Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Daniel said:
not too bright... this isn't about personalities...
Click to expand...
Here we go again. How long have we listened to you blather on with your "out of the box" bullshit and how you are simply at "another level" when it comes to tree work. Despite the years of your vids and pics that PROVE otherwise you continue on with this delusional narrative that we mere mortals just can't comprehend how great your really are. And heaven help those who dare point out your never ending hackery...

Now you are here telling us that your mind has been freed and you post a Tucker vid as some sort of evidence that "the information is out there". Thank god you are here to save us from our own eyes and ears Danny.
 
rico said:
Trump says he had 'every right' to overturn the 2020 election. Dangerous talk and we have it on film. Eyes and ears folks..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...erference-fox-news-harris-pence-b2605557.html
Click to expand...
once again spin and BS from YOU.. if you watch that clip he said... "you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do".. he's not saying he had the right to interfere with the election. He' saying the he was improperly indicted and what he did was not against the law. He's refering to the fact that the supreme court ruled in June that he can't be prosecuted for official duties as they petrtain to his election interferece case.

The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith’s taking the case to trial.
 
Could you kindly direct us to the section of the US Constitution which states that it is legal for a sitting president is to interfere in a presidential election in which he is one of the candidates. Or maybe you could direct us to the section where our founding fathers state that part of a sitting presidents duties it to interfere in a presidential election in which he is one of the candidates. Free our minds bro.
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
once again spin and BS from YOU.. if you watch that clip he said... "you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do".. he's not saying he had the right to interfere with the election. He' saying the he was improperly indicted and what he did was not against the law. He's refering to the fact that the supreme court ruled in June that he can't be prosecuted for official duties as they petrtain to his election interferece case.

The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith’s taking the case to trial.
Click to expand...
If your gonna quote Trump at least have the decency to be accurate. And yes, Donny just admitted to interfering in the 2020 election (0:50).

 
Daniel said:
once again spin and BS from YOU.. if you watch that clip he said... "you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do".. he's not saying he had the right to interfere with the election.
Click to expand...
This is the direct quote from Trump in the the interview which appears in both videos..
that is almost word for word... his exact words were "you get indicted for interfering in an election...

once again .. you and all the left wing pundits are taking his statement out of context... He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue as you have done, but anyone with a clear mind and understanding of the full context of events can see what he meant.

Once again you are showing your lack of care for the truth. You'll just spew out any garbage you want into that keyboard. You may have missed your calling. With such a propencity for lying, you would have made a good politician.

The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick.
Click to expand...
This this a very strange turn of logic. Do you think that it was the right thing to do to interfere in the election, ethically?

Or is it just that he had the right under this new law to do that, and we can agree that ethically that was wrong?
 
Daniel said:
This is the direct quote from Trump in the the interview which appears in both videos..
that is almost word for word... his exact words were "you get indicted for interfering in an election...

once again .. you and all the left wing pundits are taking his statement out of context... He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue as you have done, but anyone with a clear mind and understanding of the full context of events can see what he meant.

Once again you are showing your lack of care for the truth. You'll just spew out any garbage you want into that keyboard. You may have missed your calling. With such a propencity for lying, you would have made a good politician.

The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!
Click to expand...
Since you clearly do not know the definition of a direct quote- A direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of what someone else has said or written.

Your so called "direct quote from Trump" -

"you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do"

What Trump actually said, and his admission of interference-

"you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it"


And we will simply let your word salad speak for itself-

He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue
Click to expand...










 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!
Click to expand...
I will once again kindly ask that you refrain from bringing my personal safety into a conversation. It is the 3rd or 4th time that you have done such a thing, and its fucking weird and creepy.
 
Last edited:
Stumpsprouts said:
This this a very strange turn of logic. Do you think that it was the right thing to do to interfere in the election, ethically?

Or is it just that he had the right under this new law to do that, and we can agree that ethically that was wrong?
Click to expand...
He was indicted by a grand jury for election interference.. do you know what that means? It doesn't men he did it. It doesn't mean he was found guilty. It just means the the grand jury finds probable cause. That's like a preliminary hearing. Only the prosecution presents evidence. The defense is not allowed to present evidence. The standard to indict is 51% probability. And only more than half the jurors have to find that 51%.

Trump is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Your statement assumes that he did interfere with the election. When you make such a statement, you are part of the problem. EVERYONE has to have all their rights all the time, or rights don't exist for anyone. You can't pick and chose who's rights can get violated as you see fit.

These are obviously political prosecutions. All while Bush and Cheyney are free as birds. And SMith has resorted to some unusual tricks with the grand jury, including forming a grand jury in Washington, which is then bringing charges in different states, and saying that the jurrors don't have to agree on which of the charges there is probable cause on.

Have you had any personal experience with DAs? They are low life garbage. They have no care for about guilt or innocence. They just want a conviction for their record and to justify their fat salaries. I have a buddy doing 10 years for a crime he didn't commit. I also have been falsely accused... At the preliminary hearing the judge up the lawbook and says "There's nothing in this book that says you can't steal your own property". I have the transcript. That's how fair the system is. Judges, DAs, cops... they can all rot in hell. Their violations of natural law is part of the reason this country is going down.

Bottom line is if you care about freedom... if you want to live in a free society, you have to support and uphold the freedoms of the people you don't like. That includes Trump. He has not been found guilty and deserves to be presumed innoncent until found guilty.

We don't have to fight and die for freedom like so many before us did. We just have to be cumulatively good enough to deserve to keep the freedoms earnd with the blood of patriots. Unfortunately that's not looking good right now. The way we treat each other on this forum is a reflection of the degradation of entire society. It's a shame.

If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an "indictment." After that, the accused will go to trial. The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
No judge, public defender, or criminal defense attorney is in the grand jury room when the prosecutor is presenting evidence. The prosecutor explains the law to the jury and works with them to gather evidence and hear witness testimony.

A prosecutor must not mislead the grand jury and should remain fair following the rules of evidence. The prosecutor's office is not permitted to present evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. However, a grand jury can issue subpoenas and has broad power to see and hear almost anything the members would like.

The federal government is required to use grand juries for all felonies, though not misdemeanors, by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5] All states can use them, but only half actually do with the others using only preliminary hearings

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14][15] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met.


Note: probable cause standard just requires the belief that the likelihood that a crime was committed to be 51%, that is more liekly than not. This is a very low standard. Since, traditionally, the defense doesn't get a say, it's pretty easy to get a grand jury to indict someone in most cases. In fact, it's so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
 
That is mostly true Dan, but clarence thomas should have obviously recused himself, and the decision was split along party lines. Are you really trying to argue that dumpster and the far right haven't working as hard as possible over the last several cycles in order to be able to usurp the judicial system?
 
Daniel said:
He was indicted by a grand jury for election interference.. do you know what that means? It doesn't men he did it. It doesn't mean he was found guilty. It just means the the grand jury finds probable cause. That's like a preliminary hearing. Only the prosecution presents evidence. The defense is not allowed to present evidence. The standard to indict is 51% probability. And only more than half the jurors have to find that 51%.

Trump is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Your statement assumes that he did interfere with the election. When you make such a statement, you are part of the problem. EVERYONE has to have all their rights all the time, or rights don't exist for anyone. You can't pick and chose who's rights can get violated as you see fit.

These are obviously political prosecutions. All while Bush and Cheyney are free as birds. And SMith has resorted to some unusual tricks with the grand jury, including forming a grand jury in Washington, which is then bringing charges in different states, and saying that the jurrors don't have to agree on which of the charges there is probable cause on.

Have you had any personal experience with DAs? They are low life garbage. They have no care for about guilt or innocence. They just want a conviction for their record and to justify their fat salaries. I have a buddy doing 10 years for a crime he didn't commit. I also have been falsely accused... At the preliminary hearing the judge up the lawbook and says "There's nothing in this book that says you can't steal your own property". I have the transcript. That's how fair the system is. Judges, DAs, cops... they can all rot in hell. Their violations of natural law is part of the reason this country is going down.

Bottom line is if you care about freedom... if you want to live in a free society, you have to support and uphold the freedoms of the people you don't like. That includes Trump. He has not been found guilty and deserves to be presumed innoncent until found guilty.

