Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Show me one...just one u little ****.

             
 

MR-7 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Show me one...just one u little ****.

jerrab » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

This is an unlimited pass wrapped in a gold gift box.? 
 

jerrab » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

My avatar is an unlimited pass wrapped in a gold gift box?
 

TRUMP is really getting things done...

 

jerrab » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

           

Don't run jerrab....put your Big Girls panties on. 
 

MR-7 » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

My avatar is an unlimited pass wrapped in a gold gift box?

it is a lie.

thrusted by a liar such as yourself.

trump hates animals so he lets the wars continue so dogs and cats die every day as well as children,

MR-7 » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

My avatar is an unlimited pass wrapped in a gold gift box?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70622038yxoThousands of people have gathered in cities across the US to join protests against President Donald Trump, hours ahead of his military parade in Washington DC.The demonstrations organised by a group called "No Kings" was billed as a nationwide day of defiance of his policies.Lawmakers, union leaders, and activists gave speeches in cities like New York, Philadelphia and Houston to crowds waving American flags and signs critical of Trump.
 

jerrab » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

trump hates animals so he lets the wars continue so dogs and cats die every day as well as children,

Do you have any proof of this jerrab? Or, as usual, it's ma big **** LIE? Biden sniffs cats. It's true.

 

MR-7 » Today, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:02 am

You are really stupid, aren't you. It was biden's fbi that said NO Insurrection.

Yeah and Joe tried to stay out of it as much as he could too. Wray was actually a Republican I thought...

It's a still a shyt show of a day of love if you ask me.
 

MR-7 » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Don't run jerrab....put your Big Girls panties on.

-----------------------------------https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/sup ... ve-the-law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today ruled that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. With respect to Trump’s other actions, the court left to the lower courts much of the work required to determine which are immune and which are not. At bottom, though, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability.

The court granted absolute immunity to President Trump’s use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes. With respect to other allegations in the indictment, it sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether actions for which former President Trump has been charged were official acts or personal acts, and whether the government can rebut the presumption that former President Trump is immune for those official acts. The court did reject former President Trump’s claim to absolute immunity for all acts unless convicted after an impeachment trial, characterizing its ruling as endorsing a “far broader immunity than the limited one” the court “recognized” today.
 The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the U.S. Constitution and decades of Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law — even the president. While the court found that a president’s actions as a private individual are not immune to criminal prosecution, it held that presidents do have substantial immunity for their official actions – even when undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes.
 
 

MR-7 » Today, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:41 am

Your opinion is just your opinion. I will take the FBI over your opinions.

FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6
FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly
FBI finds no evidence Capitol riot was coordinated

I thought the goal was to get rid of the FBI?  And the State Department, and Medicaid and Social Security too...

jerrab » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

-----------------------------------https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/sup ... ve-the-law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today ruled that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. With respect to Trump’s other actions, the court left to the lower courts much of the work required to determine which are immune and which are not. At bottom, though, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability.

The court granted absolute immunity to President Trump’s use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes. With respect to other allegations in the indictment, it sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether actions for which former President Trump has been charged were official acts or personal acts, and whether the government can rebut the presumption that former President Trump is immune for those official acts. The court did reject former President Trump’s claim to absolute immunity for all acts unless convicted after an impeachment trial, characterizing its ruling as endorsing a “far broader immunity than the limited one” the court “recognized” today.
 The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the U.S. Constitution and decades of Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law — even the president. While the court found that a president’s actions as a private individual are not immune to criminal prosecution, it held that presidents do have substantial immunity for their official actions – even when undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes.

what's your opinion on the below?
viewtopic.php?p=2758397#p2758397
 

MR-7 » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

what's your opinion on the below?
viewtopic.php?p=2758397#p2758397

Mine is the link looks phishy..

jerrab » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

-----------------------------------https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/sup ... ve-the-law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today ruled that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. With respect to Trump’s other actions, the court left to the lower courts much of the work required to determine which are immune and which are not. At bottom, though, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability.

The court granted absolute immunity to President Trump’s use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes. With respect to other allegations in the indictment, it sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether actions for which former President Trump has been charged were official acts or personal acts, and whether the government can rebut the presumption that former President Trump is immune for those official acts. The court did reject former President Trump’s claim to absolute immunity for all acts unless convicted after an impeachment trial, characterizing its ruling as endorsing a “far broader immunity than the limited one” the court “recognized” today.
 The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the U.S. Constitution and decades of Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law — even the president. While the court found that a president’s actions as a private individual are not immune to criminal prosecution, it held that presidents do have substantial immunity for their official actions – even when undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes.

What's your opinion on the below...
viewtopic.php?p=2758397#p2758397
 
 

MR-7 » 39 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

39 minutes ago

Don't run jerrab....put your Big Girls panties on.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nations ... =111621798

The Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have immunity for "official acts" goes against all of the principles the nation's founders pushed for as they drew up the Constitution, historians and legal experts argued.Fifteen constitutional historians, represented by the liberal non-profit policy institute the Brennan Center for Justice, filed a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court In April, challenging former President Donald Trump's claims that current and former presidents enjoyed "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution. 

MR-7 » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Do you have any proof of this jerrab? Or, as usual, it's ma big **** LIE? Biden sniffs cats. It's true.

/////////////////////The Ukrainian war has had a devastating impact on animals, with many dogs and cats either abandoning their homes or losing their owners. While some have been rescued and adopted, others have been left behind in a war zone, according to an article from The Conversation. Some dogs have even been trained for combat roles, while others are assisting in demining efforts
 

jerrab » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

/////////////////////The Ukrainian war has had a devastating impact on animals, with many dogs and cats either abandoning their homes or losing their owners. While some have been rescued and adopted, others have been left behind in a war zone, according to an article from The Conversation. Some dogs have even been trained for combat roles, while others are assisting in demining efforts

What does this have to do with TRUMP. 
 

jerrab » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

/////////////////////The Ukrainian war has had a devastating impact on animals, with many dogs and cats either abandoning their homes or losing their owners. While some have been rescued and adopted, others have been left behind in a war zone, according to an article from The Conversation. Some dogs have even been trained for combat roles, while others are assisting in demining efforts

The war started under Biden and Harris. Tell us all just how many **** animals did they bring home and save? Why didn't they stop the **** war? They must hate animals, right? You're a **** idiot, jerrab.   

MR-7 » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

What does this have to do with TRUMP.

your picture is a lie.  he should have a peace treaty with ukraine but he dropped that when he signed the mineral rights deal.

this is a lie......................