LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

US judge halts Donald Trump's border wall plans

the military isn't building his buildings so their money should be safe. :D
 
Otoh, just last Monday another federal judge issued an exact opposite ruling.

Judge shoots down House attempt to block Trump’s border wall emergency

A federal judge on Monday rejected an attempt by the Democrat-led House to bar President Donald Trump from spending $6.1 billion in unappropriated funds to build a border wall.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/03/judge-trump-border-wall-emergency-1352445
Click to expand...

Proving once again that the Judiciary has become just as politically partisan corrupt as the Executive and Legislative branches.
 
The Supreme Court, I believe, has or is about to rule on the phenomenon of small regional judgeships issuing national injunctions to thwart "the will of the people."

As pointed out, judge shopping reveals a wide range of position and action.

The Federal government's two coequal branches need to stand up
to a judiciary that now seems to believe that it runs the country.
This should be a bipartisan effort, but the Democrats
hate Trump so passionately that this cannot occur.

As much as they love seeing Trump harassed
by Liberal judges, they are not going to like it when
conservative judges begin ruling on their national policies...
 
Harassed!

Trump is stealing the money from the military. The courts will straighten it all out...


...in due time.
 
Last edited:
A physical barrier on the southern border sounds like infrastructure to me. How are the infrastructure talks going?
 
SpeareChucker said:
The Supreme Court, I believe, has or is about to rule on the phenomenon of small regional judgeships issuing national injunctions to thwart "the will of the people."
Click to expand...

The only thwarting of "the people" (when did you last look at popular election voting or the polls?) would be Trump, his friends, the Russians, and his unethically packed Supreme Court. Don't you go about talking about the will of the people as if it includes you in any way.
 
phrodeau said:
A physical barrier on the southern border sounds like infrastructure to me. How are the infrastructure talks going?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's not the reality of the securing an international border.

KeithD said:
The only thwarting of "the people" (when did you last look at popular election voting or the polls?) would be Trump, his friends, the Russians, and his unethically packed Supreme Court. Don't you go about talking about the will of the people as if it includes you in any way.
Click to expand...

Buuh buhh the popular vote!!!

LOL Keith still hasn't figured out what the USA is.
 
BotanyBoy said:
Buuh buhh the popular vote!!!

LOL Keith still hasn't figured out what the USA is.
Click to expand...

He also doesn't know that:

A. H didn't win "The Popular vote" because she failed to get 50% or more of the votes;
B. Mueller debunked the "Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy" theory;
C. The Justices on the SCOTUS were lawfully confirmed by the US Senate.

But that doesn't fit the D narrative so once again they ignore reality to proclaim loudly that they have TDS.*











*I have a theory that those with TDS are actually mentally ill. What do you call it when someone consistently cannot accept the reality around them and instead retreats to a fantasy distopia and proclaims that to be the real universe? Answer; schizophrenia.
 
A. Where does it say someone has to get 50% or more of the vote? More votes is more votes. HRC got 1.8 million more votes that Trump = she won the popular vote.

B. Mueller did not "debunk" the "Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy" theory.

He expressly states several times in the Report and in his remarks that "collusion" had no consideration in his investigation. He looked only at the legal definition of conspiracy. Mueller made no ruling on "collusion" whatsoever. In fact he enumerated hundreds of "contacts" between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which from a non-legal standpoint = lots of "collusion."

He issued an opinion only on conspiracy, saying he "could not establish" and "did not have enough evidence" to bring a charge of conspiracy.


HisArpy said:
He also doesn't know that:

A. H didn't win "The Popular vote" because she failed to get 50% or more of the votes;
B. Mueller debunked the "Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy" theory;
C. The Justices on the SCOTUS were lawfully confirmed by the US Senate.

But that doesn't fit the D narrative so once again they ignore reality to proclaim loudly that they have TDS.*











*I have a theory that those with TDS are actually mentally ill. What do you call it when someone consistently cannot accept the reality around them and instead retreats to a fantasy distopia and proclaims that to be the real universe? Answer; schizophrenia.
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
A. Where does it say someone has to get 50% or more of the vote? More votes is more votes. HRC got 1.8 million more votes that Trump = she won the popular vote.

B. Mueller did not "debunk" the "Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy" theory.

He expressly states several times in the Report and in his remarks that "collusion" had no consideration in his investigation. He looked only at the legal definition of conspiracy. Mueller made no ruling on "collusion" whatsoever. In fact he enumerated hundreds of "contacts" between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which from a non-legal standpoint = lots of "collusion."

He issued an opinion only on conspiracy, saying he "could not establish" and "did not have enough evidence" to bring a charge of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I've said this before, you are too dense and unprepared to discuss this issue.
 
Carnal_Flower said:
A. Where does it say someone has to get 50% or more of the vote? More votes is more votes. HRC got 1.8 million more votes that Trump = she won the popular vote.

B. Mueller did not "debunk" the "Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy" theory.

He expressly states several times in the Report and in his remarks that "collusion" had no consideration in his investigation. He looked only at the legal definition of conspiracy. Mueller made no ruling on "collusion" whatsoever. In fact he enumerated hundreds of "contacts" between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which from a non-legal standpoint = lots of "collusion."

He issued an opinion only on conspiracy, saying he "could not establish" and "did not have enough evidence" to bring a charge of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Thank you, you TOTALLY made my morning.
 
jomar said:
LOL, sorry to put a damper on your clever baiting.
Click to expand...

At least I have "clever" baiting. You on the other hand, are left with "master" baiting.

Tell us, do you have an official badge of office, Mister Buzzkill? Or is this just a gig you volunteer for in between those "master" baiting board meetings with the rest of the circle?
 
Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong.

You made a comment on Mueller's findings which were not only inaccurate, but which also repeated the lies/gaslighting of Trump. You may be under the control of your Cult Leader, but that's just you.

When Trump says Mueller proved "No Collusion" that is what we call a lie. No, he didn't. Try and prove otherwise.

From the Mueller Report, p. 2:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.1 We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Click to expand...
HisArpy said:
Lol.

Thank you, you TOTALLY made my morning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HisArpy said:
At least I have "clever" baiting. You on the other hand, are left with "master" baiting.

Tell us, do you have an official badge of office, Mister Buzzkill? Or is this just a gig you volunteer for in between those "master" baiting board meetings with the rest of the circle?
Click to expand...

I see my comment went right over your head. It’s ironic if you posted incorrectly on purpose because you’re wrong so often without meaning to be.

At least you went for the sex joke on a porn board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Honduras ex-president Hernandez to be extradited to US on drug trafficking charges
Replies
0
Views
383
BeatMan
B
butters
Texas border wall dying a silent death
Replies
10
Views
268
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
Rightguide
Trump's Popularity Surges Among Black Americans
Replies
16
Views
239
Bray123
B
butters
another day, another 'unlawful' decision about trump's antics
Replies
23
Views
461
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
B
NATO chief Rutte talks security with Trump in Florida
Replies
0
Views
129
BeatMan
B
Back
Top