Oh, Inspector thinks with his arse all the time 

I am a “Smart Ass!” 

At least he's a smart one & not a dumb one.


I hope I'm not over the line inspector

Of course not. Joke all you want. I don’t take much seriously these days anyway. 

Ya, prob true. 

No worry. He likes peeps talking about his arse.

I do! I do!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/posts/3904146953011370


To sum it up, can't have a hearing for a private citizen if Trump leaves office on the 20th.

While the constitution is vague to a point it is clear about one thing. A trial in the senate is to determine guilt of the president in order to remove him. If the senate tries the president after Trump leaves then they would have to try Bidet. Because Trump would not be the president by the time they get around to it. So in my opinion it is unconstitutional and they have no standing nor precedence for a trial against a citizen and not a president. If they attempt it it would be a sham. And since they have no standing to do it, any guilty verdict could not apply because it has to apply to the president according to the constitution. And Trump would not be president by that time. Besides, two things going against the Dems on this one. First is they have to get started right away according to the constitution. And that means McConnell will still be the leader. SO it won’t happen because he already said it won’t. Also, it takes a 2/3 majority to convict and that is a tough route to get to. Let’s face it, if Schumer is stupid enough to try this stunt, and he is that stupid, he is not stupid enough to try it unless he thinks he has the votes. If he doesn’t have the votes, why waste the senate’s time and resources. JMHO

While the constitution is vague to a point it is clear about one thing. A trial in the senate is to determine guilt of the president in order to remove him. If the senate tries the president after Trump leaves then they would have to try Bidet. Because Trump would not be the president by the time they get around to it. So in my opinion it is unconstitutional and they have no standing nor precedence for a trial against a citizen and not a president. If they attempt it it would be a sham. And since they have no standing to do it, any guilty verdict could not apply because it has to apply to the president according to the constitution. And Trump would not be president by that time. Besides, two things going against the Dems on this one. First is they have to get started right away according to the constitution. And that means McConnell will still be the leader. SO it won’t happen because he already said it won’t. Also, it takes a 2/3 majority to convict and that is a tough route to get to. Let’s face it, if Schumer is stupid enough to try this stunt, and he is that stupid, he is not stupid enough to try it unless he thinks he has the votes. If he doesn’t have the votes, why waste the senate’s time and resources. JMHO

I think the Senate should vote to hear the case rather than immediately voting to decline the articles of impeachment.  That'll get all the Senators on the record with their votes.

Then the Dems will be forced to put on a prosecution, showing what a scam the impeachment really is.  They have less now than the first time.

Once the Dems have shown their lack of evidence, the Trump lawyers can use their time to go over all the election illegalities as a way of defending Trump's statements -- get them on the record.

The Senate would then fail to convict, but all the crap will be on the record -- vs on FB and Twitter -- where it will remain.

That's my hope.   

from another forum Post titled "Changing Times" only appreciated by those that dare take that long drive to Kokohead to exercise your 2A right and practice your sport


I have listened to everyone else’s hatred, rhetoric and outright lies for the last four years, so now I am having my say. If you don’t like it, you know where the pussy liberal anonymous confused button is.
 
Let me be clear, I am not a Biden fan. I think he is corrupt, a liar, a racist bigot, in bed with China and probably suffering from dementia. He has done nothing to improve anything in his 47-year political career.
But what has Trump done in the past 4 years?
The "arrogant" in the White House brokered four Middle East Peace Accords, something that 71 years of political intervention and endless war failed to produce.
The "buffoon" in the White House is the first president that has not engaged us in a foreign war since Eisenhower.
The "racist" in the White House has had the greatest impact on the economy, bringing jobs, and lowering unemployment to the Black and Latino population of ANY other president. EVER!
The "liar" in the White House has exposed the deep, widespread, and long-standing corruption in the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, and the Republican and Democratic parties.
The "buffoon" in the White House turned NATO around and had them start paying their dues.
The "fool" in the White House neutralized the North Koreans and stopped them sending missiles toward Japan and threatening the West Coast of the US.
The "xenophobe" in the White House turned our relationship with the Chinese around, brought hundreds of businesses back to the US, and revived the economy.
This same “clown” lowered your taxes, increased the standard deduction on your IRS return from $12,500 to $24,400 for married couples and caused the stock market to rise to record levels, positively impacting the retirement accounts of tens of millions of citizens.
The “clown” in the White House fast-tracked the development of multiple COVID Vaccines which are now available or will be soon. And yet we still don't have a vaccine for SARS, Bird Flu, Ebola, or a host of diseases that arose during previous administrations.
The “clown” in the White House rebuilt our military which the Obama administration crippled and fired 214 key generals and admirals in his first year of office.
I GOT IT; YOU DON’T LIKE HIM. MANY OF YOU UTTERLY HATE & DESPISE HIM. How special of you. He is serving you and ALL the American people and donating every penny of his salary to worthy causes to help America.
What are you doing besides calling him names and laughing about him catching the China virus? Some of you were even hoping that COVID would be the cause of his demise. (Ah, the left. The party of “tolerance”.)
 
Please educate me again as to what Biden has accomplished for America in his 47 years in office besides making the whole Biden family richer. Where is Hunter?
 
I’ll take the “clown” any day versus a fork tongued, smooth talking hypocritical corrupt liar. I want a strong leader who isn’t afraid to kick some ass when needed. I don’t need a fatherly figure. I don’t need a liar. That's what Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the New York Times are for.
 
Call me a chump, a racist, or part of the basket of deplorables. I do not care !
 
God bless Donald Trump - the best, most unappreciated President in U.S. history.

Impeaching him like this is stupid, even if you agree he should be impeached. He will be gone before it can be completed so even trying to rush it is just wasting out time and money.

Impeaching him like this is stupid, even if you agree he should be impeached. He will be gone before it can be completed so even trying to rush it is just wasting out time and money.

Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Zero evidence?

The first time there was some, I probably wouldn't of pursued.  But this second time the evidence is definitely there.

.

..

Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I disagree with your premise of zero evidence but that is another discussion.

This second impeachment isn't for a lack of evidence, it is because what he has said doesn't actually amount to a crime, it is considered protected speech.

I disagree with your premise of zero evidence but that is another discussion.

This second impeachment isn't for a lack of evidence, it is because what he has said doesn't actually amount to a crime, it is considered protected speech.

Free speech covers hate speech but doesn't cover saying fire in a theater. That's how I view it.   Overall Trump crossed a line during the last few months. 

.

The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase
originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never
binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious
free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.

 

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.

Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.

 

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Dan Bongino went over this in the vid i posted.

Heres a breakdown for those who didnt watch it. It has to be immediate. So yelling fire in a room and people immediatly will leave. Same goes with "inciting violence". Even if trump did say to break in, it wasnt done immediatlly. Thats why the stuff waters says about harassing gop reps isnt illegal unless there was a rep right there 5 feet away and the crowd harassed the rep within seconds.

Immediate makes all the difference. But in trumps case, nothing he said meant go damage property anyways, so its moot.

 InB4 he incited violence. Proof? Zero proof.

InB4 what he says meant to do it. Read above. And learn to read and comprehend.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.

Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.

 

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Okay I'll redo that quote. It's like yelling let's hunt Pence and telling the mob to fight while saying the people in the capital are their enemies and other inflammatory remarks.  Then directing everyone to March to the capital. 

Is the antifa member screaming let's kill the rich/cops and burn everything down infront of cops and buildings being attacked free speech?  Or does it cross a line?

.

..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

We have Transformers?

That means the politicians are probably Decepticons.   

Didn't the Autobots lose the war against the Decepticons on two planets?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk