AOC Perhaps Facing Legal Action?

[jbycho 583]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No, but as was pointed out above if it was a priority for Trump he could have linked it. He regularly links disconnected policy issues in his demands.

There was one signing that needed to be done for public viewing. All was worked out. Zelensky went all Broadway in front of the audience. 

He lost. 

[Maximum Overkill 1,739]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No, but as was pointed out above if it was a priority for Trump he could have linked it. He regularly links disconnected policy issues in his demands.

The Coke Drip from Zelensky was unreal, he was high as a kite in that meeting. 

He needs rehab, not 20 more billion for more Coke. 

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

The Coke Drip from Zelensky was unreal, he was high as a kite in that meeting. 

He needs rehab, not 20 more billion for more Coke. 

I’m pretty pretty sure Trump has done deals with people on coke before. I think the problem there was Zelensky was going to take it.

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

10 minutes ago, jbycho said:

There was one signing that needed to be done for public viewing. All was worked out. Zelensky went all Broadway in front of the audience. 

He lost. 

This feels off topic. It was brought up that Trump could have added areas to the agreement if he wanted to, oil & gas, EU regulation, potash & other minerals. But since you raise it it seems to me - let’s just say I agree with you  FTSOA about Zelensky - Trump’s being offended shouldn’t get in the way of a deal that helps America.

[jbycho 583]

10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This feels off topic. It was brought up that Trump could have added areas to the agreement if he wanted to, oil & gas, EU regulation, potash & other minerals. But since you raise it it seems to me - let’s just say I agree with you  FTSOA about Zelensky - Trump’s being offended shouldn’t get in the way of a deal that helps America.

They don't negotiate on camera. They sign. Zelensky focked up. 

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

7 minutes ago, jbycho said:

They don't negotiate on camera. They sign. Zelensky focked up. 

The signing was supposed to be off camera. 

[jbycho 583]

9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The signing was supposed to be off camera. 

Nope. It wasn't. 

 

[Fnord 2,051]

51 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Okay, just to clarify, are you suggesting that non-US Citizens here illegally have US Constitutional Rights?  If she was telling non-US Citizens that are here illegally to do anything other than turn themselves in then, IMO, she certainly was aiding and abetting.

They have rights afforded them by the US justice system.

Here is the pdf that AOC shared. Everything is above board, informing people of their rights under US law.

I have yet to see a legally sound explanation as to how a US congresswoman, practicing her 1A rights and discussing legal options afforded everyone in the US, regardless of their home nation or immigration status, is in any way illegal or deserving of investigation. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,829]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

They have rights afforded them by the US justice system.

Here is the pdf that AOC shared. Everything is above board, informing people of their rights under US law.

I have yet to see a legally sound explanation as to how a US congresswoman, practicing her 1A rights and discussing legal options afforded everyone in the US, regardless of their home nation or immigration status, is in any way illegal or deserving of investigation. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I appreciate the link, but that reads like an aiding and abetting document to me.  That's not just informing them of their rights, it's literally telling them what to do when ICE shows up and not cooperate.

[jbycho 583]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I appreciate the link, but that reads like an aiding and abetting document to me.  That's not just informing them of their rights, it's literally telling them what to do when ICE shows up and not cooperate.

You are trying to be civil to a person speaking moronic thoughts. 

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

26 minutes ago, jbycho said:

Nope. It wasn't. 

>I think we’re going to sign the agreement at the conference in the East Room in a little while, right after lunch. And we’ll be having lunch together. We’re also discussing some other things…<

^Donald.

The presser where the blowup occurred was not to include the featured signing. They were going to go behind closed doors, iron out some more details, & then after lunch sign in the East Room.

[jbycho 583]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>I think we’re going to sign the agreement at the conference in the East Room in a little while, right after lunch. And we’ll be having lunch together. We’re also discussing some other things…<

^Donald.

The presser where the blowup occurred was not to include the featured signing. They were going to go behind closed doors, iron out some more details, & then after lunch sign in the East Room.

Nope. It wasn't

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

5 minutes ago, jbycho said:

Nope. It wasn't

Ok I just quoted Donald himself so I’m not sure what else I should refer to.

