-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -22-

a reply to: toolgal462

I wonder how they will spin this news to make it sound insignificant or not give Trump any credit.

They will give the writers and sponsors of the bill credit.

Why shouldn't they?

a reply to: toolgal462

So your giving credit to the writers?

I think we should give credit to them as well as trump.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Of course, many animal rescue and welfare groups have been working on this legislation for years. Good on them.

But Trump made it Law.

That is fact.

Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Clinton before him.

Trump.

Now I worked for the SPCA for 7 yrs in the 90s and I know how long this has been an issue trying to get the feds to recognize animal cruelty.

So yay to all the people who worked to get this law passed. Including me.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Somebody call Quid Pro Joe? 🤡😂 Are you guys not enjoying the show? What a damn s***s**w, it is unbelievable to see how wreckless and stupid these folks truly are. I’m going to jump into the deep end with my beliefs. Some of these folks are not even human 👀. Some of these folks commit the most evil of crimes 🍕 🤬. Others greed and symbolism will be their downfall😡. They think they are better/smarter than you🤯.

They underestimated Anons and the true brilliance of The Plan!🤣 Some great minds have participated in these threads and the knowledge(light) provided is far better than any monies could provide. Knowledge is wealth and you didn’t even have commit crimes while screwing over you’re fellow countrymen. I hope you all enjoy your holidays.

Thank GOD for POTUS and what he and his family has/is doing🇺🇸💪🏼🐇😇👀

Last but not least shout out for them Warriors putting in work and risking it all while away from family for the betterment of the 🌎.

Clip

What is "essentially" Reporter-bot?

Listen carefully to the Reporter-bot question and how it fails to report the FACTS at all. DJT said he would encourage folks to testify at the impeachMENT TRIAL!. She says "investigation."

Not only did he NOT say investigation, the investigation is allegedly over from the dems side.

I don't think she is malice of forethought, I think she is that stupid.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

I agree with the law, and recognize those who wrote it and supported it, but the user is right in saying it wouldnt matter unless Trump signed it. Can you agree? Good.

That being said the law is going to be abused just like any other law. Mad at your neighbors dog barking? How about a felony for leaving it outside. Dog seem aggressive towards other dogs? How about an investigation launched to see if its abused, or mistreated and that's why its aggressive. I can see a lot of situations akin to child abuse allegations. But maybe that's just me 🤷‍♂️

Very good @ Dannielle Blumenthal PhD Ukraine thread unrolled

Ukraine orphanages (“orphanages”) as a ratline (“feeder”) for child sex trafficking is real. See June 2, 2016, @huffpost article by Laurie Ahern:

""Ukrainian women are...the second largest group of foreign women in prostitution outside the U.S. military bases in Korea."

a reply to: imthegoat

This law doesn't change the fact that most states already could charge people with those crimes .

The FBI isn't going to be conducting a Roger Stone style/ Commando raid because your neighbor complains about your dog barking.

Geesh

a reply to: crankyoldman

Whoa, that is quite a thread!

From your link...

17) The Department of Defense conducted Operation Flicker to root out its own pedophiles and published its Report of Investigation in 2009.

18) One of the investigators of Operation Flicker was the individual running the @NSA_QIL2 account. This is based on the original bio, which has since been deleted, and the original handle, which was @NSA_QIL.

Remember that twit acct from past thread here and all those unbelievable tweets.? WoW!!!

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: crankyoldman

This guy is even more unlikeable than Trump, imo. But I happen to like Trump. But I had no opinion of him prior to him becoming the president.

Anyone mention that Trump signed a federal statute that makes animal cruelty a federal offense? I am involved in animal rescue and that is a big deal and should have been in place a long time ago.

I am sure most rescuers wont give Trump any positive press for it though.

Could have used that 20 years ago. I used to do horse rescue in a predominantly rural area. Our biggest case polarized the town and took three years to win. We weren't allowed to show the public before/after photos of the five horses until it was all over.

Once we were able to put those up on our website the public went silent where before they'd done nothing but defame us.

Thank you AGAIN, President Trump. 👍

Yet another example of reading beyond the headlines. It was an amendatory act, not a completely new statute; and all it did was ban the creation and video distribution of videos depicting the intentional crushing of animals, I think it just revised the definition of "crushing".

So this "crushing" is still a State law problem; the Federal basis for this law is the creation and distribution in interstate commerce of videos of it.

It would have had zero effect on your horses situation.

And now I wish I didn't know this kind of thing existed.

I doubt you know anything beyond the headline. The big take away from the bill was that animal cruelty and torture are NOW A FEDERAL CRIME.

Not just a state by state issue.

You need to read up on the statute and then try again.

I read the statute three times. "Animal cruelty" was not criminalized. Only one kind, called "crushing", which is the intentional crushing of animals, was criminalized with this particular statute. You're just wrong.

"Crushing" video distribution was already a federal crime. Now it makes the intentional crushing and videotaping criminal. Like I said, an amendatory act.

Read it for yourself, because although I have, you obviously haven't:

www.congress.gov...

From Congress' site:

It retains existing criminal offenses that prohibit knowingly creating or distributing an animal crush video using interstate commerce. The bill also adds a new provision to criminalize an intentional act of animal crushing. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to seven years, or both.

Keep in mind I've been a lawyer, including multiple Constitutional law cases, for over 25 years. I don't say things if I'm not right about them.

But thanks for playing.

a reply to: toolgal462

ToolGal, they weren't really friends then.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Well then you just conveniently left out that part about making animal cruelty a federal crime.

Geeesh

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Every little bit helps. You'd be amazed how backwards the animal protection laws are in some municipalities.

Live: Trump departs DC en route to his SUNRISE Florida campaign rally.