She shouldn’t sufferer any criminal penalities. She was merely exercising her right of free speech. Sure it was ghastly and inappropriate. But, she didn’t threaten the President. She is merely guilty of exceptionally poor judgment. And she lost her job at CNN for it.
3 Likes
CNN - counterfeit news network
They found that if you decipher Covfefe into periodic elements then take the numbers itno a google search it comes up with studies of genes determining a frogs sex.
Trump was tweeting about frogs.
4D Chess I tell you.
To be fair, those assault charges won’t go anywhere either. Most laws don’t apply to politicians or rich people. That covers good ole MT Congressmen and the Kathy Griffins of the world alike.
This really isn’t a surprise, I guess.
hmm dont worry its just covfefe Im still wondering when the Kush is gonna have time to save the world…
stop watching fake news you gotta get it from a trusted no biased source… RT is a good one you will like it
1 Like
I honestly can’t tell if this is a troll or not.
He literally gave us the exact transcript of their interaction
This must be all that swamp draining we were promised.
2 Likes
But what about Obama and/or Hilary?
Shouldn’t we really be discussing that instead of focusing on anything the current leader of the free world does?
2 Likes
Nah. Trump didn’t actually give all these exemptions out. It’s the left wing media. They’ve got more power than the entire GOP run govt after all.
As usual I’m right
2 Likes
Does the second make the first any less real? You understand scientific consensus right? To the tune of 97%?
Science largely based on models that have failed to predict the past let alone the future.
Look into how that 97% was calculated, the author of the study John Cook and had terrible methodology.
I’ve got no problem with this. Let’s see what the master negotiator can do.
Personally, I think we should invest heavily in alternative fuel sources, corner the market, and then make gobs and gobs of money selling the technology to Europe and Asia.
3 Likes
[quote]
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” [/quote]
They haven’t even conclusively determined whether the global warming caused by humans is bad.
It might even be Positive