You know I was just thinking, imagine the numerous "fake news" articles @moe read alleging the wild conspiracy outlined in this assessment of the Obama/DNC/Clinton collusion hoax? 'Ol @moe read almost every one of 'em, re-posted most of 'em, and obviously swallowed every lie in all of 'em considering how much he boasted on this very forum how guilty Trump was of every salacious lie?
I don't care if moe reads it. Moe is a closed minded fool....probably from a long line of West Virginia "good ol boy" Democrat families.You know I was just thinking, imagine the numerous "fake news" articles @moe read alleging the wild conspiracy outlined in this assessment of the Obama/DNC/Clinton collusion hoax? 'Ol @moe read almost every one of 'em, re-posted most of 'em, and obviously swallowed every lie in all of 'em considering how much he posted on this very forum how guilty Trump was of every salacious lie?
Now, the hard facts are here detailing chapter and verse how it was actually the treasonous Dems who "colluded" to first stop Trump from winning, then when that failed, they "colluded" to smear him with a charge of stealing the election he'd just legitimately won!
@moe probably refuses to read any of this. He certainly has had nothing or very little to say about any of it...either factually refuting it or tacitly accepting how he's been lied to. Compare that silence to his vociferous advocacy of Trump's alleged conspiratorial guilt?
Imagine what a fool believes, then how foolishness he is to not even recognize it?
Kids...when you grow up, don't be like @moe, because he never has!
I can't wait until his foolish *** shows up here with his next "fake news" Trump hit piece. I'm going to ask him why we should believe it, considering how many others he's posted like this collusion scam that's nothing but a stone cold Democrat hoax?I don't care if moe reads it. Moe is a closed minded fool....probably from a long line of West Virginia "good ol boy" Democrat families.
I think Moe is just a total dumbass and probably a mama's boy.I don't care if moe reads it. Moe is a closed minded fool....probably from a long line of West Virginia "good ol boy" Democrat families.
Ironically, he answers all of my questions about his mental acuity when he disappears over big stories that expose his ignorance. You can always tell when @moe and his lies are exposed...because that's when he typically disappears.I think Moe is just a total dumbass and probably a mama's boy.
Look at this folks...just this past week @moe was insisting that the Russia...Russia...Russia collusion scam was real! This was earlier in the week. By Friday information is produced which says it was a complete hoax, and in fact a plot to overthrow a sitting duly elected President!No, this one. Russian assistance to Trump was real in 2016 election, not a hoax like you all like to keep repeating.
Thanks for your effort....but please explain how Trump is as guilty as Epstein."Weak attempt" do better clowns. Trump is as guilty as Epstein but they'll never prove it especially after they offer Maxwell anything she wants to keep her quiet, here comes that pardon. No way that Trump didn't sample the underage goods that his best bud for years Epstein had readily available. Why do you think that panican pedo Trump is so desperate to make this go away?
Obama Hits Back at Trump’s Treason Accusation: ‘Weak Attempt at Distraction’
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
The statement added that Gabbard’s so-called evidence does not undercut “the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.” It noted that “these findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio,” who is now Trump’s Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser.
Democrats have largely echoed Obama’s response, accusing Trump and his allies of attempting to distract from Epstein. “Another day, another wave of absurd lies and distractions from Donald Trump,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland posted on X. “It’s clear he wants us talking about *anything* other than his refusal to release the Epstein files…or rising prices. It’s not going to work.”
Already did.Thanks for your effort....but please explain how Trump is as guilty as Epstein.
Already did.
No way that Trump didn't sample the underage goods that his best bud for years Epstein had readily available.
Gabbard’s suggestion that Obama betrayed the U.S. government by directing a supposedly misleading intelligence assessment is “just silly,” said Williams. “Intelligence assessments are sometimes ambiguous. There are different opinions that can be made about them, but merely disagreeing with one or the findings of one or what’s drawn from one is not treason,” he said. “Now, can it be a hassle and a pain in the *** to the person who’s investigated, who’s got to hire a lawyer and go through all the motions? Sure. But this is not an investigation to be grounded in any reality.”
