ADVERTISEMENT

Loser Trump about to be arrested and indicted again.

Pfffftt. A brazen criminal is about to be tried and convicted on a bazillion charges and his followers are equating it to the apocalypse.

Chill.
Tard lol! Yet we still don’t know what Trump did. Can you answer that simple question?
 
Where am I wrong? He's going to get charged with:
  • Deprivation of rights under color of law
  • Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
  • Tampering with a witness
Due to the severity of these charges, when arraigned, Jack Smith will ask for no bail, and receive it. He will be found guilty. That is the last time we will hear directly from Trump himself until after the election is over, it would only be through lawyers after that point. During and after the election, he will be found guilty, and given a 20+ year sentence in just that one case.

The Republican Party will confer, and amend their platform, to where someone in jail awaiting trial cannot run, they'd have to to protect the brand. Even if they don't, sane individuals would not vote for someone waiting for trial that they're pretty certain they'll lose. Trump will not win the primaries.



RDS has a damn good chance to win as long as the Democrats stick to Biden. If they throw in a Newsome or Michelle Obama, Republicans are screwed no matter what.




A vote for Trump in the general after RDS wins the primary is a vote for Biden. I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to commute the sentence, keeping him from running again. Republicans, read RDS, would pardon.

You never really supported Trump. So I get why it's so hard for you now.
 
You never really supported Trump. So I get why it's so hard for you now.
No, I'm not a cultist. Politicians are there for me, not the other way around. Trump was the best pick for me in 2020. Not now.
 
So did Biden, but he won't pay. We are a country of 2 judicial systems, one that won't last.
If Biden is guilty then he should pay. But you all have a long history of baseless allegations, so don't mind us if we ignore or even mock the fvk out of you until we see evidence that sticks.
 
If Biden is guilty then he should pay. But you all have a long history of baseless allegations, so don't mind us if we ignore or even mock the fvk out of you until we see evidence that sticks.
Watch....Qmod will respond to this with a tweet he copied from his Qanon twitter feed.
 
No, I'm not a cultist. Politicians are there for me, not the other way around. Trump was the best pick for me in 2020. Not now.

It's not about being a cultists goofball. He's the only President in your lifetime to take on the system you pretend to complain about all the time. No other candidate comes even close to that right now. DeSantis should have worked it out to run as his VP instead of listening to RINO Donors. Now he has no chance.
 
Watch....Qmod will respond to this with a tweet he copied from his Qanon twitter feed.

You constantly bringing up QPUB shows why it was a bad PSYOP Operation. You followed it too. Post the link the Pub so we go back and see what they actually got right compared to the nonsense you Democrats make up.
 
Last edited:
If Biden is guilty then he should pay. But you all have a long history of baseless allegations, so don't mind us if we ignore or even mock the fvk out of you until we see evidence that sticks.
Baseless allegations...
Adam Schiff wants to talk to you about some Russian collusion story.
 
If Biden is guilty then he should pay. But you all have a long history of baseless allegations, so don't mind us if we ignore or even mock the fvk out of you until we see evidence that sticks.
You mean pay like hunter paid or like Hillary paid for the deleted emails?
 
Like I said, if Biden is guilty of anything, bring it to a courtroom, otherwise it’s just Twitter fodder for bifftards to spank their monkey with. Let’s see good evidence that sticks.
Been looking for good evidence against Trump.
Ya know like Russian collusion evidence.....
If Trump is going to trial over classified documents he was allowed to have shouldn't Biden go-to trial for classified documents he wasn't allowed to have ?
Shouldn't Hillary stand trial for deleting emails that wasn't hers, a private server....the list goes on .
I'm for any lawyer or politician, Trump, Biden or any of there kids getting prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and adding 10 years of prison for any law broken . Hunter is proven to have broken the law ....ALOT ....
If you don't see what's going on then there is no help .
Help yourself out and list to RFK Jr. He is a Democrat and can see what's going on .
 
