Stormy Daniels Could Owe $20 Million in Damages

As I recall, you guys are not very good at predicting political outcomes.

BTW, they removed Nixon's VP, Agnew before they tried to impeach Nixon, and after installing Ford/Rockefeller.
Does that pass your smell test?

 

If thats against the law, wouldn't Hillary's team giving orders to hold off on releasing a video about Trump a month before the election also count as tampering? And besides, if trump didn't pay anyone and it didn't come from his campaign, then its no different from a "news" station withholding embarrassing video until strategic times. Wouldn't election tampering involve anyone who releases video or audio that could sway public opinion?

 

I dont think we are talking about Daniels anymore

There are enough laws on the books to charge anyone with a crime for something if the fishing expedition lasts long enough

 

The reason Clinton committed purgery was because Republicans made his cheating a huge national issue and made him testify. Now we learn Republicans don't actually care about this stuff.

 

Just wait until they take control of the House and retaliate for the GOP's penchant for partisan investigations.

 

Democrats have been using investigations as a political weapon for decades

I’m sure they have not forgotten how its done

 

I hope Stormy gets sued for every penny.

 

Lol so much for that

 

How many of our Judges have they washed into the pit as they did to Bork??? I can name a number of them. Which Democrat judge did we wash into the pit? One??? I think the only one we got was Garland. They have often taken ours out.

 

Uh, no.

Bork was not confirmed for cause. You may have liked Bork. But, there were issues with that nominee.

Garland was not confirmed because Republicans decided on the grounds of pure politics that there was no way they were even going to hold hearings on the president's nominee.

Comparing those is just plain stupid.

And, it will never be forgotten.

 

The Democrats worked to destroy Bork. And no, there was no cause and no issues. He was appointed by Reagan as was Garland by Obama and Obama tried to pull a fast one.

Don't forget Garland. I have not forgot what Democrats did to the fine Judge Bork.

 

False.

- Bork stated a desire to roll back civil rights law.

- He became acting AG when the two before him resigned rather than follow Nixon's orders. Once he became AG he followed Nixon's orders to Archibald Cox. This was the event called the Saturday Night Massacre. In other words, he was complicit in the Nixon cover-up.


That, my friend, is very serious cause.

 

I will give you the chance to locate any question by Democrats proving he was shoved out over him following Nixon's request he become AG.

Also to help you outsmart me, find proof he would thwart the full court by rolling back civil rights.

I am glad you have the task to back up your claims and not me.

 

That is A LOT of lap dances she'll need to do!

 

So, you think having an anti-civil rights Supreme Court Justice is OK???

Sorry, guy. Bork even backed POLL TAX!! He opposed women's rights. In fact, he supported the notion that the only privacy rights individuals have are those directly addressed by legislation!

Bork was not confirmed for very solid reasons.

You may agree that civil rights legislation must be torn down and that voting is a right reserved for states to decide, but that's irrelevant. Democrats didn't agree with you on that.


And, Garland was refused even a hearing and for NO cause other than pure politics.

In fact, Garland is a conservative judge.

Now, Republicans want to back the nomination of an unindicted co-conspirator - a nominee who has clearly lied for pure partisan gain, and who appears to have been selected for the reason that he thinks the president is above the law. Handy - if you don't care about the law.

 

What happened march 25. Did she cause Trump to resign?

 

Here is why I love his tax policy. Pay attention to the expert on taxes and what happened after Obama took off.

 

I figured you would fail. And I am not wrong. Back to proving your first contention. Give it a shot and try to prove what you said. Next we will work on the above dodge.

Do you understand what unindicted actually means? Gosh more wild claims. Why don't you include proof with your claims? Sure would be helping you make your case.

 

She has some plugs on (PM me should you want to know). If you want to see her in action.

 

You've got absolutely nothing.

Who fired Archibald Cox?

 

Can presidents fire their help?

That is what I have been telling you. I got nothing because you made claims then failed to deliver proof. Give me proof.

I also have been plowing the internet to see why you make those claims. So far nothing at all. Biden announced up front he would stop Bork. Earlier he promised to vote for Bork. Biden broke a promise.

 

Bull. You just refuse to read. There was clear evidence of factors Dems did not and still do not want in the judiciary. We believe in civil rights. We believe in the rule of law affecting all persons on our soil.

And, yes, Biden didn't accept crap like that, either.

 

You are sticking to your story that you refuse to offer proof. I shall keep digging.
I find nothing at all that Bork was lousy on civil rights and after several tries, you do not intend to prove what you said.
Biden had planned to vote for Bork saying he should be. Later he squirmed out of it.