Originally posted by Surtur
It's not the fact he lied, all politicians lie. It's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty.
Trump Accuses FBI Officials Who Investigated Him of Treason
Trump Accuses Democrats of 'Treason' Amid Market Rout
There are more examples...
So where's your next double standard and/or moving of the goal post? Cos it's coming.
Originally posted by Robtardfantastic tactic! 👆
If we're going to do a "he lied, so he should resign", then you should be shouting for Trump to resign first and foremost as he's accused and lied about things big and small since swearing into office.The POTUS sets the example; or he did before this Admin.
Originally posted by Robtard
🙄Trump Accuses FBI Officials Who Investigated Him of Treason
Trump Accuses Democrats of 'Treason' Amid Market Rout
There are more examples...
So where's your next double standard and/or moving of the goal post? Cos it's coming.
Except Trump never said he had seen evidence they committed treason. Schitt did.
And even though that's what we've been discussing(his claim of seeing evidence) you'll be a weasel and pretend it's not and scream about double standards.
Originally posted by Surtur
Except Trump never said he had seen evidence they committed treason. Schitt did.And even though that's what we've been discussing(his claim of seeing evidence) you'll be a weasel and pretend it's not and scream about double standards.
🙄
You said "it's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty" that matters, so now you've moved the narrative. If you also don't think being accused of treason by the POTUS carries political weight, you're just being dishonest again.
So yes, you are indeed making "special rules" on the spot because it's Trump. Schitt needs to resign for saying/implying treason, yet Trump gets an pass for outright accusing multiple people; multiple times of treason.
Originally posted by Robtard
🙄You said "it's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty" that matters, so now you've moved the narrative. If you also don't think being accused of treason by the POTUS carries political weight, you're just being dishonest again.
So yes, you are indeed making "special rules" on the spot because it's Trump. Schitt needs to resign for saying/implying treason, yet Trump gets an pass for outright accusing multiple people; multiple times of treason.
Nope I'm not moving the narrative. We've been discussing his saying he saw evidence. Seriously, do better. He didn't imply treason. He said he saw *evidence* of it. That's different than "I think he committed treason". You know it, I know it, anyone with a brain knows it.
Originally posted by Surtur
Well hold on, if Schitt lied about seeing evidence the president committed treason...why should he not resign? That is a pretty spectacular lie to tell.
^It's right here, do not even try to act like we weren't discussing his claim of seeing evidence.
Your "evidence" angle is a silly distraction as it's irrelevant and you know that, because if you accuse someone of treason and claim evidence, then you either have it and can show or you don't and are exposed. So the only real point here is that you've accused another falsely of treason.
So yes, you are indeed using a double standard in regards to politicians needing to resign if they blew the treason rape whistle in a false manner.
Originally posted by EmperordmbThe personal stuff is fair I guess unless he lied.
IIRC the federal law surrounding such matters is that personal information unrelated to the evidence or lackof for criminal matters be redacted, because it is beyond the purview of the Justice Department to damage someone's reputation or violate their personal privacy in matters irrelevant.So for example, if they discovered Trump was ****ing another pornstar but not doing anything illegal, that would be redacted, because it is not criminally relevant information.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your "evidence" angle is a silly distraction as it's irrelevant, if you accuse someone of treason and claim evidence, then you either have it and can show or you don't and are exposed. The only real point here is that you've accused another falsely of treason.So yes, you are indeed using a double standard in regards to politicians needing to resign if they blew the treason rape whistle in a false manner.
No I'm not using a double standard. He claimed he saw evidence. Jesus I'm not gonna do this, this isn't gonna be debated lol. I don't care. Troll if you need to., but the situations aren't the same. Period.
Originally posted by Surtur
No I'm not using a double standard. He claimed he saw evidence. Jesus I'm not gonna do this, this isn't gonna be debated lol. I don't care. Troll if you need to., but the situations aren't the same. Period.
So it's okay to falsely accuse others of treason, just as long as you've never claimed to have evidence that can't exist in the first place because it's a false accusation.
Just listen to your mental gymnastics, Surt. All because it's Trump.
