@AverageJoe1 saidWhat if there were three investigations into whether or not James Madison committed treason, and all three said no?
Treason?. If James Madison and Samuel Adams had tried to illegally affect a ballot box to get rid of George Washington, that might not fit the def of Treason, but what would it be? Which is what Obama did.......to Trump.
@wildgrass saidThen that would be the accepted finding. But I just said it might not be treason, and asked you what the actions of Obama, Brenner, Comey, Hillary and Clapper should be called.
What if there were three investigations into whether or not James Madison committed treason, and all three said no?
They did SOMETHNG, man. Are you just gonna given them a pass??
@AverageJoe1 saidShould tulsi be in trouble as a government official falsely accusing a former president of treason?
Then that would be the accepted finding. But I just said it might not be treason, and asked you what the actions of Obama, Brenner, Comey, Hillary and Clapper should be called.
They did SOMETHNG, man. Are you just gonna given them a pass??
@wildgrass saidDepends upon in what capacity she says it. Like, did she say 'Arrest that Man!"? And, she said it as part of an iinvestigatIOn to actually DETERMINE if it was treason. So, she had to use the word Treason, don't you see. Ask Sonhouse.
Should tulsi be in trouble as a government official falsely accusing a former president of treason?
@wildgrass saidHold On. Just now Tulsi just released the docs which She Says show a 'treasonous conspiracy'.
Should tulsi be in trouble as a government official falsely accusing a former president of treason?
She must be following our chat. Anyway, if she says that is what it shows, then that is what it shows. Therefore, I think she is saying and doing her job. Do you not want to get to the bottom? Do you not want these people to be imprisoned for almost ruining our country? We might not ever have gotten to have our wonderful president if they had succeeded.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes she referred the matter to the DOJ with a recommendation to pursue criminal charges of treason.
Depends upon in what capacity she says it. Like, did she say 'Arrest that Man!"? And, she said it as part of an iinvestigatIOn to actually DETERMINE if it was treason. So, she had to use the word Treason, don't you see. Ask Sonhouse.
It's already been determined three times that it isn't treason. No wrongdoing.
@AverageJoe1 saidPlease show the forum the part that proves treason. Remember these docs were examined by three investigations already.
Hold On. Just now Tulsi just released the docs which She Says show a 'treasonous conspiracy'.
She must be following our chat. Anyway, if she says that is what it shows, then that is what it shows. Therefore, I think she is saying and doing her job. Do you not want to get to the bottom? Do you not want these people to be imprisoned for almost ruining our country? We might not ever have gotten to have our wonderful president if they had succeeded.
1 edit
I think I know why y'all are brainwashed. Fox News aired 168 news segments about tulsi gabbards revisionist history of events surrounding the 2016 election, just in the past 2 weeks. 26 segments in one day! But what tulsi claims are in the documents quickly falls apart if you read the documents. There's nothing that wasn't alr ady known from the investigations 5 years ago.
Nothing burger!
https://x.com/mmfa/status/1950610284298801340
@wildgrass saidEveryone not MAGA already knew that. This was simply to get the base to spam the internet with this instead of Epstein. Trump is bad at many things, but controlling the information cycles is not one of them. They really understand their base much better than the Dems. Of course, it helps that the base does whatever Trump says even if Trump told them to do the exact opposite the day before.
I think I know why y'all are brainwashed. Fox News aired 168 news segments about tulsi gabbards revisionist history of events surrounding the 2016 election, just in the past 2 weeks. 26 segments in one day! But what tulsi claims are in the documents quickly falls apart if you read the documents. There's nothing that wasn't alr ady known from the investigations 5 years ago.
Nothing burger!
https://x.com/mmfa/status/1950610284298801340
@wildgrass saidTrump was not in charge of those investigations, you silly goose! Do you know that Trump knows what he is doing.? Biden and Kamala and Susan Rice were in charge, but now the locker room talker is in charge.
Please show the forum the part that proves treason. Remember these docs were examined by three investigations already.
So, a new day. We will see. Yes, like I said, the word treason conspiracy seems the best. Or what should she call it? Some foolish stuff?!? Naa, don’t think so
@wildgrass saidWe will just wait and see. We really don’t know enough to comment about it when you think about it. Maybe Sunhouse will have a few pages he could guess about.
I think I know why y'all are brainwashed. Fox News aired 168 news segments about tulsi gabbards revisionist history of events surrounding the 2016 election, just in the past 2 weeks. 26 segments in one day! But what tulsi claims are in the documents quickly falls apart if you read the documents. There's nothing that wasn't alr ady known from the investigations 5 years ago.
Nothing burger!
https://x.com/mmfa/status/1950610284298801340
Your comment about Fox News airing stuff to favor a conservative point of view? Today I saw an article a news report that the show called the view , five women sitting around a table, shooting the breeze, did not have one conservative guest since January one. They had 107 guests, all of the liberal persuasion, but did not ask one conservative as a guest.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidGo find a copy of the Constitution, read the part where it defines "treason" and then admit Gabbard is bonkers to use the word.
Treason?. If James Madison and Samuel Adams had tried to illegally affect a ballot box to get rid of George Washington, that might not fit the def of Treason, but what would it be? Which is what Obama did.......to Trump.
EDIT: It's in Article III, Section 3.
@no1marauder saidcould we say that he manipulated intelligence (you know that he orchestrated exactly that) attempted to undermine President Trump'2016 victory.? Of course you will not say that, but I will say it for you. So that out of the way, it gives rise to questioning his (and several other people) conspiring to do so, which could evolve into acts considered treasonous.
Go find a copy of the Constitution, read the part where it defines "treason" and then admit Gabbard is bonkers to use the word.
EDIT: It's in Article III, Section 3.
So,,,,nooooooo, you say??? Not so fast. He will not be convicted or thrown in prison, but some like me will not be convinced of his innocence. You write llike a flaky liberal, no offense. Obama can do no wrong, and Trump has NEVER tond anything right. Is that you, Sonhouse?
@Sleepyguy saidDid not you already admit there was no new information presented by tulsi that was not already reviewed? Where is the treason?
I think you might be in a bubble and/or not keeping up.