Will Trump use violence when he loses?

Grokmaster said:
You mean like the Thugocrat riots EVERYWHERE after the 20216 Trump victory?


RTX2TBD3-e1478986895813.jpg
Click to expand...

No, I mean like Jan. 6, when Trump organized the violent attack on Capitol.
 
BidenPresident said:
No, I mean like Jan. 6, when Trump organized the violent attack on Capitol.
Click to expand...

Trump did no such thing. Why do you keep trying that lie, when the videotape proves otherwise He called for peaceful protest, BUT LEFTISTS ONLY HEAR WHAT THEY WANT TO.


Jan 6 wasn't shit next to the Thugocrat riots of 2016 and 2020.
 
Grokmaster said:

Trump did no such thing. Why do you keep trying that lie, when the videotape proves otherwise He called for peaceful protest, BUT LEFTISTS ONLY HEAR WHAT THEY WANT TO.


Jan 6 wasn't shit next to the Thugocrat riots of 2016 and 2020.
Click to expand...

If you literally know nothing about that day except for that line, then you know nothing.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They didn't have a choice. They were subpoenaed and had to show up. If they, as in any Stalinist show trial, went against the court's notions or the party line it was off to the gulag--in this case a federal indictment--for not giving the correct answers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confessing all the Trumpers lied under oath. It just goes to prove they take their oaths as lightly as you took yours, Terry. LOL
 
BidenPresident said:
They are not.
Click to expand...

...other than the House and Senate Ethics Committees, it appears that no congressional committee has ever issued a subpoena to a sitting member of Congress.

Congress has no explicit constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas.

Given that the Jan. 6 committee’s limited options for successfully obtaining information by means of subpoena, and the potentially dangerous norms a subpoena battle could create, the committee may simply forgo any attempt to subpoena members and instead rely on information from other sources.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-congressional-committee-subpoena-members-congress

So, yes they technically are, but a committee could breech tradition and house rules, and subpoena members. This is at the risk that it then becomes a normal and regular means to compel members to do or not do some legislative task.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
...other than the House and Senate Ethics Committees, it appears that no congressional committee has ever issued a subpoena to a sitting member of Congress.

Congress has no explicit constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas.

Given that the Jan. 6 committee’s limited options for successfully obtaining information by means of subpoena, and the potentially dangerous norms a subpoena battle could create, the committee may simply forgo any attempt to subpoena members and instead rely on information from other sources.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-congressional-committee-subpoena-members-congress

So, yes they technically are, but a committee could breech tradition and house rules, and subpoena members. This is at the risk that it then becomes a normal and regular means to compel members to do or not do some legislative task.
Click to expand...

A subpoena applies to everyone. Your fascism is despised by most Americans.
 
BrandonPresident said:
A subpoena applies to everyone. Your fascism failure to follow the party line is despised by most Americans Leftists, like me.
Click to expand...

There fixed it for you.

NB the original quote is complete. Strike throughs and parts in red are mine added to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T. A. Gardner said:
...other than the House and Senate Ethics Committees, it appears that no congressional committee has ever issued a subpoena to a sitting member of Congress.

Congress has no explicit constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas.

Given that the Jan. 6 committee’s limited options for successfully obtaining information by means of subpoena, and the potentially dangerous norms a subpoena battle could create, the committee may simply forgo any attempt to subpoena members and instead rely on information from other sources.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-congressional-committee-subpoena-members-congress

So, yes they technically are, but a committee could breech tradition and house rules, and subpoena members. This is at the risk that it then becomes a normal and regular means to compel members to do or not do some legislative task.
Click to expand...

If true, then you are claiming the House of Trump, led by Gym Jordan and other TDSers, are criminals for investigating Hunter? Please clarify, Terry.
 
Doc Dutch said:
If true, then you are claiming the House of Trump, led by Gym Jordan and other TDSers, are criminals for investigating Hunter? Please clarify, Terry.
Click to expand...

You are retarded. Bagman is not a member of congress. We are discussing subpoenaing members of congress.
 
Doc Dutch said:
That's a Rule 16 violation, Terry.
Click to expand...

No, the whole quote is there, and the changes made are obvious. I made no changes to the original quote that cannot be seen. Rule 16 is about changing quotes where what is quoted is not the whole of the original. That is, quotation in part or changing the original in a manner that makes it appear the changed quote is original.

But, just to make you happy, I'll go back and add a disclaimer to that post as well.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You are retarded. Bagman is not a member of congress. We are discussing subpoenaing members of congress.
Click to expand...
No shit, ex-Chief Terry, but that isn't all you posted. You also stated "Congress has no explicit constitutional power to conduct investigations". I asked you to clarify about Hunter and you, as usual began venting insults and half-truths.

T. A. Gardner said:
...other than the House and Senate Ethics Committees, it appears that no congressional committee has ever issued a subpoena to a sitting member of Congress.

Congress has no explicit constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas.\.
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, the whole quote is there, and the changes made are obvious. I made no changes to the original quote that cannot be seen. Rule 16 is about changing quotes where what is quoted is not the whole of the original. That is, quotation in part or changing the original in a manner that makes it appear the changed quote is original.

But, just to make you happy, I'll go back and add a disclaimer to that post as well.
Click to expand...
Let me help you with the rule, son:

16. Quote Box Altering:

One can alter a quote box by removing some of a wall of text to expose the specific part you are responding to, or splitting it apart so you can respond to each item one at a time. However, altering the words posted and changing the meaning of what they said for whatever reason (a joke for instance) is not allowed unless you change the "quoted by" portion of the quote to make it clear that the original poster did not post what you are "making" them say. We will begin by deleting these posts, and if it continues we will get into banning. I will update this rule with changes until it settles in.


Now please prove to me you really understand what you did wrong and are not just a crazy, old man who only sees what he wants to see.

A disclaimer doesn't cut it, son. Again, read the rule. You have to make it clear that the post was not made by the person you quoted. Damo even included examples for those sane and intelligent enough to read them.

What I'm really curious about is whether you are honest and sane enough to see your violation, fix the violation and apologize for the violation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top