Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted April 26 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 26 On 4/24/2024 at 9:04 PM, Crnr2Crnr said: yes... you stand with your mouth agape and your right palm readily waiting to cup a man's balls whilst you suck him off and gargle his semen in your throat. not to be gross... 10 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: not at all, just shows what a detestable piece of trash he is. don't you have a dick or two to suck next door? 7 minutes ago, Bontz said: Says the guy who's been absolutely giddy to type the name "Pecker" for the past week Clearly ‘ol Karen has issues and repressed desires he’s dealing with.😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said: Prosecutors call Rhona Graff, Trump's longtime assistant, to the stand. No more Pecker jokes... Graff, grift, same thing. 41 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Wow…the rare Quad Post…somebody really is all ate up with the TDS.🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted April 26 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 26 13 minutes ago, Deephaven said: Graff, grift, same thing. You call it fishing…normal people call it being an obsessed dbag. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member ViperGTS/Z1 Posted April 26 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 26 Damn!.....c to c is taking a Bloodbath. .... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, toslow said: Looks like you got sand in your vajay jay looks like you have the IQ of my left shoe 2 hours ago, Bontz said: Says the guy who's been absolutely giddy to type the name "Pecker" for the past week oh come on, Pecker... a star witness in a hush money trial with a porn star? oh that's right... too 'edgy' didja happen to force down a salad this week without regurgitating? 2 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Clearly ‘ol Karen has issues and repressed desires he’s dealing with.😂 no, I know a dick sucker when I see one Dick Sucker 2 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said: You call it fishing…normal people call it being an obsessed dbag. normal, complacent and 'just trying to get along' is boring... and cowardly. 1 hour ago, ViperGTS/Z1 said: Damn!.....c to c is taking a Bloodbath. .... from the three amigos who consistently cupped woolies balls? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said: not at all, just shows what a detestable piece of trash he is. don't you have a dick or two to suck next door? Joe touch’s kids and showered with his daughter. What a loathsome detestable piece of shit he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Touch's kids. That's seriously what you are hanging your hat on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 42 minutes ago, Pete said: Joe touch’s kids and showered with his daughter. What a loathsome detestable piece of shit he is. evidence provided, I'd probably agree got any? wasn't planning on voting for him anyway. who you considering this year Nostradamus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 43 minutes ago, Deephaven said: Touch's kids. That's seriously what you are hanging your hat on? where's @EvilBird...? @Pete is stealing his lines!!! gotta run, putting claymores around the house this evening in case of a zombie pedophile invasion. 00 buckshot and slugs at the ready. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 5 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: evidence provided, I'd probably agree got any? wasn't planning on voting for him anyway. who you considering this year Nostradamus? Evidence trump slept with a porn star? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 7 minutes ago, Pete said: Evidence trump slept with a porn star? You have to believe one to believe the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 2 minutes ago, Deephaven said: You have to believe one to believe the other? Find where he slept with a porn star or STFU. He denies it. You are one of the TDS fucks that dont care about any facts. Worthless unamerican loser all cause trump hurts your pussy feelings. good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 10 minutes ago, Pete said: Find where he slept with a porn star or STFU. He denies it. You are one of the TDS fucks that dont care about any facts. Worthless unamerican loser all cause trump hurts your pussy feelings. good. YOU were the one that claimed Biden touches kids and your only retort was prove Trump slept with a whore. The guilt connection you made is interesting, but doesn't answer the question and proves you don't care about facts. Of course you are fat useless idiot so no surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 49 minutes ago, Pete said: Evidence trump slept with a porn star? that's on deck in the upcoming weeks. where's @SnowRider with his mushroom dick posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 27 minutes ago, Deephaven said: YOU were the one that claimed Biden touches kids and your only retort was prove Trump slept with a whore. The guilt connection you made is interesting, but doesn't answer the question and proves you don't care about facts. Of course you are fat useless idiot so no surprise. go easy on Pete... he's a gas pump victim. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old indy Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 (edited) Denial is a serious problem here i see. To question the many many instances reported of creepy joe biden being inappropriate with not just women but mmmmany kids shows just how blind some can be. or is a pedo like joe. The list is many years long but Go ahead now and tell me that a secret serviceman assigned to the biden protection detail DIDNT have to be re strained to keep him from beating joe for continually being "handsy" with the officers girlfriend.. or that he didnt pinch a ten year old nipple on national tv like it was nothing, go ahead ,, and prove your a pedo lover. and it sure looks like the fake charges are dropping faster than flies hit with DDT Edited April 27 by old indy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member ViperGTS/Z1 Posted April 27 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 27 They are still trying to figure out what the charges are. ...What exactly has been illegal? Even what should be simple misdemeanors(now felonies) have long passed their statute of limitations. Again, this is totally political and an effort of election interference. Everyone can see this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Shocker From Top Conservative Judge: Trump Likely To Skate Completely Greg Sargent Sat, April 27, 2024 at 5:00 AM CDT·4 min read 512 “I’m profoundly disturbed about the apparent direction of the