Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Ken Star, the forest gump of rape, prosecutor of lying blowjobs, being appointed and accepted to defend the rapist in chief is simply perfect. 

Having Dershowitz on the team is simply the icing on the cake.

The Republicans have no soul. The party is dead. Long live the Republican Party. Trump style. May it devour itself in its undisputed evil. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexArcher
TexArcher

Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

Zavala
Zavala

DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45683

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Anyone else seeing the irony in a Ukrainian being the one that saves the republic? Am i the only one seeing this? Is this mic on?

If by “saves the republic” you mean “will be ignored and discredited by the republicans who will continue their destruction of the republic without a second thought”, then yes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Touche, and noted.

 

Honest curiosity -- what constitutes a "criminal statute" in the context of a law passed by Congress?  Is it not "a law"?  Is the criminality of violation not established by the language of the law?

Well, usually it has a penalty attached that includes potential prison time.

Fundamentally, criminal statutes are supposed to be contained in Title 18, U.S. Code.

But because congress is fucking insane, we have arguably criminal statutes all over the U.S. Code.

Fun fact:  no one actually knows how many federal criminal laws there are.  Estimates are more than 5,000.

As mentioned, some laws have no penalty associated with them at all.  Some provide a civil cause of action for the government to enforce.  Some a private civil cause of action, and some a criminal penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

I'd like to change the assessment by Kamala Harris I was joking about in the previous page now that I've seen the complete team. From left to right top row:

Radio Hack, Loser, Big Loser, Loser, Pedophile Apologist

Bottom row: Bribe recipient, Tough Cookie, Stalker (2006), Rape Defender

Rather telling that Raskin is on that team. Prosecutes organized crime for the DOJ I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4814

Posted
Posted

What kind of fuckery is this?  

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment acquittal would make me unhappy

Member of Trump’s legal team says he’s acting ‘for the survival of the constitution’ but will have limited role in president’s defense.

Quote

The Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, a member of Donald Trump’s team for his impeachment trial, has said he will not vote for the president in November and that Trump’s acquittal by the Senate “would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual”.

But Dershowitz said acting “for the survival of the constitution” was more important than “the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president”.

Dershowitz spoke to the BBC’s Today programme on Saturday, broadcast while the US east coast lay in darkness.

His remarks were no surprise: Dershowitz is a familiar voice in the media, to some degree a controversialist or gadfly, willing to go against the grain of public opinion or to represent unpopular clients, among them OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. He is a regular presence on Fox News.

But as Washington, New York and Boston woke, it remained to be seen how a notoriously changeable president might react to his new lawyer’s remarks.

In the event Trump woke up in determined mood, tweeting about the strong US economy while seemingly watching Fox. But there was plenty of coverage from less friendly outlets available should Trump choose to darken his mood.

The articles of impeachment charge that the president abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to carry out investigations for his political benefit, including against former vice-president and possible 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden, and obstructed Congress in its efforts to investigate.

On Friday night, it was reported that documents released by House Democrats showed that an aide to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee and a key Trump ally, worked with Lev Parnas on the administration’s approaches to Ukraine last year.

Parnas is a Soviet-born US citizen and associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer who drove the Ukraine effort. Facing charges under federal campaign law, Parnas has turned against the president, detailing his role in the Ukraine affair in wide-ranging interviews with TV, newspapers and websites.

As the White House faces into the storm, Dershowitz will join a Trump legal team that also includes Ken Starr, who played a leading role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer and regular media surrogate, and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, will also represent the president.

Procedural steps continued on Saturday as the Senate trial drew nearer. House Democrats this week walked the articles of impeachment to the Senate and supreme court chief justice John Roberts arrived on Capitol Hill to preside.

House impeachment managers, led by intelligence chair Adam Schiff, had a 5pm deadline on Saturday to submit a trial brief. Trump had a 6pm deadline to respond to the charges against him.

A two-thirds majority of senators will be needed to convict Trump and remove him from office. Argument continues over whether witnesses including former national security adviser John Bolton will be allowed to testify.

But as the Senate is controlled by a Republican party controlled firmly by Trump, and as majority leader Mitch McConnell has admitted to strategising in lockstep with the White House, a conviction remains extremely unlikely.

No president has ever been convicted and removed: Clinton and Andrew Johnson survived Senate trials and Richard Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. On the BBC, Dershowitz was asked if he thought Trump was a good president and how he felt about potentially facilitating his re-election.

“It’s a very, very different issue,” he said. “I’m a Democrat. I intend to vote Democrat. I think that Democrats would be disappointed to see the president re-elected and Republicans would be pleased.”

Pressed on his personal feelings about Trump’s impeachment, Dershowitz said it “creates ambivalence in me as it does whenever I represent somebody whose acquittal would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual. But I would never, ever allow my own partisan views to impact my views on the constitution.

