Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Democrat criminal, questionable, and scandalous behavior

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Why not? If it is unenforceable, then get rid of it. If it IS "forceable", all it takes is someone with a sense of honor and START enforcing it.

    Throwing up ones hands and saying "It can't be done.", is defeatist.

    GG
    It should be. Not really, because the people that would do that are smart enough to realized that it would never stand up in court. So, no arrest, no prosecutions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grognard Gunny
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Logan act is unenforceable. No one will ever be charged under it.
    Why not? If it is unenforceable, then get rid of it. If it IS "forceable", all it takes is someone with a sense of honor and START enforcing it.

    Throwing up ones hands and saying "It can't be done.", is defeatist.

    GG

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    j'ist trollin' an' chummin'....

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. There should. Just like there should be a major one over Wasserman-Schultz, the 40+ other Democrats in Congress and the Awan family.
    Wow! Look at that bait you just threw out there! Seems, though, that the Bluefish ain't bitin' t'day...


    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    If that were all there was to it, that'd be fine. The question is, How did it become public when it should never have been made public?
    That would be a 'leak'. So the how is easy. That is the DoJ job to investigate.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    President gets it wrong of course, bot the committee she appeared before gets it.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-did-was-wrong
    If that were all there was to it, that'd be fine. The question is, How did it become public when it should never have been made public?

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    President gets it wrong of course, bot the committee she appeared before gets it.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-did-was-wrong


    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on Fox News’s "America’s Newsroom" on Thursday that she spent two-and-a-half hours with House investigators, and that it wasn’t fair to focus solely on the unmasking portion of her testimony.

    Gowdy said the question of whether it is appropriate to unmask individuals in an intelligence report is a policy issue, not a question of whether a crime was committed.

    “I think it's important that when a witness does a good job you tell people she did a good job and when she doesn't do a good job you tell them that, too,” Gowdy said. “She did a good job.”

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Except there is no Rice investigation by any law enforcement agencies, is there? However the opposite is true with the Presidents Campaign.
    Doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. There should. Just like there should be a major one over Wasserman-Schultz, the 40+ other Democrats in Congress and the Awan family.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I claimed there was as much as there was for the Trump-Russia thing. She's testified before Congress, most recently she has tried to explain why she did it to begin with.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/he...ign-officials/

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/14/...sking-scandal/

    There's as much "evidence" to date with the Rice investigation as there is "evidence" with the Trump-Russia investigation. You keep trying to make this into an argument from ignorance issue by upping the demand for proof.
    Except there is no Rice investigation by any law enforcement agencies, is there? However the opposite is true with the Presidents Campaign.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    I claimed no knowledge of it, you how ever did. You claimed that there was evidence. You produced only conjecture.
    I claimed there was as much as there was for the Trump-Russia thing. She's testified before Congress, most recently she has tried to explain why she did it to begin with.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/he...ign-officials/

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/14/...sking-scandal/

    There's as much "evidence" to date with the Rice investigation as there is "evidence" with the Trump-Russia investigation. You keep trying to make this into an argument from ignorance issue by upping the demand for proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    And, you have no idea what Rice actually has or hasn't done and it isn't getting much of a check to see what she might have done.
    I claimed no knowledge of it, you how ever did. You claimed that there was evidence. You produced only conjecture.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    More conjecture. You have no idea what Mr Mueller has. Admit it.
    And, you have no idea what Rice actually has or hasn't done and it isn't getting much of a check to see what she might have done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    It's more than Mueller has on Trump - Russia and that got a special prosecutor...
    More conjecture. You have no idea what Mr Mueller has. Admit it.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    So, no evidence, just conjecture on your part. Got it. I think you misunderstand the word evidence, by a lot.
    It's more than Mueller has on Trump - Russia and that got a special prosecutor...

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But it's still a law on the books.
    An uninforcable one. Sure. Plus its immaterial unless she released the info, which TAG can't even post a bit of evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    What evidence?

    Logan act is unenforceable. No one will ever be charged under it.
    But it's still a law on the books.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X