Beyond that, there’s also the issue of presidential immunity. In a ruling favorable to Trump last year, the Supreme Court established a broad framework that former Presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
“Before Trump v. US, people could ask pesky questions like, ‘If President Obama committed so many crimes, why hasn’t the DOJ indicted him?’ But Presidential immunity makes evidence of wrongdoing (or lack thereof in Obama’s case) irrelevant,” Milan Markovic, a law professor at Texas A&M University, posted on Bluesky. Posted Graham Steele, former assistant secretary for financial institutions at the Treasury Department and a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School: “One of SCOTUS’s rationales for the Trump immunity decision was that it would protect former presidents of *both parties* from political prosecutions. And yet, this administration is openly talking about indicting a former Democratic president on (literally and figuratively) trumped-up charges.”
You need to be quiet. The truth is coming and no amount of spinning the facts are going to stop it. You were told the truth as far back as 2018.
Where is your proof of your outrageous claim that Trump sampled the goods. Show us the proof you have.Already did.
No way that Trump didn't sample the underage goods that his best bud for years Epstein had readily available.
Gabbard’s suggestion that Obama betrayed the U.S. government by directing a supposedly misleading intelligence assessment is “just silly,” said Williams. “Intelligence assessments are sometimes ambiguous. There are different opinions that can be made about them, but merely disagreeing with one or the findings of one or what’s drawn from one is not treason,” he said. “Now, can it be a hassle and a pain in the *** to the person who’s investigated, who’s got to hire a lawyer and go through all the motions? Sure. But this is not an investigation to be grounded in any reality.”
Beyond that, there’s also the issue of presidential immunity. In a ruling favorable to Trump last year, the Supreme Court established a broad framework that former Presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
“Before Trump v. US, people could ask pesky questions like, ‘If President Obama committed so many crimes, why hasn’t the DOJ indicted him?’ But Presidential immunity makes evidence of wrongdoing (or lack thereof in Obama’s case) irrelevant,” Milan Markovic, a law professor at Texas A&M University, posted on Bluesky. Posted Graham Steele, former assistant secretary for financial institutions at the Treasury Department and a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School: “One of SCOTUS’s rationales for the Trump immunity decision was that it would protect former presidents of *both parties* from political prosecutions. And yet, this administration is openly talking about indicting a former Democratic president on (literally and figuratively) trumped-up charges.”
I've already explained it. It's just common sense.Where is your proof of your outrageous claim that Trump sampled the goods. Show us the proof you have.
Your explanation is meaningless and NOT proof of anything....only your opinion.I've already explained it. It's just common sense.
Then explain how Trump is "trying to make this all go away" by ordering a release of any and all documents related to the Epstein files?Why do you think that panican pedo Trump is so desperate to make this go away?
^^ThisI don't care if moe reads it. Moe is a closed minded fool....probably from a long line of West Virginia "good ol boy" Democrat families.
I dare @moe (or any other dyed-in-the-wool-Leftist) to watch this 5 minute video outlining the actual true history of the true original racist party....the Democrat party!^^This
Too many smooth-brain simps like Moe-lester who do not understand today's version of the Democratic party isn't the same one his grandpappy told him to swear allegiance to.
Common sense tells me that, if Trump was involved in wrong doing with Epstein, the blood thirsty, TDS Dems would have exposed the evidence when they had the power to do so. That was four years under Biden, with Merrick Garland and his corrupt DOJ, with all the files being held in the Trump-hating Southern District of New York DA's office. But not a peep out of them which tells you they have nothing on Trump.I've already explained it. It's just common sense.
Cool story. So Dems would have just released docs involving Trump only? No. Likely lots of Dems and Repubs involved and you can't just release info on Cankles Trump. The docs they're talking about releasing now are only a small portion of the overall and there is zero chance Trump will be mentioned if any docs are released. Need someone not named Maxwell (because she won't incriminate Trump if she wants a pardon) to come forward to talk about Trump's involvement but most would be too scared. It's a Trump admin coverup and they just want this to go away.Common sense tells me that, if Trump was involved in wrong doing with Epstein, the blood thirsty, TDS Dems would have exposed the evidence when they had the power to do so. That was four years under Biden, with Merrick Garland and his corrupt DOJ, with all the files being held in the Trump-hating Southern District of New York DA's office. But not a peep out of them which tells you they have nothing on Trump.
In fact, it's been all the Dems who have long been trying to suppress the Epstein files. It's MAGA Republicans who want transparency.
Offering this type of logical thinking to a mind controlled bot like @moe is not conducive to his recovery from terminal TDS.Common sense tells me that, if Trump was involved in wrong doing with Epstein, the blood thirsty, TDS Dems would have exposed the evidence when they had the power to do so. That was four years under Biden, with Merrick Garland and his corrupt DOJ, with all the files being held in the Trump-hating Southern District of New York DA's office. But not a peep out of them which tells you they have nothing on Trump.
In fact, it's been all the Dems who have long been trying to suppress the Epstein files. It's MAGA Republicans who want transparency.
@moe you bot, Maxwell was running the entire operation for Epstein! Who better to ask about the people he routinely serviced? Can you think of anyone else who had more intimate interaction with Epstein?Cool story. So Dems would have just released docs involving Trump only? No. Likely lots of Dems and Repubs involved and you can't just release info on Cankles Trump. The docs they're talking about releasing now are only a small portion of the overall and there is zero chance Trump will be mentioned if any docs are released. Need someone not named Maxwell to come forward to talk about Trump's involvement but most would be too scared. It's a Trump admin coverup and they just want this to go away.
Your propaganda doesn't address the seminal issue here. Why didn't Obama accept the initial analysis of his own DNI which concluded the Russians DID NOT affect the outcome of the election?Already did.
No way that Trump didn't sample the underage goods that his best bud for years Epstein had readily available.
Gabbard’s suggestion that Obama betrayed the U.S. government by directing a supposedly misleading intelligence assessment is “just silly,” said Williams. “Intelligence assessments are sometimes ambiguous. There are different opinions that can be made about them, but merely disagreeing with one or the findings of one or what’s drawn from one is not treason,” he said. “Now, can it be a hassle and a pain in the *** to the person who’s investigated, who’s got to hire a lawyer and go through all the motions? Sure. But this is not an investigation to be grounded in any reality.”
Beyond that, there’s also the issue of presidential immunity. In a ruling favorable to Trump last year, the Supreme Court established a broad framework that former Presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
“Before Trump v. US, people could ask pesky questions like, ‘If President Obama committed so many crimes, why hasn’t the DOJ indicted him?’ But Presidential immunity makes evidence of wrongdoing (or lack thereof in Obama’s case) irrelevant,” Milan Markovic, a law professor at Texas A&M University, posted on Bluesky. Posted Graham Steele, former assistant secretary for financial institutions at the Treasury Department and a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School: “One of SCOTUS’s rationales for the Trump immunity decision was that it would protect former presidents of *both parties* from political prosecutions. And yet, this administration is openly talking about indicting a former Democratic president on (literally and figuratively) trumped-up charges.”
You need to be reminded who brought Maxwell to Justice? Trump's D.O.J.Trump is as guilty as Epstein but they'll never prove it especially after they offer Maxwell anything she wants to keep her quiet, here comes that pardon. No way that Trump didn't sample the underage goods that his best bud for years had readily available.
Facts and @moe never really have gotten along very well.Obama exposed by Tulsi with real, actual documentation. Womp womp
Just watched it...it's all out there with the documentation to back it up. Moe needs to let us know how MSNBC is spinning this one.Obama exposed by Tulsi with real, actual documentation. Womp womp
He won't watch it, but he should. It shoots holes into all of the propaganda he's been posting as a defense for Obama's lawlessness.Just watched it...it's all out there with the documentation to back it up. Moe needs to let us know how MSNBC is spinning this one.
He should because it's on on the record and now the public has access to the records.He won't watch it, but he should. It shoots holes into all of the propaganda he's been posting as a defense for Obama's lawlessness.![]()
That bot doesn't care. He's filled with hate, and nothing will ever substitute for that. Not even hard cold documented facts.He should because it's on on the record and now the public has access to the records.
lol MAGA loves story time. MSNBC and rest of MSM are laughing at MAGA who gets excited about Trump's efforts to distract from the Epstein cover up. BO should sue Trump admin for slander.Just watched it...it's all out there with the documentation to back it up. Moe needs to let us know how MSNBC is spinning this one.
You never answered why Obama didn't accept the factual findings of his own DNI once they looked into allegations that the Russians changed the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. You can deny reality for only so long before you look like a pre-programmed bot.lol MAGA loves story time. MSNBC and rest of MSM are laughing at MAGA who gets excited about Trump's efforts to distract from the Epstein cover up. BO should sue Trump admin for slander.