We don't have to fight and die for freedom like so many before us did. We just have to be cumulatively good enough to deserve to keep the freedoms earnd with the blood of patriots. Unfortunately that's not looking good right now. The way we treat each other on this forum is a reflection of the degradation of entire society. It's a shame.

If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an "indictment." After that, the accused will go to trial. The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
No judge, public defender, or criminal defense attorney is in the grand jury room when the prosecutor is presenting evidence. The prosecutor explains the law to the jury and works with them to gather evidence and hear witness testimony.

A prosecutor must not mislead the grand jury and should remain fair following the rules of evidence. The prosecutor's office is not permitted to present evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. However, a grand jury can issue subpoenas and has broad power to see and hear almost anything the members would like.

The federal government is required to use grand juries for all felonies, though not misdemeanors, by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5] All states can use them, but only half actually do with the others using only preliminary hearings

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14][15] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met.


Note: probable cause standard just requires the belief that the likelihood that a crime was committed to be 51%, that is more liekly than not. This is a very low standard. Since, traditionally, the defense doesn't get a say, it's pretty easy to get a grand jury to indict someone in most cases. In fact, it's so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
Click to expand...
I don’t know where to begin with this steaming pile of smelly dog dookie, but I will attempt it.

1. You ramble on about the rights of one man (Trump), but never mention or consider the tens of million of Americans whose constitutionally protected rights would have been stripped from them if Trump had somehow managed to be successful in his unlawful attempts to undo/overthrow the 2020 election.

2. Let’s say that your insane unAmerican notion that a sitting president has immunity from interfering in an election in which he is a candidate somehow holds water. Have you thought about whether this immunity will cover Donny’s cheating ass for his interference in state elections.. You know, place like Georgia where we have him on tape asking the Secretary of State to “find” him 11,780. Funny, but that just happens to be the exact number he needed to win the state? And let’s remember that Donny also ran one of his illegal fake elector schemes in Georgia. Ditto for all the other states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania where Trump attempted to pull off his fake elector scheme. Funny how they just all happen to be swing states.

3. Trump’s admission during the interview will most certainly be used against him so you might want to tell your cult leader to educate himself concerning A statement of a party opponent.

4. Who knew ’freeing your mind’ was code for being assimilated into the MAGA Cult? Enjoy the Kool-aid bro.

More to come.
 
Last edited:
when trump said "every right to do it".. what does the it refer to? He never said "I interfered in an election, and I had every right to do it"... he said he got indicted and had every right to do IT... Let the jury decide of it gets that far...

The larger point is that I doubt the majority of American people can explain or define what getting indicted means.... Most likely will confuse getting indicted with getting found guilty.
 
Tr
Daniel said:
when trump said "every right to do it".. what does the it refer to? He never said "I interfered in an election, and I had every right to do it"... he said he got indicted and had every right to do IT... Let the jury decide of it gets that far...

The larger point is that I doubt the majority of American people can explain or define what getting indicted means.... Most likely will confuse getting indicted with getting found guilty.
Click to expand...
Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers in the criminal court of New York, and he is now a convicted felon 34 times over. How are you gonna MAGAspain that away? and before you even get started let’s remember these crimes were committed before he was president.

How about the nearly half a billion dollar judgement against him for defrauding the people of New York with his decades long tax and bank fraud? Splain away.

And for the last time-

“you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you had every right to do it”. This is both an admission of interference and a giant tell as to what his defense will be. Once again I ask you to show me where the constitution grants a president the power to interfere in an election that he is a candidate in. It’s nonsensical so good luck with that.

Lets take your deeply flawed logic and run with it. What is to stop Biden from going all in an making himself the winner of the 2024 election. He is covered by presidential immunity after all? Since Joe will be way too old or dead in 2028 he could simply install Hunter as our new dictator, I mean president. Presidential immunity and all?
 
Last edited:
A Bro Rogan vid? Congrats, you are an official MAGA cult member.

I just realized that a TV star was defending another TV star. I know it’s sounds crazy but maybe the Supreme Court should make it mandatory that our entire government be run by former TV stars? I am pretty sure its not in the constitution, but clearly they don’t give a fuck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom