As I said.
It was dumb.
As I said.
It was dumb.
Jezcoe: Cratic3947:Notice they are admitting paper and cloth masks do almost nothing. Now it’s E-95 to be a good complaint citizen… Obey!!
We must wear a slightly thicker mask!!!
Tyranny!!!
And when it’s changed again to everyone must wear a plastic bag over their heads, I’m betting a lot of Libs will comply.
yes, they should already be wearing a plastic bag over their heads to prevent climate change from the excess CO2 they spew.
Last summer?
Bringing up Ferguson and glossing over Minneapolis. Way to deflect.
Allan
Wait system racism is a lie?
YES!! I’d say it’s the biggest lie leftists have ever come up with.
PurpnGold:Wait system racism is a lie?
YES!! I’d say it’s the biggest lie leftists have ever come up with.
What do you think about the Crime Bill that Biden signed in 1990s?
Joe Biden in a 1993 speech warned of “predators on our streets” who were “beyond the pale” and said they must be cordoned off from the rest of society because the justice system did not know how to rehabilitate them.
He called it and made it happen. The predators in our streets part.
lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
Cool.
Do you think that bill disproportionately impacted black people?
Optrader: lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
No, I DON’T SAY. The law says so. In no court in America would a case EVER be prosecuted against someone on hearsay simply because the haters can’t compel someone else to testify. And since both the transcript of the phone call and the statement made by the alleged victim supported Trump, what do you hope testimony by the “inner circle” would have produced? You really think they would commit perjury and say the transcript was faked and there was things Trump said that were left out? Besides, Trump can’t keep someone from testifying if they so choose to do so.
Kelby: Optrader: lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
No, I DON’T SAY. The law says so. In no court in America would a case EVER be prosecuted against someone on hearsay simply because the haters can’t compel someone else to testify. And since both the transcript of the phone call and the statement made by the alleged victim supported Trump, what do you hope testimony by the “inner circle” would have produced? You really think they would commit perjury and say the transcript was faked and there was things Trump said that were left out? Besides, Trump can’t keep someone from testifying if they so choose to do so.
The transcript. Orly. The self serving memo released by the admin or the “rough” transcript.
Optrader: Kelby: Optrader: lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
No, I DON’T SAY. The law says so. In no court in America would a case EVER be prosecuted against someone on hearsay simply because the haters can’t compel someone else to testify. And since both the transcript of the phone call and the statement made by the alleged victim supported Trump, what do you hope testimony by the “inner circle” would have produced? You really think they would commit perjury and say the transcript was faked and there was things Trump said that were left out? Besides, Trump can’t keep someone from testifying if they so choose to do so.
The transcript. Orly. The self serving memo released by the admin or the “rough” transcript.
So again, let’s prosecute with hearsay because we can’t force anyone to testify the way we want them to.
That’s the way Libs work. Hell with the law, just make it up.
FreeAndClear: Optrader: Kelby: Optrader: lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
No, I DON’T SAY. The law says so. In no court in America would a case EVER be prosecuted against someone on hearsay simply because the haters can’t compel someone else to testify. And since both the transcript of the phone call and the statement made by the alleged victim supported Trump, what do you hope testimony by the “inner circle” would have produced? You really think they would commit perjury and say the transcript was faked and there was things Trump said that were left out? Besides, Trump can’t keep someone from testifying if they so choose to do so.
The transcript. Orly. The self serving memo released by the admin or the “rough” transcript.
So again, let’s prosecute with hearsay because we can’t force anyone to testify the way we want them to.
That’s the way Libs work. Hell with the law, just make it up.
Forgetting for a second that everything said outside of a court room is hearsay but some things fall within the exceptions to hearsay and forgetting for a second that crimes are prosecuted all the time based on testimony and circumstantial evidence. Forget all of that and then think about the fact that the Benghazi stand down orders arguments were based on hearsay
You don’t care about the hearsay, you care about the person being accused
What do you think about the Crime Bill that Biden signed in 1990s?
The guy you voted for?
Cool.
Do you think that bill disproportionately impacted black people?
Are black people disproportionately committing crimes?
Optrader: FreeAndClear: Optrader: Kelby: Optrader: lessright:Let me get this right. Three-of-a-kind beats two-pair; a flush beats a straight; and an “unnamed court source and one law clerk” beats “cited court sources”?
Leftists falsely impeached a sitting president based on nothing more than hearsay and this raises concerns about unnamed sources??
Hearsay you say?
Well, obviously much of the reason for that was because he blocked the testimony of his inner circle…
No, I DON’T SAY. The law says so. In no court in America would a case EVER be prosecuted against someone on hearsay simply because the haters can’t compel someone else to testify. And since both the transcript of the phone call and the statement made by the alleged victim supported Trump, what do you hope testimony by the “inner circle” would have produced? You really think they would commit perjury and say the transcript was faked and there was things Trump said that were left out? Besides, Trump can’t keep someone from testifying if they so choose to do so.
The transcript. Orly. The self serving memo released by the admin or the “rough” transcript.
So again, let’s prosecute with hearsay because we can’t force anyone to testify the way we want them to.
That’s the way Libs work. Hell with the law, just make it up.
Forgetting for a second that everything said outside of a court room is hearsay but some things fall within the exceptions to hearsay and forgetting for a second that crimes are prosecuted all the time based on testimony and circumstantial evidence. Forget all of that and then think about the fact that the Benghazi stand down orders arguments were based on hearsay
You don’t care about the hearsay, you care about the person being accused
There are two sides to every story. When you have the statement from the alleged victim who says they weren’t victimized and a transcript of the call, why do you believe that someone’s opinion of a conversation they didn’t even hear is sufficient to prosecute anyway?