Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Pelosi would be #1.  Let’s put a microscope on her equity positions and trades.  Schumer too.   Make sure they were honest and not making insider trades.  The new DOJ can focus on party leadership.  Needs to be a lot of lawfare now.  So both sides can feel the pain.  And have a mutually assured destruction going forward.  
 

If innocent and not corrupt, they have nothing to fear. 

Edited by Frank Drebin
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The American voters disagree with you. And don’t believe he committed any crimes.  

I'd be willing to be a whole lot of people who voted for him do believe he committed crimes.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

If innocent and not corrupt, they have nothing to fear...unless you're Donald Trump, of course. 

Went ahead and fixed that for you.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Yes. When they go to those lengths, anyone can be a criminal.  I’m sure Jack Smith if indicted in Amarillo or Midland for just about anything would be convicted.  We may well find out.  Payback is going to be a bitch.  

If you say so. Good luck on the payback.

Posted
29 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This is lazy trolling, even for you.

Yeah I don't care for the casual use of the terms "troll" and "trolling," but he's now just babbling shit.

Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I don't care for the casual use of the terms "troll" and "trolling," but he's now just babbling shit.

This entire board is a collecting of babbling shit.  See 99 percent of every post the last two months.  Y’all just don’t like my brand of it. 

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

As an aside I suspect Alvin Bragg is about to go through some things.

Federal officials, by constitutional design, have little or no authority over state officials like Bragg.  And the State of NY is controlled by Democrats.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Yes. When they go to those lengths, anyone can be a criminal.  I’m sure Jack Smith if indicted in Amarillo or Midland for just about anything would be convicted.  We may well find out.  Payback is going to be a bitch.  

Might want to check up on your venue rules there.  Trump was prosecuted where he did his crimes. Venue in all of his cases was more proper than it should have been.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Federal officials, by constitutional design, have little or no authority over state officials like Bragg.  And the State of NY is controlled by Democrats.

 

Lol.   You really think the Feds don’t make life miserable for people they want to make life miserable for?

 In no way in favor of it, but it’s going to happen.
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lol.   You really think the Feds don’t make life miserable for people they want to make life miserable for?

 In no way in favor of it, but it’s going to happen.
 

 

Trump may be thinking they already call him a fascist.  Might as well do some fascist shit.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted

ah yes, the old "you're going to make me do terrible things by being mean and telling the truth."

Sure, Trump has been the most victimized, persecuted guy who can't catch a break, like ever. Yeah no previous potus ever had enemies but only this one was getting prosecuted... it's just a conspiracy, not a pattern of persistent, consistent law-breaking 

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

ah yes, the old "you're going to make me do terrible things by being mean and telling the truth."

Sure, Trump has been the most victimized, persecuted guy who can't catch a break, like ever. Yeah no previous potus ever had enemies but only this one was getting prosecuted... it's just a conspiracy, not a pattern of persistent, consistent law-breaking 

This board is so sure he is fascist.  His enemies should be very afraid right now if y'all are right.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
18 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

y’all got to call him a felon while he ran for president.  That’s all you got.

Well, there's that little detail where he is . . . you know . . . a felon.  34 times a felon, in fact.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, there's that little detail where he is . . . you know . . . a felon.  34 times a felon, in fact.

As determined by a jury of his peers.  You know, like the law calls for.

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, there's that little detail where he is . . . you know . . . a felon.  34 times a felon, in fact.

Maybe he will remain one.  He currently is.  We will see what the appellate courts do.

But as the political maneuver the lawfare was, it failed spectacularly.  

Posted

Johnny Sack:

Voters have rejected Lawfare! But now that they've rejected it, we're gonna do it to you, but even harder!

Running on a platform of prosecuting your political enemies is bad! Unless its Donald Trump, which I guess is ok!

Racism is bad! Unless I do it and then i have to get a new username!

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

Maybe he will remain one.  He currently is.  We will see what the appellate courts do.

But as the political maneuver the lawfare was, it failed spectacularly.  

I know this is difficult for you, Johnny I Inherited a Grocery Chain, but the convictions were the goal and they failed in no way whatsoever.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I know this is difficult for you, Johnny I Inherited a Grocery Chain, but the convictions were the goal and they failed in no way whatsoever.