court,” J. Michael Luttig told me. “I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.” I called Luttig, a former federal judge with extensive conservative credentials, to solicit his reaction to this week’s Supreme Court hearing over Donald Trump’s demand for absolute immunity from prosecution for any crimes related to his insurrection attempt. On Thursday, Luttig posted a thread critiquing the right-wing justices for their apparent openness to Trump’s arguments—but that thread was legalistic and formal, so I figured Luttig had a lot more to say. And did he ever. Luttig lacerated the right-wing justices for harboring a “radical vision” of the American presidency, and pronounced himself “gravely” worried that Trump will never face accountability for alleged crimes committed in attempting to destroy U.S. democracy through extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob violence. Luttig’s fear that Trump may very well skate centers on the lines of questioning from the court’s right-wing majority about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing prosecution of Trump. As many observers noted, those justices appeared largely uninterested in the question before them—whether Trump’s alleged crimes related to the insurrection constituted official presidential acts that are immune from prosecution after leaving office. Instead, the justices dwelled on the supposed future consequences of prosecuting presidents for crimes, and seemed to want to place some limits on that eventuality. That suggests the justices will kick the case back to lower courts to determine whether some definition of official presidential acts must be protected (and whether Trump’s specific acts qualify). Such a move would almost certainly push Trump’s trial until after the election, and if he wins, he can simply cancel prosecutions of himself. Luttig fears that outcome. But he also worries that even if Trump loses the election, there may well be five Supreme Court votes for siding with Trump’s demand for immunity. Both outcomes would functionally end his prosecution. “I believe it is now likely either that Trump will get elected and instruct his attorney general to drop the charges, or that the Supreme Court will grant him immunity from prosecution,” Luttig told me. To be sure, some observers think that in the end, five justices will not grant Trump that immunity. In this scenario, a conservative majority could remand the case to lower courts to define official presidential acts that cannot be prosecuted, even as some combination of five or more justices later rules that Trump’s specific actions are still subject to prosecution. But Luttig fears that this may be overly optimistic. Luttig pointed out that even Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to express some sympathy for the general idea that official presidential acts should be immune from prosecution. He also noted that Justice Brett Kavanaugh praised the pardon of Richard Nixon, and that Justice Neil Gorsuch said that if presidents can be prosecuted, they might pardon themselves before leaving office to protect themselves, which Gorsuch suggested might be legitimate. Take all that together, Luttig said, and it’s not hard to see how five right-wing justices could let Trump off. Some could declare that Trump’s actions related to Jan. 6 (the pressure on his vice president to subvert the electoral count and on the Justice Department to create a fake pretext for that) constitute official acts immune from prosecution. Others might hold that the statutes Trump allegedly violated don’t offer a clear statement that they apply to presidents, Luttig said. Either way, Trump has already gotten much of what he wants with the all-but-certain delay. And the lines of questioning from the right-wing justices are already deeply alarming, Luttig argued. Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, declared that if presidents must fear prosecution after leaving office, they might prove more prone to resisting the transfer of power, destabilizing the country. That’s preposterous, as The New Republic’s Michael Tomasky noted, since there’s never been a bar on post-presidential prosecution throughout U.S. history, yet the only president to aggressively resist that transfer is Donald Trump himself. What’s more, as Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern point out at Slate, the notion also seems to suggest, absurdly, that giving presidents free rein to commit crimes in office, including attempting to destroy democracy at its very foundations, is essential to maintaining democratic stability. One might add that when the justices ruled that Trump’s insurrection does not disqualify him from the ballot, they told us that this, too, was necessary to avoid national destabilization. Mysteriously enough, a key ingredient for achieving political stability always seems to involve not holding Trump accountable. “The conservative justices’ argument for immunity assumes that Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump is politically corrupt and seeks a rule that would prevent future presidents from corruptly prosecuting their predecessors,” Luttig said. “But such a rule would license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity,” Luttig concluded. “Which is exactly what Trump is arguing he’s entitled to do.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 3 hours ago, old indy said: Denial is a serious problem here i see. To question the many many instances reported of creepy joe biden being inappropriate with not just women but mmmmany kids shows just how blind some can be. or is a pedo like joe. The list is many years long but Go ahead now and tell me that a secret serviceman assigned to the biden protection detail DIDNT have to be re strained to keep him from beating joe for continually being "handsy" with the officers girlfriend.. or that he didnt pinch a ten year old nipple on national tv like it was nothing, go ahead ,, and prove your a pedo lover. and it sure looks like the fake charges are dropping faster than flies hit with DDT sounds like charges should have been filed if true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 2 hours ago, XCR1250 said: Shocker From Top Conservative Judge: Trump Likely To Skate Completely Greg Sargent Sat, April 27, 2024 at 5:00 AM CDT·4 min read 512 “I’m profoundly disturbed about the apparent direction of the court,” J. Michael Luttig told me. “I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.” I called Luttig, a former federal judge with extensive conservative credentials, to solicit his reaction to this week’s Supreme Court hearing over Donald Trump’s demand for absolute immunity from prosecution for any crimes related to his insurrection attempt. On Thursday, Luttig