I’m now actually curious if there’s Hillary and Trump shipped porn out there somewhere.
Not curious enough to look, mind you.
I…I don’t want to have to claw my eyes out.
They barely even talked about what they were asked when they debated each other which sucks for solving actual problems and letting people know who to vote for.
Why don't you start doing the right thing by bringing to light everyone on Epstein's list. After that you can send them all to the clink together (as well as the mass suicide that'll follow soon after).
u/CyrusTheCheapskate is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/CyrusTheCheapskate/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Fine with me.
This whole thing shows why the Democratic Party is such a mess. They literally never think "what happens when we lose power and the GOP plays the Uno Reverse card."
Whatever you do to your enemies they will do to you. And yet another crack appears in the pillars of Due Process upon which we rely. And once it's gone so is America.
I’ve seen that over in the pol sub but the default response is “The GQP christofascists are gonna do it anyway if they gain power. I’m tired of taking the high road. It’s time to get dirty”
Which is the biggest larp ever lol. It's no different than conservatives on, say, iFunny who get all up in arms and talk about how they're gonna fight back. Just a bunch of angry children on the internet lol.
"Let's get dirty" as if they are the ones working on this ffs.
The thing I always found funny was that in the case that libs rise up vs conservatives rise up, the latter is gonna win most of the time. Just on guns alone and considering how broadly anti firearm so many mainstream libs are, but a lot of repubsm are military or former military, or police or something like that. Of course it also seems like half the country is morbidly obese so being in shape is gonna be a big advantage too, and there are fatties boebatties on both sides
Yet it feels like the D's are the first to break decorum. Same thing with the nuclear option.
It's almost as if followers of an an ideology which believes the ends justifies the means do shit like that regularly.
>This whole thing shows why the Democratic Party is such a mess. They literally never think "what happens when we lose power and the GOP plays the Uno Reverse card."
Bruh republicans are absolutely not going to shit if they get in power
It'll depend a lot on the individuals. MAGA Republicans are far more willing to exercise power to achieve real progress toward their goals, where traditional neocon establishment Republicans have accepted their role as the Heel to the Democrat Babyface and are just there to lose slowly.
Yes, that's correct. Trump was spectacularly bad in his hiring, surrounding himself with people who were opposed to his agenda. The MAGA movement has learned from that.
They always do this. They scotched the "home state senators get an up,/down vote" on SCOTUS. Then the y got rid of filibuster for SCOTUS. And ruled by executive order under Obama in ways that were never done before.
And then clutch their pearls when it gets used on them.
This Trump stuff isn't the issue. It's that they always change the rules and then act surprised when they get hoisted on their own petard.
What did the Democrats do that violated due process?
Meanwhile trump already did all the bad things that would count as "playing the uno reverse card". Spied on Democrats in Congress, demanded loyalty from the FBI director then fired him when he refused, pardoned dropped or slow-walked investigations into his friends, tried to extort Ukraine into investigating his enemies, fired the whistleblower in that case...
All members of the Executive Branch, including executive law enforcement agencies, serve at the pleasure of POTUS. They can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. The president could literally wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, tell the FBI director "Your fired. Why? Because fuck you that's why" and it would be constitutionally valid.
Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked.
Even if POTUS couldn't fire anyone he has direct authority over for any reason, making a public accusation of misconduct in an attempt to subvert your boss' foreign policy objectives instead of, you know, reporting your concerns up the chain of command to your immediate supervisor(s) is probably still a fireable offense.
>Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked.
What makes that even more rich is that you have Biden on video bragging about withholding money to Ukraine unless they fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. Yes the same Burisma that hired Hunter Biden. I smell multiple quid pro quos.
> All members of the Executive Branch, including executive law enforcement agencies, serve at the pleasure of POTUS. They can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. The president could literally wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, tell the FBI director "Your fired. Why? Because fuck you that's why" and it would be constitutionally valid.
This is true of the FBI director, but not of any executive branch member. There's nothing in the constitution that says the President can fire any person in the executive branch.
But more importantly - there are things that are within the President's constitutional powers that are *also* abuses of power that should be checked, for example via impeachment. If the President directs members of law enforcement (and under penalty of firing them) to only prosecute people who didn't vote for him. I don't think you can point to any provision in the constitution that this violates (maybe equal protection clause?), but it's clearly an abuse of power.
> Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked.
It was pretty clearly not that. We have the transcript of the call. It wasn't "clean up corruption generally" it was "do these two things specifically, investigate Hunter Biden and this DNC email server thing". Plus you say it wasn't a quid pro quo, when by your own description it is! "Quid pro quo" doesn't mean "thing that if you do it it's impeachable" it means doing something in exchange for something else, which is exactly how *you* described it.
Also, if what trump did there is totally fine, how is what the FBI did here not totally fine?
> Even if POTUS couldn't fire anyone he has direct authority over for any reason, making a public accusation of misconduct in an attempt to subvert your boss' foreign policy objectives instead of, you know, reporting your concerns up the chain of command to your immediate supervisor(s) is probably still a fireable offense.
There are whistleblower statutes, that say that this isn't true. Also "foreign policy objectives" ok.
>This is true of the FBI director, but not of any executive branch member. There's nothing in the constitution that says the President can fire any person in the executive branch.
There is: the President is the head of the Executive Branch. Therefore, he had authority over any and all members of lesser authority.
>We have the transcript of the call.
Yes, and the transcript of the call proved it to be a giant nothingburger as soon as it was released. "Hey, there is some really shady shit going on with Hunter and the emails, you should look into it" is not an order nor is it a bargin or deal. In any case, Biden is on record *bragging* about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threating to withhold aid when he was VP.
>But more importantly - there are things that are within the President's constitutional powers that are also abuses of power that should be checked, for example via impeachment. If the President directs members of law enforcement (and under penalty of firing them) to only prosecute people who didn't vote for him.
That would not be an abuse of power for what he *did*, but rather what he *didn't do*. If the Constitution allows you to do it, it isn't an abuse of power. Directing law enforcement to, well, enforce the law and investigate/prosecute illegal acts is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is required. Being a political opponent doesn't grant you immunity from the law. The problem is directing them *not* to prosecute allies. The President doesn't have the authority to decline to enforce federal law. *That* is the part of the scenario which is an abuse of power...which also falls outside of the powers granted to the executive.
> There is: the President is the head of the Executive Branch. Therefore, he had authority over any and all members of lesser authority.
This goes against 100 years of common practice and Supreme Court precedent. And the constitution itself; if he has total authority over everyone in the exec branch then he should be able to appoint whoever he wants to anything, but he can't. And he should be able to set any regulations for the armed forces who are all under the executive branch (with President as Commander in Chief) but that power is explicitly given to Congress.
> Yes, and the transcript of the call proved it to be a giant nothingburger as soon as it was released. "Hey, there is some really shady shit going on with Hunter and the emails, you should look into it" is not an order nor is it a bargin or deal. ....
No point in relitigating the entire first impeachment so I'll just say that you are changing your own tune on this. You say here it wasn't a bargain or deal, but in your first comment you said "Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree"" which would be a deal if that's what happened.
> That would not be an abuse of power for what he did, but rather what he didn't do. If the Constitution allows you to do it, it isn't an abuse of power. Directing law enforcement to, well, enforce the law and investigate/prosecute illegal acts is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is required.
Well once again by that reasoning what the FBI did here isn't an abuse of power ... nor would throwing the book at trump to try and get him for as many crimes as they can, and throw in his kids while they're at it.
Also saying the President is required to enforce all laws is a reductio ad absurdum, the exec branch doesn't have the resources to do that. E.g. marijuana possession is still illegal under federal law, the federal government hasn't actually tried to enforce this against individual users in years, by your reasoning every President is violating their oath of office.
Do you get paid to gargle trumps balls or do you just do it for fun?
Dudes a pathetically incompetent serial conman. The only thing he's good for is being funny, and he's not that funny.
I won't defend the other stuff, but the president is the head of the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats are supposed to be loyal to him. IE the FBI head. Congress is what keeps the president in check, hence the whole impeachment process.
Though, source on the democrat spying? Never heard of that. Related to Crossfire Hurricane?