[jbycho 583]

4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ok I just quoted Donald himself so I’m not sure what else I should refer to.

I can quote anyone who says anything. 

[SaintsInDome2006 376]

9 minutes ago, jbycho said:

I can quote anyone who says anything. 

Ok the head of Mag movement who was actual physically there & running the thing like a beauty contest & actual President of the US might actually have known what was going on. But then he’s the oldest president ever so who knows.

[Fnord 2,051]

42 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I appreciate the link, but that reads like an aiding and abetting document to me.  That's not just informing them of their rights, it's literally telling them what to do when ICE shows up and not cooperate.

I have no doubt that's your opinion and that's fine. I just want someone to explain to me how telling someone what their legal rights are could possibly be illegal or worthy of investigation.

She is spelling out how they can protect themselves within legal parameters. I would want the same information were I an immigrant. The advice also helps her legally immigrated constituency if they happen to get caught up in a raid.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,829]

40 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I have no doubt that's your opinion and that's fine. I just want someone to explain to me how telling someone what their legal rights are could possibly be illegal or worthy of investigation.

She is spelling out how they can protect themselves within legal parameters. I would want the same information were I an immigrant. The advice also helps her legally immigrated constituency if they happen to get caught up in a raid.

fair enough. 

[Herbivore 1,115]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think the poster above showed us a decent one.  Trump had the ability to take files with him as President, whether we like it or agree with it, but Biden never did...and yet he also had them.  Trump stood by his right to have the files as he should have, and the FBI decided to raid him....because they wanted to smear him.....Biden at least realized he could  not have those files.

Pretending the two situations are the same, or that Trump is somehow worse, is just another thing that makes Trump more popular, because reasonable people look at the situation and can tell there was unreasonable acts against Trump.

Now, I get that our liberal brethren really want this thing, want it to work, want people to but into Trump being the "bad man" and what not......but I will tell you, the more you try it, the less we will buy into it.

It didnt work......my suggestion....try something new....

by poster above, you mean jbycho saying Biden had c files in his garage. i think you have a weak argument. as far as i recall, Biden notified the archives he had the files and returned them. the archives asked Trump for files and he stonewalled.

[seafoam1 2,799]

23 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

by poster above, you mean jbycho saying Biden had c files in his garage. i think you have a weak argument. as far as i recall, Biden notified the archives he had the files and returned them. the archives asked Trump for files and he stonewalled.

Misinformed idiot herbi runs with CNN narrative. 

[RLLD 4,143]

14 hours ago, Fnord said:

This seems disingenuous, but obviously your position is not going to move.

Trump does not have that ability with classified information, nor does any other president. You are aware of the disparities like Biden immediately returning those boxes upon request, whereas Trump attempted to lie about them and keep them, then lied again saying he had returned all of them but didn't, along with multiple lies about declassifying them after the fact, lying to his lawyers about possession, etc. These situations were significantly different, but you do not want that to be the case, as it ruins your partisan argument.

Trump had the power to declassify, Biden did not.  The disparity in treatment was palpable... Alone it would really not mean much, but when stacked up next to the fraudulent impeachments and lawsuits galore....it was too much..  They tried too hard to take him out, and people picked up on it....thats why, much to their consternation, no matter how much they did it....people would INCREASE their support....they saw what was happening... you all are not fooling anyone....

[RLLD 4,143]

11 hours ago, Herbivore said:

by poster above, you mean jbycho saying Biden had c files in his garage. i think you have a weak argument. as far as i recall, Biden notified the archives he had the files and returned them. the archives asked Trump for files and he stonewalled.

By itself, it would absolutely be a weak argument.... I agree with you on that point....but when you place it next to the array of obviously political lawfare, it starts to collectively look increasingly bad.  The DOJ became a weapon for the Democrat party.

[Herbivore 1,115]

42 minutes ago, RLLD said:

By itself, it would absolutely be a weak argument.... I agree with you on that point....but when you place it next to the array of obviously political lawfare, it starts to collectively look increasingly bad.  The DOJ became a weapon for the Democrat party.

why are you ok with Trump keeping the documents and essentially refusing to return them?