posted a thread critiquing the right-wing justices for their apparent openness to Trump’s arguments—but that thread was legalistic and formal, so I figured Luttig had a lot more to say. And did he ever. Luttig lacerated the right-wing justices for harboring a “radical vision” of the American presidency, and pronounced himself “gravely” worried that Trump will never face accountability for alleged crimes committed in attempting to destroy U.S. democracy through extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob violence. Luttig’s fear that Trump may very well skate centers on the lines of questioning from the court’s right-wing majority about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing prosecution of Trump. As many observers noted, those justices appeared largely uninterested in the question before them—whether Trump’s alleged crimes related to the insurrection constituted official presidential acts that are immune from prosecution after leaving office. Instead, the justices dwelled on the supposed future consequences of prosecuting presidents for crimes, and seemed to want to place some limits on that eventuality. That suggests the justices will kick the case back to lower courts to determine whether some definition of official presidential acts must be protected (and whether Trump’s specific acts qualify). Such a move would almost certainly push Trump’s trial until after the election, and if he wins, he can simply cancel prosecutions of himself. Luttig fears that outcome. But he also worries that even if Trump loses the election, there may well be five Supreme Court votes for siding with Trump’s demand for immunity. Both outcomes would functionally end his prosecution. “I believe it is now likely either that Trump will get elected and instruct his attorney general to drop the charges, or that the Supreme Court will grant him immunity from prosecution,” Luttig told me. To be sure, some observers think that in the end, five justices will not grant Trump that immunity. In this scenario, a conservative majority could remand the case to lower courts to define official presidential acts that cannot be prosecuted, even as some combination of five or more justices later rules that Trump’s specific actions are still subject to prosecution. But Luttig fears that this may be overly optimistic. Luttig pointed out that even Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to express some sympathy for the general idea that official presidential acts should be immune from prosecution. He also noted that Justice Brett Kavanaugh praised the pardon of Richard Nixon, and that Justice Neil Gorsuch said that if presidents can be prosecuted, they might pardon themselves before leaving office to protect themselves, which Gorsuch suggested might be legitimate. Take all that together, Luttig said, and it’s not hard to see how five right-wing justices could let Trump off. Some could declare that Trump’s actions related to Jan. 6 (the pressure on his vice president to subvert the electoral count and on the Justice Department to create a fake pretext for that) constitute official acts immune from prosecution. Others might hold that the statutes Trump allegedly violated don’t offer a clear statement that they apply to presidents, Luttig said. Either way, Trump has already gotten much of what he wants with the all-but-certain delay. And the lines of questioning from the right-wing justices are already deeply alarming, Luttig argued. Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, declared that if presidents must fear prosecution after leaving office, they might prove more prone to resisting the transfer of power, destabilizing the country. That’s preposterous, as The New Republic’s Michael Tomasky noted, since there’s never been a bar on post-presidential prosecution throughout U.S. history, yet the only president to aggressively resist that transfer is Donald Trump himself. What’s more, as Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern point out at Slate, the notion also seems to suggest, absurdly, that giving presidents free rein to commit crimes in office, including attempting to destroy democracy at its very foundations, is essential to maintaining democratic stability. One might add that when the justices ruled that Trump’s insurrection does not disqualify him from the ballot, they told us that this, too, was necessary to avoid national destabilization. Mysteriously enough, a key ingredient for achieving political stability always seems to involve not holding Trump accountable. “The conservative justices’ argument for immunity assumes that Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump is politically corrupt and seeks a rule that would prevent future presidents from corruptly prosecuting their predecessors,” Luttig said. “But such a rule would license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity,” Luttig concluded. “Which is exactly what Trump is arguing he’s entitled to do.” Luttig should have been on SCOTUS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted April 27 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 27 17 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said: looks like you have the IQ of my left shoe oh come on, Pecker... a star witness in a hush money trial with a porn star? oh that's right... too 'edgy' didja happen to force down a salad this week without regurgitating? no, I know a dick sucker when I see one Dick Sucker normal, complacent and 'just trying to get along' is boring... and cowardly. from the three amigos who consistently cupped woolies balls? More dick sucking and ball cupping comments….just come out of the closet ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 7 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: More dick sucking and ball cupping comments….just come out of the closet ffs. you should... probably not here or there though if you want to 'fit in' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted April 27 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 27 8 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: you should... probably not here or there though if you want to 'fit in' That’s all you got…..the old I know you are but what am I…damn your shit is weak.😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old indy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 On 4/27/2024 at 12:54 PM, Crnr2Crnr said: sounds like charges should have been filed if true. Run it by Dan Bongino, hes on X regularly, he may fill you in on that thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 44 minutes ago, old indy said: Run it by Dan Bongino, hes on X regularly, he may fill you in on that thought. yeah, I'll be sure to do that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.