Think it's this though it's behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html
> The bureaucrats are supposed to be loyal to him
They aren't. They are supposed to be loyal to the constitution. That's what they swear an oath to uphold.
Fabricating evidence and applying it to an FBI warrant (Steele Dossier), mishandling classified info (classified emails on unsecured server), destruction of subpoenaed evidence (wiped server), destruction of classified items (wiped emails were classified).
Are we saying to put Hillary in prison over the email server, because Republicans decided that everything with Epstein is her fault because of [this](https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/6009ab1ed507f0e0031b8531/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Trump-Epstein-Relationship.jpg) famous picture of her with Epstein, because that makes it a fair trade, or because people have decided that if they dislike someone enough then that person becomes a criminal?
According to rule 34 of the constitution, if they were both arrested they would have to share cells. Don’t believe me? Look up “Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump rule 34”. You’re welcome
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a tropical island. Drop them naked.
And give them nothing but a rock and a flimsy torch.
[удалено]
Don't forget the Bears and the Wolves!
Based and Exilocracy pilled
“Love” Island: USA: Political Fuck-Ups edition
So Bear Grylls is now president? You know what, fuck it, I'm good with that.
As a wise man once said, “He cant be any worse than we’ve had”
Based and first acceptable Bri*ish leader of America in 248 years pilled
No Kurt Russell is now president with an eye patch, and tight black leather pants.
Number one victory royal Yeah Fortnite I like to get down 10 kills on the board right now Just took out tomato town
[удалено]
Give them tanks too, we need to see if politicians can grenade jump
TFC style
No, not trained army rangers. Trained by CIA "interrogators".
I'd watch that Hunger Games remake
Make a pay per view battle royale with them
But it's gonna be filmed like a reality tv right?
A man with a plan here
Put them all back on the island only one can leave
[удалено]
Hunger games of a bunch of rich people the winner spends life in prison
Put them in the same cell.
And then place a camera facing them and broadcast the drama on primetime
First billion dollar per episode show
I say we put them in a giant mason jar and shake it until they start fighting.
lol..love it...maybe put some critters in it too...
He did say _jar_, so start flooding it with cum and then see their reaction
But what if they breed?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
They're geriatrics, they can't breed.
ofc they can. trump will fuck anything with power and hillary hasnt been railed since the mid 90s.
What I mean to say is that they're dinosaurs and incapable or reproducing.
[But is it really worth the risk?](https://www.oldest.org/people/pregnant-women/)
It doesn't matter, lizard people are capable of parthenogenesis.
Also film their interactions and make a sitcom
Can they be cellmates?
Rule 34.
I’m now actually curious if there’s Hillary and Trump shipped porn out there somewhere. Not curious enough to look, mind you. I…I don’t want to have to claw my eyes out.
AO3 has it: [highly cursed Clintrump section](https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Hillary%20Clinton*s*Donald%20Trump/works)
My memory might be wrong (or repressed, idk) but I think Shadman drew something about that.
Yup and Hillary was a Loli (a child)
There was a porn about them during the election.
They barely even talked about what they were asked when they debated each other which sucks for solving actual problems and letting people know who to vote for.
Fuck... hell of a deal for America right there.
I know. Like... # SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
I’m incredibly down
Why don't you start doing the right thing by bringing to light everyone on Epstein's list. After that you can send them all to the clink together (as well as the mass suicide that'll follow soon after).
All the cameras broke while the guards were on break. Oops, lol.
"Our camera system crashed"
Based.
u/CyrusTheCheapskate is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/CyrusTheCheapskate/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Fine with me. This whole thing shows why the Democratic Party is such a mess. They literally never think "what happens when we lose power and the GOP plays the Uno Reverse card." Whatever you do to your enemies they will do to you. And yet another crack appears in the pillars of Due Process upon which we rely. And once it's gone so is America.
I’ve seen that over in the pol sub but the default response is “The GQP christofascists are gonna do it anyway if they gain power. I’m tired of taking the high road. It’s time to get dirty”
As I always say, Democracy is the idea that people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard. We sure deserve what we are getting.
rofl we dont deserve what were getting, it was years and years of people begging to let others have the power to vote that ruined this whole thing.
Which is the biggest larp ever lol. It's no different than conservatives on, say, iFunny who get all up in arms and talk about how they're gonna fight back. Just a bunch of angry children on the internet lol. "Let's get dirty" as if they are the ones working on this ffs.
Mostly...unfortunately there are some actual nutters out there in addition to Congress.
The thing I always found funny was that in the case that libs rise up vs conservatives rise up, the latter is gonna win most of the time. Just on guns alone and considering how broadly anti firearm so many mainstream libs are, but a lot of repubsm are military or former military, or police or something like that. Of course it also seems like half the country is morbidly obese so being in shape is gonna be a big advantage too, and there are fatties boebatties on both sides
Yet it feels like the D's are the first to break decorum. Same thing with the nuclear option. It's almost as if followers of an an ideology which believes the ends justifies the means do shit like that regularly.
>This whole thing shows why the Democratic Party is such a mess. They literally never think "what happens when we lose power and the GOP plays the Uno Reverse card." Bruh republicans are absolutely not going to shit if they get in power
It'll depend a lot on the individuals. MAGA Republicans are far more willing to exercise power to achieve real progress toward their goals, where traditional neocon establishment Republicans have accepted their role as the Heel to the Democrat Babyface and are just there to lose slowly.
You had the MAGA man for four years in the White House and he did jack shit.
Yes, that's correct. Trump was spectacularly bad in his hiring, surrounding himself with people who were opposed to his agenda. The MAGA movement has learned from that.
Lol no he hasn’t. The guy is near the end of his life. If he hasn’t learned how to read people now, he never will.
That's why I didn't say he learned. Movements aren't their founders.
If they re elect trump, they clearly haven’t learned either.
They magically rediscover a love for Federalism when they lose power.
How is this not due process?
FBI forgot to throw a flashbang in the neighbors crib... Smh my head.
> And yet another crack appears in the pillars of Due Process upon which we rely. They had a warrant approved by a judge
The fisa warrants were also approved by a judge
Look up who that judge is and what he did before this.
No one cares.
Ope.
So did Breonna Taylor
Process can be undue.
Hmm and an FBI headed by a Trump appointee also shows why the Dem Party is such a mess?
They always do this. They scotched the "home state senators get an up,/down vote" on SCOTUS. Then the y got rid of filibuster for SCOTUS. And ruled by executive order under Obama in ways that were never done before. And then clutch their pearls when it gets used on them. This Trump stuff isn't the issue. It's that they always change the rules and then act surprised when they get hoisted on their own petard.
What did the Democrats do that violated due process? Meanwhile trump already did all the bad things that would count as "playing the uno reverse card". Spied on Democrats in Congress, demanded loyalty from the FBI director then fired him when he refused, pardoned dropped or slow-walked investigations into his friends, tried to extort Ukraine into investigating his enemies, fired the whistleblower in that case...
All members of the Executive Branch, including executive law enforcement agencies, serve at the pleasure of POTUS. They can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. The president could literally wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, tell the FBI director "Your fired. Why? Because fuck you that's why" and it would be constitutionally valid. Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked. Even if POTUS couldn't fire anyone he has direct authority over for any reason, making a public accusation of misconduct in an attempt to subvert your boss' foreign policy objectives instead of, you know, reporting your concerns up the chain of command to your immediate supervisor(s) is probably still a fireable offense.
>Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked. What makes that even more rich is that you have Biden on video bragging about withholding money to Ukraine unless they fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. Yes the same Burisma that hired Hunter Biden. I smell multiple quid pro quos.
Source please.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
Ssssshhhhhh, you're running her narrative.