“I’m not going to allow my partisan views to impact my constitutional views and what I think is best for the long term survival of the constitution rather than the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president.”

Many observers have seen Trump’s selection of Dershowitz and Starr as a partisan move. In the words of the Washington Post: “To form the crack legal team that will defend him in the impeachment trial that begins on Tuesday, President Trump went right to the place where the most accomplished and effective lawyers can be found: Fox News.”

On Fox and elsewhere, Dershowitz has argued that abuse of power is not an impeachable offence.

On CNN on Saturday morning, he said obstruction of Congress was “made up”. He also said that in the Senate trial he would be “only appearing arguing on behalf of the constitution”. He would answer questions from senators, he said, but would have a “limited role”, as agreed with Trump.

In a fiery exchange on the same network on Friday night, the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin charged his old teacher with “pretending to be some sort of neutral observer, rather than Donald Trump’s lawyer”.

“For some reason you don’t want to admit that,” Toobin said, “and that’s up to you. But … I think straightforwardly that abuse of power, the framers recognised it, that’s what’s the issue in this case and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is a violation of his oath.”

Dershowitz answered: “Let me perfectly clear, I am an advocate … against impeachment. But I’m politically neutral, that is I would make the same argument whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t let my political preferences interfere with my constitutional analysis.”

“I think the country is helped,” he added, “when they hear from someone like me who is a liberal Democrat, who has always voted Democrat.”

But, he said: “I want the impeachment to fail.”

America faces an epic choice...

... in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. It will be a defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020.

Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. Our journalism is free and open for all, but it's made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across America in all 50 states.

"America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness." – US editor, John Mulholland

 

On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, "Perhaps the chief virtue of a newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own." That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian's editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/18/donald-trump-impeachment-news-today-alan-dershowitz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10205

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

My mom really liked this movie, Romancing the Stone with Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. I think she watched it whenever it was showing on television. Anyway, when the Dershowitz and Starr announcement was made, it reminded me of a scene from that movie:

Just in case you haven't seen the movie, I'll give a little background. Kathleen Turner plays a romance novel author named Joan Wilder, quite successful but very single, always looking for her hero. She's just finished a novel, and her publisher, Gloria,  wants to celebrate and so takes her to a bar for some drinks. Gloria also wants to help Joan find her hero and so while they are sitting at the bar, she is assessing the local talent.

Gloria: Wimp. Wimp. Loser. Loser. Major loser. Too angry. Too vague. Too desperate. God, too happy. Oh, look at this guy. Mr. Mondo Dismo. I actually used to date him. Total sleaze bucket. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold everything. Get a load of this character. What about him?

Joan: No, he's - he's just not...

Gloria: Who? Jessie? (the name of the hero in the just finished novel)

 

So I"m picturing the Senate trial all solemn and quiet and Kamala Harris sending Liz Warren notes since they're not supposed to talk. They're both married, but instead of the 1, X, X, 2, 3 thing you do:

Kamala: Rapist. Rapist Defender. Pedophile. Loser. Loser. Major loser. Too angry. Too desperate....

 

spacer.png

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

What kind of fuckery is this?  

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment acquittal would make me unhappy

Member of Trump’s legal team says he’s acting ‘for the survival of the constitution’ but will have limited role in president’s defense.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/18/donald-trump-impeachment-news-today-alan-dershowitz

Setting aside for a moment Trump and Dershowitz, some of you people act like you don't understand criminal defense lawyers or lawyers generally.

It is entirely consistent for an attorney to represent someone s/he doesn't personally believe in.

Dershowitz himself is pretty much the patron saint of hated defendants.  I was never convinced that his defending of Trump meant he was an actual Trump sympathizer beyond being a big Jew and liking big Jew things.  He's like the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45939

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Setting aside for a moment Trump and Dershowitz, some of you people act like you don't understand criminal defense lawyers or lawyers generally.

It is entirely consistent for an attorney to represent someone s/he doesn't personally believe in.

Dershowitz himself is pretty much the patron saint of hated defendants.  I was never convinced that his defending of Trump meant he was an actual Trump sympathizer beyond being a big Jew and liking big Jew things.  He's like the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie.

You defend Trump, you're shit.  This "it's all about the Constitution" angle is garbage.  I have every right to think Dershowitz' death should be a national holiday, and the sooner the better.  He could turn down the gig.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30238

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 This "it's all about the Constitution" angle is garbage.

His absolutely contemptible and false statements about the Mueller findings in support of Trump make this statement a simple nod to the Trumpkins to accept what he says because, "He don't even like Trump, Libtard!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Setting aside for a moment Trump and Dershowitz, some of you people act like you don't understand criminal defense lawyers or lawyers generally.

It is entirely consistent for an attorney to represent someone s/he doesn't personally believe in.

Dershowitz himself is pretty much the patron saint of hated defendants.  I was never convinced that his defending of Trump meant he was an actual Trump sympathizer beyond being a big Jew and liking big Jew things.  He's like the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie.

I  don't have much understanding w/respect to criminal defense lawyers but I think I get your point. The basic problem I have with some of the folks on Trump's team is that some of them have been accused of doing criminal acts themselves. I should think when you are defending someone you do it because you are practicing the law as it is written, is that correct? However, I don't think a lawyer should be breaking the law and then practice it as a matter of course. But I don't know how all that works, so it's probably complicated. Many things are once you delve past the superficial. Feel free to educate any time. I like to learn new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Setting aside for a moment Trump and Dershowitz, some of you people act like you don't understand criminal defense lawyers or lawyers generally.

It is entirely consistent for an attorney to represent someone s/he doesn't personally believe in.

Dershowitz himself is pretty much the patron saint of hated defendants.  I was never convinced that his defending of Trump meant he was an actual Trump sympathizer beyond being a big Jew and liking big Jew things.  He's like the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie.

Nope. He’s not defending some guy from going to jail. He’s defending a piece of shit from being clearly justifiably removed from the office of the presidency. Big difference. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nope. He’s not defending some guy from going to jail. He’s defending a piece of shit from being clearly justifiably removed from the office of the presidency. Big difference. 

Or he’s returning a favor to keep his reputation out of the dumpster, and quite possibly his ass out of prison.  Ask Lolita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29907

Posted
Posted

I saw Dersh on CNN saying his client was the Constitution. That's a combination of first-rate self-deception and third rate sophistry. He wants it both ways.

The comparison to a criminal attorney representing someone he/she finds reprehensible is valid. However, those attorneys usually don't make a point of distancing themselves from their clients prior to trial.

I've never heard a criminal attorney say to the press: "I'm not defending Gotti; I'm defending the constitutional right to representation!" Dershowitz couldn't bring himself to say he represented Gotti until the CNN legal guy boxed him in.

I think Dersh misses being an admired man. I think maybe in the last year he's come to see how disliked he is because of his association with Trump and Epstein, his treatment of the Epstein accusers, and his weird stand on statutory rape.

Those reasons are good enough for me to change my opinion. I don't care that he's representing Trump, but I don't like his double talk about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I  don't have much understanding w/respect to criminal defense lawyers but I think I get your point. The basic problem I have with some of the folks on Trump's team is that some of them have been accused of doing criminal acts themselves. I should think when you are defending someone you do it because you are practicing the law as it is written, is that correct? However, I don't think a lawyer should be breaking the law and then practice it as a matter of course. But I don't know how all that works, so it's probably complicated. Many things are once you delve past the superficial. Feel free to educate any time. I like to learn new things.

The basic point is that criminal defense lawyers are generally unconcerned with the guilt or innocence of their clients or their other character defects, or general purpose scumbagginess.

It is, generally, a mistake to conflate a defense lawyer's character with that of his or her client.

Over most of his career, I have admired Dershowitz.  Don't always agree with him.  I think he's a nutty Zionist, for one thing.  I can't quite tell if he actually has any sympathy for Trump or is just doing his deal.

The guy who accused Dershowitz, Paul Cassell, is a flaming asshole jerkoff dickwad in my opinion.  I don't believe a word he says.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19190

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was never convinced that his defending of Trump meant he was an actual Trump sympathizer beyond being a big Jew and liking big Jew things.  He's like the ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie.

I thought the same until it became pretty clear he was fucking underage girls via Epstein and he went to war for dotard because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I thought the same until it became pretty clear he was fucking underage girls via Epstein and he went to war for dotard because of it.

None of that is clear to me.  I don't trust the lawyers for his accuser any further than I can throw them and consequently don't trust his accuser  And Boies is a skinny fuck that I could probably throw a little ways.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19190

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The basic point is that criminal defense lawyers are generally unconcerned with the guilt or innocence of their clients or their other character defects, or general purpose scumbagginess.

Oh we know 100% that defense lawyers don't give a shit about guilt or innocence.  They only give a shit about whether that gotdamn check is gonna clear.

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyRage

JohnnyRage 1617

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The basic point is that criminal defense lawyers are generally unconcerned with the guilt or innocence of their clients or their other character defects, or general purpose scumbagginess.

It is, generally, a mistake to conflate a defense lawyer's character with that of his or her client.

Over most of his career, I have admired Dershowitz.  Don't always agree with him.  I think he's a nutty Zionist, for one thing.  I can't quite tell if he actually has any sympathy for Trump or is just doing his deal.

The guy who accused Dershowitz, Paul Cassell, is a flaming asshole jerkoff dickwad in my opinion.  I don't believe a word he says.

