Hundreds if not thousands of politicians must have been on the phone on Jan 6. Only deceitful, dishonest, ungodly morons label their enemies as traitors for talking on the phone.
Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
False equivalence. The only justice in question right now is Thomas. None of the other justices' spouses were involved in texting Trump's chief of staff exhorting him to help overturn a valid election. Any Jan. 6 ruling by Thomas (not limited to his 8-1 minority dissent) should be looked at, and he should recuse himself from future Jan. 6 deliberations.
You don't know if Thomas is corrupt or not. Why would you not want to see him to adhere to the same code of ethics that Federal justices are required to adhere to, if even in spirit, out of an abundance of caution? Why do you want to lower the bar for him?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Curious and curiouser..
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You think they're traitors just for talking on the phone? marke, marke, marke...They're under scrutiny for what they said while they were on talking on the phone. If he had nothing to hide, why would Mark Meadows threaten the telecom companies? Why would the crucial hours of White House phone logs have gone missing?
Hello? This is America, remember? Since when is it a crime for Ginni Thomas to talk to Trump? It may have been a crime, however, for Bill Clinton to have met with Loretta Lynch, if you really want to focus on the crime of "talking."
Bill Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch meet on tarmac in Phoenix
Meeting comes as Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation for private email server, but both sides say encounter was purely social
www.cbsnews.com
As his wife is under federal investigation for her use of a private email server, former President Bill Clinton met privately with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Airport Monday evening in what both sides say was an unplanned encounter.
An aide to Bill Clinton confirmed to CBS News that the meeting wasn't planned in advance: President Clinton saw the attorney general on the tarmac and wanted to say hello, so he boarded her plane to talk.
The meeting comes as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still under investigation for her email practices--and also came the day before House Republicans released a report criticizing the Obama administration's response to the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Curious and curiouser...
They're under scrutiny for what they said while they were on talking on the phone. If he had nothing to hide, why would Mark Meadows threaten the telecom companies? Why would the crucial hours of White House phone logs have gone missing?
Deja vu and deja vu (er)...
I really need to stop posting stuff like this...(er)
Democrats regularly refuse to release transcripts of their calls, so why would they think they should be privy to calls by republicans that have nothing to do with them? If some crime was committed then let prosecutors file charges, issue a warrant and go after the info legitimately. Unjust fishing-for-dirt expeditions are not legal in America and only allowed by democrats and leftists where democrats violate the law, which is often. Did not democrats impeach Trump because they mistakenly thought he was fishing for dirt on the Biden family in Ukraine?
They're under scrutiny for what they said while they were on talking on the phone. If he had nothing to hide, why would Mark Meadows threaten the telecom companies? Why would the crucial hours of White House phone logs have gone missing?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
marke, marke marke... you did it again! It's not a crime to "talk" to someone, but if she created a conflict of interest for her husband, it's a problem for him, for the court, and for the American system. Whether that "talk" could get her into hot water herself remains to be seen.
Last edited:
You continue to base your assaults on republican officials on the seriously questionable narrative that Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. Evidence continies to mount daily that widespread voter fraud secured an illegitimate win for Biden. Discussing the ramifications of a crooked election is not the same thing as seeking to overthrow the legitimate government.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
To (er) is human...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It was as painful as it was appalling...
Maybe she committed a crime. How should we deaql with thaqt possibility? Subpoena every record in existence from her and Trump? Why not then allow republicans to subpoena every record of Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and hundreds of others who "may have committed a crime?" That is not done because such blind assaults on the personal privacy rights of Americans is illegal. If prosecutors have sufficient evidence a crime was cvommitted, such as Hunter's involvement with crooked Ukrainians, or Hillary's saqle of influence, or Pelosi's profiting from real estate sales aided by her influence, or whatever, then let them go after the evidence.
Is there evidence that Ginni tried to overthrow the government? Then charge her and then go after the evidence, or let them secure a search warrant in front of a trustworthy judge listing the legitimate reasons for the search. Rumors are not sufficient evidence to issue a warrant.
You did not comment on Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch right before she dropped all charges against Hillary. You seem apalled by some activities that look crooked, but not others, and it looks like you are just biased to believe good about democrats and bad about republicans. Those inclined to believe good about whites and bad about blacks, or vica-versa, are considered really evil. You should not let your bias turn you evil.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Two GOP committees investigated Hunter Biden. There were ten Benghazi investigations. They came up with nothing. No charges. What makes you think looking into their records in the course of an investigation is illegal? And no one has a right to privacy if they are suspected of a crime. As long as the records are obtained legally, the state can do its due process. Or do you want privacy only for certain people?
We'll find out!
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Quite intentionally. I'm not interested in Bill Clinton, I'm interested in Trump's attempted overthrow of the 2020 election.
That's what this thread is about, remember? I'd ask you to try to stay on track, but I know it would be futile.
Deep state officials who owe their jobs to leftists or who are close friends with leftists or who are in business or social circles with leftists or who are on the take cannot be expected to do honest investigations of leftist crooks protected by leftists. The democrat party has never been protective of the civil and constitutional rights of their enemies and we see that in their unjust attack on Ginny Thomas and, even more apalling, attacks on Justice Thomas..
Leftist democrat: I don't give a frog's croak about the crimes committed by democrats, I just want to destyroy republicans any way I can by digging up dirt or the appearance of dirt on them for that purpose.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's just showing off...
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Then why say " It isn't partisan to expect SC justices to recuse themselves from cases whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Federal law requires exactly that of federal judges. The SC should be no different. "? You invoked the entire Court. So apparently you didn't get your own memo.
Opinion.
Why would I think or suspect that he is corrupt, apart from general paranoia? or racism?
Because his wife has an opinion? Don't you have those? You just displayed one above. Should we think that people associated with you are corrupt because you have opinions? Is this how you see people generally, as all potentially corrupt? Corrupt until proven otherwise?
He did nothing that is even circumstantial let alone a smoking gun to indicate he's corrupt.
Because . . . you don't understand a thing about judicial philosophy, apparently. My answer would go over your head, again. Democrat cheerleader, pretending to be impartial, unbiased and above the fray but you're not.