Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

First it was no collusion

2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
edited April 2019 in Tug Tavern
Then Collusion wasn't a crime. Now you can accept information from Russians. Guliani is pure comedy gold.

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    But there was no collusion.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ApostleofGriefApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ApostleofGriefApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    just imagine Hillary did all this and you will see the light. I would think the same thing regardless
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,762
    edited April 2019
    I remember Al Gore being (justifiably) roasted for saying something like there was “no binding precedent” criminalizing some shady thing he or Bill Clinton had done.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,949
    ApostleofGrief said:

    just imagine Hillary did all this and you will see the light. I would think the same thing regardless

    I would have not voted for her.

    Like I didn't. And like many other people didn't.

    Remember when you looked between your legs and realized you had no balls so decided you were with her?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,211
    HHusky said:

    I remember Al Gore being (justifiably) roasted for saying something like there was “no binding precedent” criminalizing some shady thing he or Bill Clinton had done.

    It was no controlling legal authority but then when did a low IQ fucker like you ever get anything right
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,762
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    I remember Al Gore being (justifiably) roasted for saying something like there was “no binding precedent” criminalizing some shady thing he or Bill Clinton had done.

    It was no controlling legal authority but then when did a low IQ fucker like you ever get anything right
    Really changes the meaning.

    Should the guy who just told us how Seattle had no blacks, but was teeming with Indians 40 years ago really be talking smack about anyone?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,949
    I'm hearing that Trump is a Russian agent


    I mean he colluded with them, Mueller will tell us

    I mean muellers thing was always just a step toward Congress taking him down

    I mean once muelller testifies and it's really bad then Congress will probably take him down


    ....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,211
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    I remember Al Gore being (justifiably) roasted for saying something like there was “no binding precedent” criminalizing some shady thing he or Bill Clinton had done.

    It was no controlling legal authority but then when did a low IQ fucker like you ever get anything right
    Really changes the meaning.

    Should the guy who just told us how Seattle had no blacks, but was teeming with Indians 40 years ago really be talking smack about anyone?
    Not what I said but you and Hondo have been tonguing each other’s ass as of late so maybe you’re aspiring for pathological liar status as well
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,801 Founders Club
    Just an orange haired kid from Queens
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Be careful. If Bob reads that again and picks up on that quote. He's going to spam the board for months calling you a pathological liar.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Or they could run a decent candidate in the election that’s 18 months away....

    Or keep grasping at straws. Imagine being afraid of a guy with orange hair.
    Good point. Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself in from of the voters in 18 months. Until then, it will be in front of congress and media.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,949
    Hondo has really brought this place to the brink of ultimate shittiness
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Pitchfork51 said:

    Hondo has really brought this place to the brink of ultimate shittiness

    Impressive given I wasn't really on here today.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ApostleofGriefApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    2001400ex said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Be careful. If Bob reads that again and picks up on that quote. He's going to spam the board for months calling you a pathological liar.
    The witness and the evidence need to be presented, as in any trial. Who is believed is up to the jury (Senate). I believe the prosecution's case, even with half of it blacked out by that fatass Bar and his motherfucking redactor pen.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    ApostleofGrief said:

    2001400ex said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Be careful. If Bob reads that again and picks up on that quote. He's going to spam the board for months calling you a pathological liar.
    The witness and the evidence need to be presented, as in any trial. Who is believed is up to the jury (Senate). I believe the prosecution's case, even with half of it blacked out by that fatass Bar and his motherfucking redactor pen.
    Oh fuck off. Waste of resources. Focus on a decent candidate and move the fuck on.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ApostleofGriefApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    MikeDamone said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    2001400ex said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Be careful. If Bob reads that again and picks up on that quote. He's going to spam the board for months calling you a pathological liar.
    The witness and the evidence need to be presented, as in any trial. Who is believed is up to the jury (Senate). I believe the prosecution's case, even with half of it blacked out by that fatass Bar and his motherfucking redactor pen.
    Oh fuck off. Waste of resources. Focus on a decent candidate and move the fuck on.
    Sure, sure, but not before we

    IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKING GODDAMN CURRENT FUCKING BASTARD TRUMP
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,850 Standard Supporter
    ApostleofGrief said:

    MikeDamone said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    2001400ex said:

    ApostleofGrief said:

    Trump based his entire defense on conflating collusion with criminal conspiracy. The GOP managed to fool the public that if there was on criminal conspiracy, there was no collusion.

    It doesn't matter what the fuck you call, or if it was illegal or not. Impeachment is for cases in which the accused carries out high crimes against the republic. The fact that Trump knew about, and benefited directly from the Russian hacks, and kept the FBI and the public wholly in the dark by keeping this to himself and his associates, and then engaged in a protracted campaign of obstruction means he needs to be impeached. All you have to do understand this is stop applying labels like collusion vs conspiracy, and then simply imagine if Hillary did this. Then it becomes clear.

    Be careful. If Bob reads that again and picks up on that quote. He's going to spam the board for months calling you a pathological liar.
    The witness and the evidence need to be presented, as in any trial. Who is believed is up to the jury (Senate). I believe the prosecution's case, even with half of it blacked out by that fatass Bar and his motherfucking redactor pen.
    Oh fuck off. Waste of resources. Focus on a decent candidate and move the fuck on.
    Sure, sure, but not before we

    IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKING GODDAMN CURRENT FUCKING BASTARD TRUMP
    Hondo alt?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.