Matt Dillon
Retardium User
I'm sure it's not to 100s of queer men.
HOUSE POLITBURO IS TERRIFIED OF TRUMP TESTIFYING LIVE BEFORE AMERICA
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
I'm sure it's not to 100s of queer men.
Yakuda
Verified User
I'm going to dumb this down for you as much as I can. You and I seem to agree that we want criminals to be punished. You claim trump is a criminal. Fine. That doesn't mean he is a criminal just that you think he is. We use evidence to decide whether or not someone has committed a crime thereby making them a criminal. Now you claim there is a mountain of evidence, I suspect you think, that would prove trump is a criminal. Fine. That determination is only made in a court of law not in a Congressional committee meeting. Since they aren't doing that this makes the whole thing a dog and pony show. I know you hate to see that but the facts support my position.
The McCarthy Red Scare was based on another fake conspiracy, so you would not doubt have supported it to get all those commies. Now it is good to see you think it was a negative.
In our criminal system, I don't need proof of innocence. You need proof of guilt. What hard evidence do you have to support your claim that Hillary ordered the deletions after the subpoena was issued? Oh. That's right. You have NONE.
Probably for the very reason the the tech testified to under oath. He had forgotten about it and then remembered when he saw a news story about Hillary's server. That was his "oh sh**" moment. Do you now see the problem you have? There is testimony under oath that she didn't order the deletions after the subpoena was issued and no evidence that she did.
Her emails included some that contained classified information. You claimed they subpoenaed classified information. That is false. They subpoenaed emails related to Libya. All the emails on Hillary's server did not relate to Libya. We don't know how many of the classified ones, if any, related to Libya since those are classified and unavailable for the public.
Clearly you are remembering things that didn't happen and then are trying to tell us they did even though there is no evidence of it happening. That would be you trying to gaslight.
Let's look at what you provided -
No subpoena requesting "classified information" only one requesting emails related to Libya.
Mills, not Hillary, requested the deletion of the emails 3 months prior to the subpoena.
The employee was the one that did the deletions by wiping the drive. (His name was not Hillary.)
He told the FBI he did it himself without direction in March to do so.
Your own source shows your statements to be nothing but fabulations.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
My bet, the committee won't let him have a pack of lawyers with him, they might--MIGHT--grant one. They won't let him rant because he will spin them up just like he always does with such people. He, and they, can't help themselves. As for perjury, that's going to be hard prove. What the committee considers a "lie" is often no more than a difference in opinion.
If it is Trump's belief that the election was stolen or fraudulent, that isn't a lie, and it is really easy to drag in hours of various Democrats saying the exact same things about the 2016 election. Are they lying too?
You see, when the defense gets to present their evidence, unlike the Jan 6 committee where everything is one-sided and decided by the committee in what amounts to a show trial, the narrative presented by the committee falls apart. That's why the Democrats had to make it a show trial. That's why they wouldn't let the Republicans put who they wanted on the committee and instead selected two Republicans that would fully go along with the Democrat narrative (to their detriment).
Wow, you seem to be obsessed with "faggots". Dreaming about eating a bag of dicks, Princess? Go for it! We promise not to judge.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
It's just that I know you're a faggot.
So, my friend. There is only one way you can be "sure". Again, it's very brave of you to come out and we promise not to judge.
Hey I understand your Type II Diabetes is flaring up and that this weekend there's going to be a memorial for your right foot. We're all sorry we can't be there but we send our condolences, you fat twumptard pig.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Look, you dumbass: I have credible links that prove you're lying and all you have is your stupid rhetoric. Fuck Off. And die.
Also her subordinates mighty conveniently provided her with some implausible deniability.
Last edited:
You're having fever dreams right now about large, veiny black erect penises slapping you in the face.. it's like you're trying to eat apples in a barrel, you just can't get a grip.. must be so frustrating for you!
No witness comes in with a pack of lawyers but Trump will have one and likely two. Whether he would listen to their advice is something else entirely. Their advice would be to show up and plead the fifth.