Originally posted by Robtard
So it's okay to falsely accuse others of treason, just as long as you've never claimed to have evidence that can't exist in the first place because it's a false accusation.Just listen to your mental gymnastics, Surt. All because it's Trump.
Nope, I have not said any other democrat needs to resign and Schitt isn't the only one to accuse Trump of treason. He is, to my knowledge, the only one to claim to have seen actual evidence of this.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Robs being a typical douche and ignoring the fact that if Barr lied on the report Mueller and his pack of lawyers would be screaming and leaking to the high heavens.
Plus he's ignoring that more than one democrat has called Trump treasonous. Only one seems to have said they saw evidence.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
The personal stuff is fair I guess unless he lied.
Would be hilarious if it came out that Trump as POTUS had cheated on his wife again(imo, he has, just look how she despises him).
The ridiculous 'this is why it's okay now' flips from Republicans; especially family values types would worth it alone. Pence would have to write another long diatribe to counter the one he wrote in the 90's stating reasons why Clinton should resign for committing adultery alone, as that shows a man is not fit to be POTUS.
Originally posted by Robtard
Would be hilarious if it came out that Trump as POTUS had cheated on his wife again(imo, he has, just look how she despises him).The ridiculous 'this is why it's okay now' flips from Republicans; especially family values types would worth it alone. Pence would have to write another long diatribe to counter the one he wrote in the 90's stating reasons why Clinton should resign for committing adultery alone, as that shows a man is not fit to be POTUS.
Stop pretending you care about family values lol. It's just like when leftists whine over Trump insulting John McCain. You don't actually give a shit about what he's said about McCain. You just see it as another avenue in which to go after Trump.
Originally posted by Surtur
Stop pretending you care about family values lol.It's just like when leftists whine over Trump insulting John McCain. You don't actually give a shit about what he's said about McCain. You just see it as another avenue in which to go after Trump.
Nice strawman, Surt. But it's how you avoided my actual point.
Unlike you, I do. McCain had his problems, but shitting on the man because he was a POW is both shitty and indefensible. Trump shit on every US POW when he did that.
What makes you think it is not in the report? Have you read it?
Oh, you mean the report that Mueller said that no one in Trump's campaign or US citizen colluded with Russia to meddle in our elections despite the fact Russia was even willing to pay.......
Yup, I read that from the guy who spent two-plus years investigating, interviewing, etc vs a congressperson who feels a certain way (opposite of the investigator.)
Originally posted by snowdragon
Oh, you mean the report that Mueller said that no one in Trump's campaign or US citizen colluded with Russia to meddle in our elections despite the fact Russia was even willing to pay.......Yup, I read that from the guy who spent two-plus years investigating, interviewing, etc vs a congressperson who feels a certain way (opposite of the investigator.)
Again, how do you know what Mueller said in the report? Have you read it? Because so far, you only have a Trump-appointee's four-page interpretation of an over 300-page document. The only people who have actually seen the same evidence as Mueller are on the House Intelligence Committee, of which Adam Schiff is the chair. Care to try again?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, how do you know what Mueller said in the report? Have you read it? Because so far, you only have a Trump-appointee's four-page interpretation of an over 300-page document. The only people who have actually seen the same evidence as Mueller are on the House Intelligence Committee, of which Adam Schiff is the chair. Care to try again?
Churlish to the bitter end. Yes, that's right I read the summary that stated Trump and his campaign didn't collude with Russia. Now to the point of this particular thread:
Schiff made accusations prior to the completion of Muellers report (months prior) stating Trump was guilty. I am calling on the fact Schiff made accusations without the investigation being completed, hence he had no report to reference at the time of his false accusations.
So your feeble attempt to pretend the summary isn't accurate has no impact on Schiff's comments made months prior to the conclusion of said report, in other words, Schiff lied.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, how do you know what Mueller said in the report? Have you read it? Because so far, you only have a Trump-appointee's four-page interpretation of an over 300-page document. The only people who have actually seen the same evidence as Mueller are on the House Intelligence Committee, of which Adam Schiff is the chair. Care to try again?
Hey coward, if Barr was lying how come Mueller isn’t coming out and telling the truth?