But doesn't being a polical hack on Fox News where they have both been sucking off Trump for months kind of take away from the prestige of honoring the process?

Edited by JohnnyRage
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The basic point is that criminal defense lawyers are generally unconcerned with the guilt or innocence of their clients or their other character defects, or general purpose scumbagginess.

It is, generally, a mistake to conflate a defense lawyer's character with that of his or her client.

Over most of his career, I have admired Dershowitz.  Don't always agree with him.  I think he's a nutty Zionist, for one thing.  I can't quite tell if he actually has any sympathy for Trump or is just doing his deal.

The guy who accused Dershowitz, Paul Cassell, is a flaming asshole jerkoff dickwad in my opinion.  I don't believe a word he says.

all this aside, i think in this case, it's more of the narrative that the gop loves to push, which is to have people hold themselves up as dems or non-partisan, but then push for pro-trump shit.

so many of the troll-farm-bot-response garbage read like that in 2016.  "hey, you know what, i've been a democrat all my life, i voted for obama twice, but hillary is terrible and this trump guy tells it like it is, and i like what he'll do for the country and the economy!" 

and i guess people think they're being sly, and that idiots in flyover states will rethink their opinions on things.  and maybe it worked, because he fucking won.  this article reads like that.  and i'm sure pubs already are getting their talking points in order, "see, dersh is a strong dem, he's not even voting for trump!  he's just doing what's right for the constitution!"

pos-rep for the first person who finds a tweet like this.  it won't take long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Fuck.  Someone just reminded me I wasted some of my life watching "Romancing the Stone". 

And now I just remembered the song by Eddy Grant.

 Haha! I understand, it's not for everybody. But it struck a cord for a lot of women of my mom's generation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

None of that is clear to me.  I don't trust the lawyers for his accuser any further than I can throw them and consequently don't trust his accuser  And Boies is a skinny fuck that I could probably throw a little ways.

So doesn't that mean you can trust Boies more than the rest?  Up to the distance you can throw him at least. 

FWIW, I find Dershowitz far less trustworthy. His public politics and positions have aligned with Trump for a long time before Trump hired him for impeachment defense.  I've seen enough of Dershowitz on Fox News to know the posted article is complete bullshit. He is and has been all aboard the Trump train. Now that could be because they are both in Epstein's blackmail diary, it could be because Dershowitz is enjoying the grifting gravy train of Fox News punditry, or it could be because he actually likes Trump's policy stances. All three are probably true actually.  And what is certainly true is that he is lying in order to make his defense of Trump seem pure.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-strategy-national-security-d7f605d2-0335-45e7-84f3-1e799fec39b5.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

 

 

Quote

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.

Why it matters: They're banking on it to speed up the trial, according to people close to the president.

 

Quote

White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who considers himself a civil libertarian, is expected to argue that the obstruction of Congress article is dangerous and could forever undermine the power of the executive office to protect privileged information.

Cipollone will likely frame the Senate trial as a defining moment to set the precedent for executive privilege, especially on national security matters, per a source familiar with his thinking.

This approach is something Cipollone is particularly proud of, and one that he is happy to test in court, the source said.

 

Quote

The argument: Presidential claims of executive privilege are especially strong when they involve conversations about national security.

Weakening that privilege would make presidents less candid when they seek counsel from their advisers on national security (think John Bolton).

The bottom line: Sources close to Trump's legal team have privately expressed confidence that former national security adviser Bolton will ultimately honor Trump's assertion of executive privilege.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3550

Posted
Posted
https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-strategy-national-security-d7f605d2-0335-45e7-84f3-1e799fec39b5.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
 
 
Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.
The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.
Why it matters: They're banking on it to speed up the trial, according to people close to the president.
 
White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who considers himself a civil libertarian, is expected to argue that the obstruction of Congress article is dangerous and could forever undermine the power of the executive office to protect privileged information.
Cipollone will likely frame the Senate trial as a defining moment to set the precedent for executive privilege, especially on national security matters, per a source familiar with his thinking.
This approach is something Cipollone is particularly proud of, and one that he is happy to test in court, the source said.
 
The argument: Presidential claims of executive privilege are especially strong when they involve conversations about national security.
Weakening that privilege would make presidents less candid when they seek counsel from their advisers on national security (think John Bolton).
The bottom line: Sources close to Trump's legal team have privately expressed confidence that former national security adviser Bolton will ultimately honor Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
 
BULLSHIT!

This was never about national security concerns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45939

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Gosh, that seems to be contradictory to what Dersh is saying now.  But he's a Constitutionalist, non-partisan, no-conflict kind of guy.

Fuck him.  Early candidate for the brick wall (yeah, that's what I mean) when this all breaks down into where I think it's going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...