The problem with claiming that is it just a Trump belief is that the DoJ has plenty of evidence from the people around Trump. It is the DoJ that would charge Trump with perjury based on the evidence. As was just revealed in a court in CA when Eastman was trying to prevent his emails from being turned over by claiming atty/client privilege. Trump was told and he knew that there was no evidence of fraud in GA but then even with the advice of his lawyers telling him there was no evidence he signed a document under oath to be filed with a GA court saying there was evidence. Trump can't believe and testify that something is true if he has been told it isn't true. Unless of course you want to argue that Trump is insane. Then you could argue that he believes something that isn't true.
If Trump under oath claims that he has evidence that 10,000 dead or unregistered people voted in GA, he will be committing perjury. The statement is clearly a lie. Trump has clearly been told it is a lie and there is evidence of him being told more than once. Trump would be free to claim as a defense the lie wasn't material but he can't say the statement is factual since he doesn't have the evidence.
This is a link to a story on the latest court ruling in CA where the judge had previously stated there is evidence of Trump and Eastman conspiring to defraud the government. I suggest you read it.
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-more-eastman-emails-193643771.html
Trump may have already committed perjury by signing that document.
LOL. I point out that your link supports my statements and your only response is to tell me to fuck off? So much for your superior intelligence. Did you even bother to read your link? Do you not understand how the judicial system in the US works? All defendants are presumed innocence and you have to provide proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then you show up with no proof at all and claim she is guilty. I don't think I am the dumbass here.
Yakuda
Verified User
Kind of like someone claiming there is a "mountain of evidence" of trumps crimes but instead of having a trial he's being called to a congressional committee meeting?????? You people amaze me.
Do you mean like claiming there is a "mountain of evidence" of Hillary's crimes but instead of having a trial she's being called to 5 different congressional committee meetings? The DoJ looked at Hillary's "crimes" and made a statement that there was no there there.
When it comes to Trump, the DoJ is still investigating. We won't know for the next couple of years that there is no there there unless they decide to indict or make a statement declining to indict. Testifying to Congress has no bearing on an indictment unless the person decides to perjure themselves in front of Congress. You don't seem to understand that the DoJ operates independent of Congress. They can both be investigating the same thing.
Yakuda
Verified User
Yes that's exactly what I mean and I'm glad you recognize you people are doing something you claimed you hated.
How else would a "mountain of evidence" have been accumulated had their not been investigations already? This isn't about "protecting democracy" as you people like to claim it's about getting trump. I
If you have the evidence get the trial started get him convicted and move on. But it's clear you people don't want that. Go listen to Bill Maher he is trying to help you people but you too full of blood lust for trump.
Who is "you people?" When did I do something I hated?
You are so blinded by your ideology you don't seem to understand how Congress or the DoJ works. The DoJ doesn't care if people think he is guilty. They care if they have accumulated enough evidence to convict. Gathering that evidence to make an airtight case takes time. Whether they ultimately think they have enough evidence we will have to wait and see. The testimony to Congress doesn't matter when it comes to an indictment. The DoJ looks at the evidence to convict and the evidence to exonerate since the standard for indictment is supposed to be one of highly likely to get a conviction. (A standard Durham seems to have abandoned as both his cases were so weak that the jury quickly returned not guilty in both cases.)
The Congressional investigation is to protect democracy and to try to write laws so what happened on Jan 6 or worse can't happen again. Would you be OK if Vice President Harris simply refused to accept the results from Texas and Florida in 2024 and that resulted in a Democrat being President? Don't you think we should have laws to prevent that from happening? While some on the committee think Trump committed crimes, their job is not to convict him of crimes. They have said that any evidence they uncover of crimes will be turned over to the DoJ.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the McCarthy Commission was about another fake conspiracy like the 1/6 Takeover Scare, so you would no doubt have supported prosecuting everyone based in your lies.......it remains to be seen if you will admit your duplicity.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
don't pretend Trump is not the bullseye on your target.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the idiots of the world around us.....
In that case you are using the wrong pronoun.