Been looking for good evidence against Trump.
Ya know like Russian collusion evidence.....
If Trump is going to trial over classified documents he was allowed to have shouldn't Biden go-to trial for classified documents he wasn't allowed to have ?
Shouldn't Hillary stand trial for deleting emails that wasn't hers, a private server....the list goes on .
I'm for any lawyer or politician, Trump, Biden or any of there kids getting prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and adding 10 years of prison for any law broken . Hunter is proven to have broken the law ....ALOT ....
If you don't see what's going on then there is no help .
Help yourself out and list to RFK Jr. He is a Democrat and can see what's going on .
These morons know exactly what they’re doing. They’re choosing party over country. Much like the majority of Americans. That is why it all happens and nothing is done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadtrasheer
Like I said, if Biden is guilty of anything, bring it to a courtroom, otherwise it’s just Twitter fodder for bifftards to spank their monkey with. Let’s see good evidence that sticks.
Ask Merrick Garland to charge as the LAW requires:

In Wednesday’s marathon House hearing, Oversight Committee Democrats ran into a buzzsaw: two IRS whistleblower agents — Gary Shapley, the supervisor on the investigation who went public a few weeks ago, and Joseph Ziegler, the lead investigator on the case, who was publicly identified for the first time at the hearing.

In gory detail, the agents outlined how President Biden’s Justice Department quashed the Biden corruption investigation from within while publicly pretending that it was being conducted with independence and integrity.

When committee Democrats tried to poke holes in the testimony, they ended up on the receiving end of what they hadn’t bargained for: fusillades of fact — damning data about the millions raked in by the president’s son and family members from apparatchiks of corrupt and anti-American regimes.

The ranking Democrat on the panel, and thus the first in the minority to ask questions was Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, a tireless progressive partisan and former law professor who never tires of posing as a legal titan. But his questions were rife with disinformation and the witnesses called him on it.

He began, for example, trying to make the point that prosecutors and agents often disagree on whether felony charges ought to be brought. Rather than simply accept that proposition, which is true, Shapley explained why it is irrelevant — in this instance, the case agents and line prosecutors agreed that felony charges were appropriate; it was higher-ups in the Justice Department who slammed the brakes on the

The agents stress that they were being ordered by prosecutors not to follow leads that could have garnered evidence against Joe Biden. Despite all the obstacles, they managed to make a strong case against Hunter Biden, but they couldn’t get it charged because Weiss told them he was not the ultimate decisionmaker — he was being stymied by the Biden Justice Department.

But Attorney General Merrick Garland has publicly claimed that Weiss was in charge and was assured that he would have all the authority he needed to bring any charges in any jurisdiction — all he needed to do was ask.

Initially, Weiss backed that story. But then, when Shapley became the first of the whistleblowers to go public, Weiss changed his tune, struggling to back Garland while not contradicting Shapley, whose account is richly corroborated.

First Weiss said he had the authority. Then he conceded that he lacked authority to file charges outside his district of Delaware (i.e., in districts where Hunter had allegedy committed tax crimes), but vaporously added that he had consulted with the Justice Department about that problem. Then he claimed that he had not asked to be designated a special counsel, which would have given him authority to file charges anywhere.

Meantime, Shapley’s account was never shaken: Weiss had told a room full of agents that the Justice Department had refused to grant him special counsel authority, and that he was being blocked from filing felony tax charges against Hunter by Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys in Washington, D.C., and California.
Weiss is the wrong target here. He is just the fall-guy for Garland. Contrary to what the attorney general would have the country to believe, it was not Weiss’s job to ask for special counsel authority. It was Garland’s duty to appoint a special counsel the moment he realized there was a conflict of interest that prevented DOJ from investigating in the normal course.

Biden’s attorney general did not appoint a special counsel because he made protecting his boss, the president, his highest priority. That is why the case the whistleblowers so compellingly described at the hearing was sabotaged. The culprit here is not Weiss. It’s Garland.
 
Like I said, if Biden is guilty of anything, bring it to a courtroom, otherwise it’s just Twitter fodder for bifftards to spank their monkey with. Let’s see good evidence that sticks.
ZIEGLER: So, the four signed prosecutors of the case agreed with recommending felony and misdemeanor tax charges for Hunter Biden. David Weiss also agreed with that. And I know that from a meeting that I had with him in late August, early September.

And on top of that, you have David Weiss essentially — so they all agreed to charging this — the felony and misdemeanor. So DOJ policy on this is that their tax policy is that, if you have a felony with a misdemeanor, you have to charge the felony, and that’s to prevent inequitable treatment of taxpayers.