Keep telling yourself that.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Congrats!  The tactic really worked out well for you guys.  

Whether it was politically smart to pursue and whether suspected criminals, regardless of stature, should be put to trial if the evidence warrants it are two completely separate arguments, you agree?

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Congrats!  The tactic really worked out well for you guys.  

You mean the American people?  For whom the judiciary serves?  Yes, I suppose so.

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

For the most part, they are.

Mostly they get theirs.  Teflon Don is, apparently, a real thing. 

I feel confident he'll do something once again to bring the scales of justice out once more.  He fucked it up once, he'll fuck it up again. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, Chad Fuck said:

You mean the American people?  For whom the judiciary serves?  Yes, I suppose so.

Mostly they get theirs.  Teflon Don is, apparently, a real thing. 

I feel confident he'll do something once again to bring the scales of justice out once more.  He fucked it up once, he'll fuck it up again. 

Dude, he is immune from prosecution once he takes office.  We. Are. Fucked. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

I feel confident he'll do something once again to bring the scales of justice out once more.  He fucked it up once, he'll fuck it up again. 

Listen, I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but, for your sanity, abandon any hope of Trump every "getting what's coming to him." We'll get through this next 4 years, but there's definitely no satisfying conclusion waiting for us.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

This is certainly an interesting tactic from an officer of the court.

 

"conspiracy against rights"

I can tell he's a Crackerjack lawyer.  That's something Biff might call a crime.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Dude, he is immune from prosecution once he takes office.  We. Are. Fucked. 

Immune from official acts, which remain pretty vague.  

2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Listen, I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but, for your sanity, abandon any hope of Trump every "getting what's coming to him." We'll get through this next 4 years, but there's definitely no satisfying conclusion waiting for us.

I hear you.  I'm not holding out any grand hopes.  We'll get through four years, agreed.  It's already unsatisfying, because there he is, still living and breathing.  

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Listen, I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but, for your sanity, abandon any hope of Trump every "getting what's coming to him." We'll get through this next 4 years, but there's definitely no satisfying conclusion waiting for us.

Only thing he's can't skate on is dying.  Probably.

Edited by kevwun
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

"conspiracy against rights"

I can tell he's a Crackerjack lawyer.  That's something Biff might call a crime.

The BEST people.  Except this time around "best" looks like the last ones waiting to be picked for dodgeball at an institute for the mentally challenged. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, kevwun said:

Only thing he's can't skate on is dying.  Probably.

Except now he's not going to die a sad loser, tweeting out about lord knows what. He's going to be celebrated as a conquering hero.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 11/7/2024 at 1:51 PM, wildcat09 said:

Guys, Johnny thinks Republicans are above the law. I really don't understand how you can't grasp that by now.

 

duh-sarcastic.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 11/7/2024 at 3:15 PM, TwiceHorn said:

"conspiracy against rights"

I can tell he's a Crackerjack lawyer.  That's something Biff might call a crime.

Don't worry - Aileen, Clarence or one of their brethren will hold his hand through the process until he can articulate a colorable enough position to bankrupt anyone that had the temerity to question Dotard's integrity.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
On 11/8/2024 at 9:49 PM, Frank Drebin said:

Payback is going to be a bitch.  And it’s coming soon.  

This is an intellectual integrity test:

1. Do you think that prosecuting people for political reasons is acceptable?
2. Do you think political actors should be prosecuted when they have committed a crime?

  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

This is an intellectual integrity test:

1. Do you think that prosecuting people for political reasons is acceptable?
2. Do you think political actors should be prosecuted when they have committed a crime?

Don't even try reasoning with Johnny Sack.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, quite a perfect gif:  a corrupt and insane ruler.

Who wants to have sexual relations with his family members.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

Yeah, what guys like Johnny Grocery bitch about isn't actually something like lawfare, it's their perception that lawfare was used against his side.  Using it against the other side is totally cool, because he'a  big fucking hypocrite.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Don't even try reasoning with Johnny Sack.

Probably a fool's errand, but I give people chances.  I'm a hopeless optimist.  What can I say?



×
×
  • Create New...