Attention RWs: Be very, very careful

[Politruk]

When you write of the legitimate constitutional scope of presidential power -- or of presidential immunity -- be very, very careful never to say anything you would not have said when Clinton or Obama or Biden was president.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Now do it as Elmer Fudd.

 

[Politruk]

I'm hunting Wepublicans!

 

[Politruk]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the Republican.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

You mean say’n stuff like this?

 

[Politruk]

View attachment 2531576

You mean say’n stuff like this?

Completely off-topic. Also dishonest.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Completely off-topic. Also dishonest.

Are you saying Slick Willie never flew on the Lolita X-press?

Are you then going to say, knowing all we know about Der SleikMeister, that the rumors aren’t true?

We can agree to disagree on one front but NOT the provable one!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Are you saying Slick Willie never flew on the Lolita X-press?

Are you then going to say, knowing all we know about Der SleikMeister, that the rumors aren’t true?

We can agree to disagree on one front but NOT the provable one!

You say this like your current president was never good friends with epstein.

Are you really this stupid?

 

[Bray123]

So why did Trump keep going to Epstein Island anyway?

 

[Politruk]

Are you saying Slick Willie never flew on the Lolita X-press?

Are you then going to say, knowing all we know about Der SleikMeister, that the rumors aren’t true?

We can agree to disagree on one front but NOT the provable one!

It has nothing to do with the scope of presidential authority.

And there is no proof at all that Clinton ever coupled with any of Epstein's sex slaves, nor that he is even inclined to ephebophilia.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Are you saying Slick Willie never flew on the Lolita X-press?

Are you then going to say, knowing all we know about Der SleikMeister, that the rumors aren’t true?

We can agree to disagree on one front but NOT the provable one!

Here's the thing, Big 5Mike'sharpy: Even if the (completely unfounded) rumors about "Slick wilie" were true, and Trump likewise was proven to have "partook" in Epstein's dreadful pleasure parties, you would rub it in our faces about how disgusting and morally corrupt Slick willie was, while simultaneously praising Trump and ignoring the fact that he was likewise caught up in this.

Why? Because this is what you do. Over hundreds of threads, thirty screen names, and thousands of posts, it's always the same. Only the Democrats can ever do anything wrong. When Trump does it, well, then it's okay. You call Clinton sleazy and corrupt and cried out for his impeachment when he had sexual relations with an intern. Well, Trump did all this and more, but whenever people call for his impeachment (for far more serious crimes than some illicit affair with an intern) then it's "Lawfare" to you, and he's a victim of the "Weaponized justice system" and the "Liberal Media."

This type of intellectual dishonesty, and the blatant double-standard hypocrisy, is why we got sick of your bullshit long ago.

 

[Politruk]

It has nothing to do with the scope of presidential authority.

And there is no proof at all that Clinton ever coupled with any of Epstein's sex slaves, nor that he is even inclined to ephebophilia.

He's no Roy Moore.