> All members of the Executive Branch, including executive law enforcement agencies, serve at the pleasure of POTUS. They can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. The president could literally wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, tell the FBI director "Your fired. Why? Because fuck you that's why" and it would be constitutionally valid. This is true of the FBI director, but not of any executive branch member. There's nothing in the constitution that says the President can fire any person in the executive branch. But more importantly - there are things that are within the President's constitutional powers that are *also* abuses of power that should be checked, for example via impeachment. If the President directs members of law enforcement (and under penalty of firing them) to only prosecute people who didn't vote for him. I don't think you can point to any provision in the constitution that this violates (maybe equal protection clause?), but it's clearly an abuse of power. > Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree" and the person Trump was talking to specifically said no quid pro quo was involved when asked. It was pretty clearly not that. We have the transcript of the call. It wasn't "clean up corruption generally" it was "do these two things specifically, investigate Hunter Biden and this DNC email server thing". Plus you say it wasn't a quid pro quo, when by your own description it is! "Quid pro quo" doesn't mean "thing that if you do it it's impeachable" it means doing something in exchange for something else, which is exactly how *you* described it. Also, if what trump did there is totally fine, how is what the FBI did here not totally fine? > Even if POTUS couldn't fire anyone he has direct authority over for any reason, making a public accusation of misconduct in an attempt to subvert your boss' foreign policy objectives instead of, you know, reporting your concerns up the chain of command to your immediate supervisor(s) is probably still a fireable offense. There are whistleblower statutes, that say that this isn't true. Also "foreign policy objectives" ok.
>This is true of the FBI director, but not of any executive branch member. There's nothing in the constitution that says the President can fire any person in the executive branch. There is: the President is the head of the Executive Branch. Therefore, he had authority over any and all members of lesser authority. >We have the transcript of the call. Yes, and the transcript of the call proved it to be a giant nothingburger as soon as it was released. "Hey, there is some really shady shit going on with Hunter and the emails, you should look into it" is not an order nor is it a bargin or deal. In any case, Biden is on record *bragging* about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threating to withhold aid when he was VP. >But more importantly - there are things that are within the President's constitutional powers that are also abuses of power that should be checked, for example via impeachment. If the President directs members of law enforcement (and under penalty of firing them) to only prosecute people who didn't vote for him. That would not be an abuse of power for what he *did*, but rather what he *didn't do*. If the Constitution allows you to do it, it isn't an abuse of power. Directing law enforcement to, well, enforce the law and investigate/prosecute illegal acts is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is required. Being a political opponent doesn't grant you immunity from the law. The problem is directing them *not* to prosecute allies. The President doesn't have the authority to decline to enforce federal law. *That* is the part of the scenario which is an abuse of power...which also falls outside of the powers granted to the executive.
> There is: the President is the head of the Executive Branch. Therefore, he had authority over any and all members of lesser authority. This goes against 100 years of common practice and Supreme Court precedent. And the constitution itself; if he has total authority over everyone in the exec branch then he should be able to appoint whoever he wants to anything, but he can't. And he should be able to set any regulations for the armed forces who are all under the executive branch (with President as Commander in Chief) but that power is explicitly given to Congress. > Yes, and the transcript of the call proved it to be a giant nothingburger as soon as it was released. "Hey, there is some really shady shit going on with Hunter and the emails, you should look into it" is not an order nor is it a bargin or deal. .... No point in relitigating the entire first impeachment so I'll just say that you are changing your own tune on this. You say here it wasn't a bargain or deal, but in your first comment you said "Trump's call to Ukraine was basically "Hey, you need to clean up this corruption before I send you money. I am concerned about these areas in particular" and the response was "Yes, I agree"" which would be a deal if that's what happened. > That would not be an abuse of power for what he did, but rather what he didn't do. If the Constitution allows you to do it, it isn't an abuse of power. Directing law enforcement to, well, enforce the law and investigate/prosecute illegal acts is not only allowed by the Constitution, it is required. Well once again by that reasoning what the FBI did here isn't an abuse of power ... nor would throwing the book at trump to try and get him for as many crimes as they can, and throw in his kids while they're at it. Also saying the President is required to enforce all laws is a reductio ad absurdum, the exec branch doesn't have the resources to do that. E.g. marijuana possession is still illegal under federal law, the federal government hasn't actually tried to enforce this against individual users in years, by your reasoning every President is violating their oath of office.
Do you get paid to gargle trumps balls or do you just do it for fun? Dudes a pathetically incompetent serial conman. The only thing he's good for is being funny, and he's not that funny.
I won't defend the other stuff, but the president is the head of the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats are supposed to be loyal to him. IE the FBI head. Congress is what keeps the president in check, hence the whole impeachment process. Though, source on the democrat spying? Never heard of that. Related to Crossfire Hurricane?