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Herbivore said:

why are you ok with Trump keeping the documents and essentially refusing to return them?

 

Because the President has that privilege.  If you object to that role having that capability then you need to lobby your elected officials to have it changed.

[Herbivore 1,115]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Because the President has that privilege.  If you object to that role having that capability then you need to lobby your elected officials to have it changed.

I don't think the president has quite the privilege you speak of. 

[squistion 1,945]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Because the President has that privilege.  If you object to that role having that capability then you need to lobby your elected officials to have it changed.

No, the President does not have the privilege to take and keep classified and top secret documents after he leaves office.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Herbivore said:

I don't think the president has quite the privilege you speak of. 

Thats fine.  Maybe he does and we are pretending to make something our of nothing....and maybe he has limitations that he exceeded....and we are pretending to make something out of nothing......unless its Biden, then we just forget about it and move on.

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, the President does not have the priviledge to take and keep classified and top secret documents after he leaves office.

He does, but I get your interpretation of the PRA and the other stuff the Democrats have told you to think.   If I were a Republican, and I knew that Democrats thought this was something they could weaponize like this......I would totally use it against them.

[Herbivore 1,115]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Thats fine.  Maybe he does and we are pretending to make something our of nothing....and maybe he has limitations that he exceeded....and we are pretending to make something out of nothing......unless its Biden, then we just forget about it and move on.

this is wildly disingenuous. there are no maybe's here, there is no Biden did the same thing. you are at a point where you are lying. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Herbivore said:

this is wildly disingenuous. there are no maybe's here, there is no Biden did the same thing. you are at a point where you are lying. 

Here is where I need to ask you to reconsider, entirely up to you, but understand this.....  when you do this, pretend this is something to worry about or care about....and then you add in any of the other things....you just come across as sorta whiney.....its like you are trying so hard....SO hard....to push people to dislike him that people automatically start to question your intentions and refuse to fall in line.....

SO,,,,,all these moves by liberals to throw mud and to some extent....shame people...into hating someone....it doesnt work brother....we know it doesnt work because the guy is president, and he is handing you all your lunch....

SO....by all means, keep up the failed smear campaign as you choose, what I know is that it HELPS your folks lose elections.  

[Herbivore 1,115]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Here is where I need to ask you to reconsider, entirely up to you, but understand this.....  when you do this, pretend this is something to worry about or care about....and then you add in any of the other things....you just come across as sorta whiney.....its like you are trying so hard....SO hard....to push people to dislike him that people automatically start to question your intentions and refuse to fall in line.....sure ray. with this paragraph, I believe you take the L. I am not trying SO hard to do much of anything. I am having a conversation with someone on a low rent, whilst beloved, FF message board. we are not moving mtns here. I am asking you, why is it ok to you? You have offered that Biden did the same thing, when he didn't. you're the one being whiney with your pearl clutching of "why are they going after him". 

SO,,,,,all these moves by liberals to throw mud and to some extent....shame people...into hating someone....it doesnt work brother....we know it doesnt work because the guy is president, and he is handing you all your lunch....he is, and we will see how it goes. doesn't look good so far, but its early. i don't think he is going to be handing out any lunches though. 

SO....by all means, keep up the failed smear campaign as you choose, what I know is that it HELPS your folks lose elections. Ds definitely lost this past cycle. We'll see how it plays out in the midterms.

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Herbivore said:

 

So lets be clear, the "L" here....happened in the white house, the senate....the house of reps.....89% of the counties in this nation....   in all these ways......you took "the L" my friend.....

So by all means, all those things your people did, KEEP DOING THEM.....

[Herbivore 1,115]

21 minutes ago, RLLD said:

So lets be clear, the "L" here....happened in the white house, the senate....the house of reps.....89% of the counties in this nation....   in all these ways......you took "the L" my friend.....

So by all means, all those things your people did, KEEP DOING THEM.....

nice deflection

[seafoam1 2,799]

Liberals call illegals "immigrants".

They should go back to grade school and learn English.

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Herbivore said:

nice deflection

As you please....and by all means.... just please ensure you keep using the same strategy, I am in your deb for your absolute adherence to Democrat doctrine.