Commodus
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2004
- 9,215
- 6,821
- 136
If only Nancy would pass on the articles of impeachment...
If only the Republicans weren't corrupt to their very core and determined to rig the trial.
If only Nancy would pass on the articles of impeachment...
Well, at least the rest of us are safe.
![]()
Iranian government official raises eyebrows with tweet listing locations of Trump's properties
An Iranian government official seemed to suggest that President Trump's properties could be potential targets in retaliation for the US targeted killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.Hesameddin Ashena, who is an adviser to Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, tweeted a link this Saturday to a...www.rawstory.com
Iranian government official raises eyebrows with tweet listing locations of Trump’s properties
View attachment 15366
An Iranian government official seemed to suggest that President Trump’s properties could be potential targets in retaliation for the US targeted killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.
Hesameddin Ashena, who is an adviser to Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, tweeted a link this Saturday to a Forbes article that lists many of Trump’s properties in America and Europe, including Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
In a tweet the following day, Ashena wrote that the Iranian regime has “ZERO problems with the American people.”
“We even achieved deals with previous US administrations,” he added. “Our sole problem is Trump. In the event of war, it is he who will bear full responsibility.”
In a sentiment that took things a slight step further, Soleimani’s daughter Zeinab said at her father’s funeral that the “families of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East will spend their days waiting for the death of their children.”
***
It does beg the question, whether or not Trump can deploy the military to protect his private property.
If only Nancy would pass on the articles of impeachment...
Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial.
Speaking of which, Bolton just agreed to testify in the Senate.
![]()
How John Bolton just put the squeeze on Mitch McConnell over impeachment
Former national security adviser John Bolton's surprise announcement Monday that he is willing to testify in the Senate's impeachment trial significantly raises the already massive stakes of the pending votes in the chamber as to how the trial of President Donald Trump will be conducted. And it...www.cnn.com
Which makes things more interesting for McConnell.
Oh shit, called it. Trump properties for the FU, and using troops or taxpayer money to secure them will further infuriate and divide the country. Something tells me Mar a Lago might get hit, Trump is proud of conducting state business there. I can see the Iranians taking some offense to the notion of their national hero's demise being casually planned over opulent, alcohol accompanied dinner at a golf club and spa in Florida.
I wonder when we get to find out who got to die because Drumpf the Dipshit needed impeachment distraction.
If only Nancy would pass on the articles of impeachment...
They can't do that without the articles of impeachment.Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial.
It's funny how the Senate's open refusal to commit to a fair trial is somehow the House's fault, and the House should submit to the GOP's phony show trial ASAP. But you're not biased, right?They can't do that without the articles of impeachment.
You have a lot of trouble understanding simple statements. Zin said "Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial". I said "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment".It's funny how the Senate's open refusal to commit to a fair trial is somehow the House's fault, and the House should submit to the GOP's phony show trial ASAP. But you're not biased, right?
It's funny how the Senate's open refusal to commit to a fair trial is somehow the House's fault, and the House should submit to the GOP's phony show trial ASAP. But you're not biased, right?
You have a lot of trouble understanding simple statements. Zin said "Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial". I said "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment".
My statement was a correction of what Zin said. Nancy isn't waiting for the senate to hold a trial. They have no reason to hold a trial because they have no articles of impeachment.
It's probably best if you put me on ignore because you don't seem able to grasp the thoughts and opinions that I express. In the example above, I meant exactly what I said. There was no hidden meaning or agenda, only what I said.
They won't be wearing the stink of it after they do it either. It'll just be proof to them that even the public and legally presented grievances of the majority of the American People cannot stop them.More than enough has been said about McConnell staging a fake trial. The GOP won't be wearing the stink of it until they actually do it so we should move on to that expeditiously.
You're getting angry over words I never said. You're making assumptions that are incorrect, ranting about your flawed insight as if it had some validity, and arguing points that I never made. This is the very definition of a straw man argument. Give it up. The one sentence I wrote is absolutely accurate.Ignorance isn't strength. I understand and see right through this transparent BS just fine.
The GOP in the Senate are openly bragging that they will not hold, or even allow, an actual trial, but will simply move to deny witnesses and evidence in favor of a summary acquital. For a prosecutor (which in this case BTW is the House) to knowingly submit to such a kangaroo court is to be complicit in the affront to the rule of law. But of course, that's what you want, right? Or heard on talk radio and conveniently didn't grasp the 2-sided ramifications..
Lets walk through this. You made the statement, "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment." Please elaborate, what were you trying to convey with this statement? It may be technically accurate, but it is also misleading. It is the equivalent to me saying that you've killed hundreds during your lifetime.You're getting angry over words I never said. You're making assumptions that are incorrect, ranting about your flawed insight as if it had some validity, and arguing points that I never made. This is the very definition of a straw man argument. Give it up. The one sentence I wrote is absolutely accurate.
It's shit-stirring and he knows it. I can't call him a shit-stirrer since we're not allowed to be mean to each other anymore, but I can say he was definitely stirring shit.Lets walk through this. You made the statement, "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment." Please elaborate, what were you trying to convey with this statement? It may be technically accurate, but it is also misleading. It is the equivalent to me saying that you've killed hundreds during your lifetime.
Can't imagine the security nightmare that ocean waterfront property creates for the SS.Oh shit, called it. Trump properties for the FU, and using troops or taxpayer money to secure them will further infuriate and divide the country. Something tells me Mar a Lago might get hit, Trump is proud of conducting state business there. I can see the Iranians taking some offense to the notion of their national hero's demise being casually planned over opulent, alcohol accompanied dinner at a golf club and spa in Florida.
I wonder when we get to find out who got to die because Drumpf the Dipshit needed impeachment distraction.
Noone but youself understands that. While logical true you refuse to ackowledge the fact that Moscow Mitch is on record, stating it will not be a fair trial. But yea, Senate cant do its job because... MM is a corrupt monkey. Thats why Senate cant do its job... cause MM cant do his. Period. Skull. Open. Information. Into. Brain. fortheloveofgodplzYou have a lot of trouble understanding simple statements. Zin said "Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial". I said "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment".
My statement was a correction of what Zin said. Nancy isn't waiting for the senate to hold a trial. They have no reason to hold a trial because they have no articles of impeachment.
It's probably best if you put me on ignore because you don't seem able to grasp the thoughts and opinions that I express. In the example above, I meant exactly what I said. There was no hidden meaning or agenda, only what I said.
Its almost sounds like you are against targeting political leaders for assassination!It almost sounds like you think, if the POTUS is bad enough, threats to his/her life, and bounties, are OK...
Pretty muchIts almost sounds like you are against targeting political leaders for assassination!