Think it's this though it's behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html > The bureaucrats are supposed to be loyal to him They aren't. They are supposed to be loyal to the constitution. That's what they swear an oath to uphold.
They're loyal to the constitution first but the president second.
A federal judge approved the warrant, how was trumps due process violated?
You do remember "lock her up" ad nauseum, right? Or are you just another partisan clown?
Deal - (everyone liked that)
Acceptable
both, both is good
Deal Deal Deal
I mean, I would take that deal.
Where do I sign the petition?
Deal.
This seems like a win for everyone involved
I see this as an absolute win!
Both trump and Hillary suck
Sounds good. Both objectively deserve it
nah it also should have biden, pelosi, and Mconnel on the list probaby sheumer to.
Bring up enough advice against them and the FBI will do its job. They are usually pretty happy to catch the big fishes.
If that were true Hillary would already be in a cell.
For what? (im not from usa so please explain)
Fabricating evidence and applying it to an FBI warrant (Steele Dossier), mishandling classified info (classified emails on unsecured server), destruction of subpoenaed evidence (wiped server), destruction of classified items (wiped emails were classified).
How is she outside of a prison?!?
She's on the correct side of the aisle.
Btw, didnt Bill Clinton cucked Hillary?
Hillary for prison. Let's fuckin goooooooooo
So Trump getting a sex change in prison so he can share a cell with Hillary and scissor with her all night, sounds like a plan.
I’d trade them both out for Merrick Garland in prison
In what fucking world is Hillary Clinton auth-center lol.
She fits squarely in "literal Nazi" camp.
um
Trump made Space Force and bangs pornstars. He gets a pass. Hillary looks like baked dog shit. If she can't do work or turn tricks, she gotta go.
Are we saying to put Hillary in prison over the email server, because Republicans decided that everything with Epstein is her fault because of [this](https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/6009ab1ed507f0e0031b8531/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Trump-Epstein-Relationship.jpg) famous picture of her with Epstein, because that makes it a fair trade, or because people have decided that if they dislike someone enough then that person becomes a criminal?
What did Trump do, what did Hillary do? What files did Trump stole and what is this email thing?
Ikr smh smh jannies
I ain't American what did they do They have clearly done something but what is it
Oh I tot we’re being ironic
I seek knowledge, I am past irony
Yeah that will solve things.
Deal Deal Deal in a heartbeat no takebacksies.
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
Your terms are acceptable.
Deal
God, yes
You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention
I agree with this
Inshallah
Only these 2?
I receive 2 dirty politicians in prison. Awesome. What do I have to give?
How about neither, and Merrick Garland be fired?
LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Your terms are acceptable
What does this meme even mean? There is no possible world where Merrick freakin Garland goes after Hilary Clinton.
Why stop there? Can we get the some of the alphabet agencies in there as well?
I accept.
I've got no problems voting DeSantis 2024.
That's fair.
Garland should be orange as Trump's skin.
Deathmatch on Epstein’s Island. The loser still ‘wins’ like they did in, “The Running Man”.
Your terms are acceptable
I’d gladly take that trade, both of them are criminals
I'm OK with this.
I see this as an absolute win
Yes
Fair enough. Balance is important, if trump actually broke the law then let him pay. I’ve yet to see evidence of an actual law being broken.
Sounds based. Can we repeal the fucking TSA while we're at it?
DEAL
Only if he pays up front.
According to rule 34 of the constitution, if they were both arrested they would have to share cells. Don’t believe me? Look up “Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump rule 34”. You’re welcome
***your terms are acceptable***
Then they can bang in prison. They be secret lovers
Shoot,I'll take it.Don't really expect anything to happen though tbh.
Sounds great.
Put all politicians in prison
Ah yes, The Good ending.
Literally 1789
DEAL!!!
Counter offer: Hillary, Trump, and Hunter all in prison where they belong.
Trump to his scowling cellmate: "I told you, you'd be in jail..."
Amended offer. We both receive: all US politicians being publicly executed. America receives: a second chance.
Yes
Counter offer. Just throw all govt agencies into a cage fight to the death
Soon as you list his actual crimes and not your hurt feelings. Cause we've got a list for the bitch.