TAPPER: And they didn’t do that, is what you’re saying?

ZIEGLER: And according to the charging document, they only charged two misdemeanors, and one of those tax years related to 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadtrasheer
Ask Merrick Garland to charge as the LAW requires:

In Wednesday’s marathon House hearing, Oversight Committee Democrats ran into a buzzsaw: two IRS whistleblower agents — Gary Shapley, the supervisor on the investigation who went public a few weeks ago, and Joseph Ziegler, the lead investigator on the case, who was publicly identified for the first time at the hearing.

In gory detail, the agents outlined how President Biden’s Justice Department quashed the Biden corruption investigation from within while publicly pretending that it was being conducted with independence and integrity.

When committee Democrats tried to poke holes in the testimony, they ended up on the receiving end of what they hadn’t bargained for: fusillades of fact — damning data about the millions raked in by the president’s son and family members from apparatchiks of corrupt and anti-American regimes.

The ranking Democrat on the panel, and thus the first in the minority to ask questions was Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, a tireless progressive partisan and former law professor who never tires of posing as a legal titan. But his questions were rife with disinformation and the witnesses called him on it.

He began, for example, trying to make the point that prosecutors and agents often disagree on whether felony charges ought to be brought. Rather than simply accept that proposition, which is true, Shapley explained why it is irrelevant — in this instance, the case agents and line prosecutors agreed that felony charges were appropriate; it was higher-ups in the Justice Department who slammed the brakes on the

The agents stress that they were being ordered by prosecutors not to follow leads that could have garnered evidence against Joe Biden. Despite all the obstacles, they managed to make a strong case against Hunter Biden, but they couldn’t get it charged because Weiss told them he was not the ultimate decisionmaker — he was being stymied by the Biden Justice Department.

But Attorney General Merrick Garland has publicly claimed that Weiss was in charge and was assured that he would have all the authority he needed to bring any charges in any jurisdiction — all he needed to do was ask.

Initially, Weiss backed that story. But then, when Shapley became the first of the whistleblowers to go public, Weiss changed his tune, struggling to back Garland while not contradicting Shapley, whose account is richly corroborated.

First Weiss said he had the authority. Then he conceded that he lacked authority to file charges outside his district of Delaware (i.e., in districts where Hunter had allegedy committed tax crimes), but vaporously added that he had consulted with the Justice Department about that problem. Then he claimed that he had not asked to be designated a special counsel, which would have given him authority to file charges anywhere.

Meantime, Shapley’s account was never shaken: Weiss had told a room full of agents that the Justice Department had refused to grant him special counsel authority, and that he was being blocked from filing felony tax charges against Hunter by Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys in Washington, D.C., and California.
Weiss is the wrong target here. He is just the fall-guy for Garland. Contrary to what the attorney general would have the country to believe, it was not Weiss’s job to ask for special counsel authority. It was Garland’s duty to appoint a special counsel the moment he realized there was a conflict of interest that prevented DOJ from investigating in the normal course.

Biden’s attorney general did not appoint a special counsel because he made protecting his boss, the president, his highest priority. That is why the case the whistleblowers so compellingly described at the hearing was sabotaged. The culprit here is not Weiss. It’s Garland.
TAPPER: So, another — you testified yesterday you wanted to interview President Biden’s grandchildren, Hunter’s grown children, right?

They’re adults. But you we’re told, no, you couldn’t. Even without those interviews, you still had enough evidence, in your view, to recommend charges, because he was deducting things related to them that he wouldn’t be allowed to deduct in his taxes, right?

So you already knew the crime had happened. You didn’t — the argument would be, you don’t need to talk to Hunter’s adult children. You already have the evidence that what he did was wrong. So tell me why that’s not a satisfactory answer.

ZIEGLER: So, when we work our tax cases, and it’s an expense that is deducted for — as a business expense on someone’s tax return, you have to — essentially, they’re presumed that that’s a business expense until you prove that it’s not.

So, part of it is going to the third party to get those records. That’s one step, and then interviewing that person to determine, why was that — why was that expense made? And then a lot of times, those witnesses could lead you to other things. They could lead you to other evidence, expenditures that might have been made related to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadtrasheer
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT