 30, 2021. Vance pointed in his post to a right-wing activist's claim that Biden's Justice Department made a deal to keep a "little black book" of Epstein associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking contacts secret.

Trump administration created the narrative and ran on a promise.  
Could there be a little black book?  If this is a hoax why Ghislaine Maxwell serving a 20 year sentence?

 

There is already an Epstein thread. Your conspiracy theory should go there. Stop highjacking this thread.

[DCT]

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

There is already an Epstein thread. Your conspiracy theory should go there. Stop highjacking this thread.

Answer the question.  Mr. Administrator.

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, DCT said:

Answer the question.  Mr. Administrator.

Already answered by Epstein’s lawyer. Trump is not on any list. I knew it wouldn’t be good enough for the libs. You have trouble with facts.

Now, this is a thread about Obama. He committed a treasonous act which you care to overlook. SURPRISE

[LumRaiderFan]

9 minutes ago, baddog said:

Already answered by Epstein’s lawyer. Trump is not on any list. I knew it wouldn’t be good enough for the libs. You have trouble with facts.

Now, this is a thread about Obama. He committed a treasonous act which you care to overlook. SURPRISE

TDS folks can’t talk about anyone but Trump, he owns them.

[baddog]

Just came from cnn news site and they have absolutely NOTHING about Obama. Fake news is also not reporting it. This is why libs are so uninformed and easily manipulated. 
 

[OlDawg]

Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution defines ‘treason.’ It’s a very clear, narrow definition to keep it from being thrown around loosely.

As distasteful and corrupt as Obama’s actions were—if proven—they don’t amount to treason, sedition, or insurrection.

The previous Socialist-In-Chief will never be charged with anything due to immunity, statute of limitations, & just plain old protection of the Office of the President.

How anyone could possibly vote Democrat—after the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history with the Biden Admin., Democrats installing their own candidate regardless of the people (for the 2nd time), and this—is beyond me. But, plenty will do just that. Idiots.

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution defines ‘treason.’ It’s a very clear, narrow definition to keep it from being thrown around loosely.

As distasteful and corrupt as Obama’s actions were—if proven—they don’t amount to treason, sedition, or insurrection.

The previous Socialist-In-Chief will never be charged with anything due to immunity, statute of limitations, & just plain old protection of the Office of the President.

How anyone could possibly vote Democrat—after the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history with the Biden Admin., Democrats installing their own candidate regardless of the people (for the 2nd time), and this—is beyond me. But, plenty will do just that. Idiots.

You are correct. It is called sedition. I will use my terms accordingly.

[thetragichippy]

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE

[OlDawg]

42 minutes ago, baddog said:

You are correct. It is called sedition. I will use my terms accordingly.

The smartest thing this government could do would be to start revoking all security clearances at separations of service for either military or political personnel. Obama still has his clearance. Why? Same with any of them. Never did understand the policy of allowing them to continue. If someone needs to be read in, make them pass another clearance based on up-to-date information.

[baddog]

The Mueller Report. What a crock…..

 

[UT alum]

15 hours ago, baddog said:

You’ve gone off the deep end. That wasn’t even worth posting. 

That means I hit a nerve. You know it’s true.

[UT alum]

13 hours ago, Reagan said:

No doubt a President does have some immunity.  But -- treason is not one of them!  Tulsi has the receipts!  

No treason. He was guarding election integrity. 

[OlDawg]

10 minutes ago, UT alum said:

No treason. He was guarding election integrity. 

[baddog]

14 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That means I hit a nerve. You know it’s true.

You give yourself way too much credit. Your post made no sense…..again.

[UT alum]

3 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Exactly. That’s how absolutely insane the Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity to sitting Presidents was.

[OlDawg]

2 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Exactly. That’s how absolutely insane the Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity to sitting Presidents was.

Wrong on so many levels. But, I guess this means you agree Obama interfered in the election. Got it. I agree with you.

[LumRaiderFan]

5 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Much of all the BS going on wouldn’t be an issue if our governments actually went back to their core functions—and reasons for creation—of providing for the defense, and common welfare of it’s people.

’Welfare’ in this case meant providing the conditions for freedom & opportunity without government interference.

The federal government seems to believe its new core function is wealth redistribution. Both sides fight over how to implement their own redistribution plans. This even occurs at our state & local levels.

We—the people—are building our own socialist state because we keep asking the government to do more instead of less.

I apologize for my libertarian streak popping out again.

Agree 100%.

The federal government has very few enumerated powers laid out in the constitution, we’re a long way from original intent with the nanny state we’ve created.

[UT alum]

4 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Wrong on so many levels. But, I guess this means you agree Obama interfered in the election. Got it. I agree with you.

Gimme a couple of those levels, if you don’t mind.

[UT alum]

9 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Much of all the BS going on wouldn’t be an issue if our governments actually went back to their core functions—and reasons for creation—of providing for the defense, and common welfare of it’s people.

’Welfare’ in this case meant providing the conditions for freedom & opportunity without government interference.

The federal government seems to believe its new core function is wealth redistribution. Both sides fight over how to implement their own redistribution plans. This even occurs at our state & local levels.

We—the people—are building our own socialist state because we keep asking the government to do more instead of less.

I apologize for my libertarian streak popping out again.

We are fast tracking to an oligarchy, Bubba. The “welfare state” is small potatoes to the oligarchs. Small price to pay to keep workers fed and housed and the unemployed/unemployable alive so we don’t look too inhumane. 

[UT alum]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

Already answered by Epstein’s lawyer. Trump is not on any list. I knew it wouldn’t be good enough for the libs. You have trouble with facts.

Now, this is a thread about Obama. He committed a treasonous act which you care to overlook. SURPRISE

I have a hard time listening to people who want to play hardball, then cry when they get hit by a pitch. As I said, no more or less treasonous than Trump’s play for ballots and destabilization of election security. Lie in that batter’s box and cry for a while, baddog.

[OlDawg]

40 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Gimme a couple of those levels, if you don’t mind.

1. SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS isn’t above the law. Read the actual ruling.
2. SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS can’t be ‘second guessed’ for official acts performed under his/her duties granted by the  Constitution.
3. The decision was sent back to lower courts for further development. Trump was re-elected. Case was closed before further development of what was official and what wasn’t.
4. SCOTUS NEVER gave carte Blanche for any POTUS to perform illegal/criminal acts. But, they set the bar very high as to not infringe on Presidential powers.

This ruling will also be what protects Obama from current accusations. Not so for others.

[OlDawg]

27 minutes ago, UT alum said:

We are fast tracking to an oligarchy, Bubba. The “welfare state” is small potatoes to the oligarchs. Small price to pay to keep workers fed and housed and the unemployed/unemployable alive so we don’t look too inhumane. 

Needless fears. There are checks and balances aplenty. In the end, there’s the 2nd Amendment. For better or worse, this alone sets America apart from other nations.

[UT alum]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

1. SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS isn’t above the law. Read the actual ruling.
2. SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS can’t be ‘second guessed’ for official acts performed under his/her duties granted by the  Constitution.
3. The decision was sent back to lower courts for further development. Trump was re-elected. Case was closed before further development of what was official and what wasn’t.
4. SCOTUS NEVER gave carte Blanche for any POTUS to perform illegal/criminal acts. But, they set the bar very high as to not infringe on Presidential powers.

I knew all that when I posted. It’s the absolute lunacy of the ruling that concerns me. Will the Supreme Court get to decide “official” presidential duties? It’s all ludicrous. 

[OlDawg]

10 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I knew all that when I posted. It’s the absolute lunacy of the ruling that concerns me. Will the Supreme Court get to decide “official” presidential duties? It’s all ludicrous. 

The wise part of the ruling maintains the separation of powers. SCOTUS rules on constitutional matters. Lower courts rule on criminality via powers granted.

As I edited before your post, this ruling will also be what protects Obama from current accusations.

Yes. Broad leeway was given.