Probably pretty accurate.Quote:
jlisenbe: You said the "liberal left wing of the Democrat Party: Is there a CONSERVATIVE WING? Is there, even, a CENTER WING (Moderate)? From where I am standing, the ENTIRE Democrat Party is liberal and left wing!
|
Probably pretty accurate.Quote:
jlisenbe: You said the "liberal left wing of the Democrat Party: Is there a CONSERVATIVE WING? Is there, even, a CENTER WING (Moderate)? From where I am standing, the ENTIRE Democrat Party is liberal and left wing!
For the record, I had 7, and still do except they aren't allowed to testify even after being warned this would be seen as obstruction with corrupt intent. It was ignored and here e are. Personally, I would have still tried to go through the courts, but the appeal in the McGahm court case to testify will be heard in January and by extension apply to the other names as well. We will see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Truth is best found through investigation my friend. That should apply to left and right so your hodgepodge of words has no meaning or context unless you can specifically express it.Quote:
You have a very simple and corrupt philosophy of justice. If it benefits you and the liberal left wing of the dem party, then it must surely be true. If it is a negative for Trump or for conservative values, then it must be correct. But if it's bad for the liberal dems, even it it's true, then it must be false. What a strange world you live in.
For the record, you've got zilch. You have no idea what any of those people know or what they would say.Quote:
For the record, I had 7, and still do except they aren't allowed to testify
I saw your sense of "justice" during the Kavanaugh hearings. No evidence other than the testimony of a woman who had a hundred holes in her story, but the dems still wanted to loudly proclaim him guilty. Why? So you could keep him off the Supreme Court. He was a conservative, so to all of you he was guilty. Thus we see liberal dem "justice".Quote:
Truth is best found through investigation my friend. That should apply to left and right so your hodgepodge of words has no meaning or context unless you can specifically express it.
Shouldn't we find out? Of course we should so let's get about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There you go again. You guys had the votes to push the drunkard frat boy to SCOTUS and stop and limit any investigation so you got what you wanted that time. So we all see conservative "justice " too! Haven't heard one repub say whether getting a foreign country involved in our elections is wrong though. Wonder why that is? Maybe you can address that question for us JL.Quote:
I saw your sense of "justice" during the Kavanaugh hearings. No evidence other than the testimony of a woman who had a hundred holes in her story, but the dems still wanted to loudly proclaim him guilty. Why? So you could keep him off the Supreme Court. He was a conservative, so to all of you he was guilty. Thus we see liberal dem "justice".
While your at it, what was the evidence to investigate Hunter Biden again? Besides to smear his daddy who happens to be running for president? That's not evidence you know, just a political ploy to sling mud.
What are you going to find out Tal? nothing you don't already know. You are going to impeach Trump for being an idiot, yes , he is guilty, but it isn't grounds for impeachment
The dufus isn't being impeached for being an idiot. He is being impeached for breaking the LAW, that says that you cannot use your office to invite a foreign nation to influence our election. He is being impeached because he is preventing the congress from investigating his breaking of the law. Now the righties can tell you whatever they please but that doesn't change those FACTS. He abused the public trust and tried to hide it to a degree that was more egregious than Nixon, or Clinton.
Maybe the righties can stomach such behavior, and it would not be the first time, but if we do not protect our laws, our elections then I fail to see the point in insisting everybody else but the dufus abide by them. He crossed the line and should be held into account especially given this may well be his second offense, just like everybody else.
He is NOT above the law Clete, that's the whole point of our society as hard as that is to tell sometimes.
BOTTOM LINE: Just like Hillary's E-mails, Biden's problem is parallel: IF YOU WERN'T DIRTY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE Wouldn't BE ANY DIRT TO "DIG UP"! We can't help it that BIDEN committed dirty acts in a FOREIGN COUNTRY! Just because he committed criminal acts in a foreign country doesn't mean that you can't go after him. Just because Biden declares himself a Presidential Candidate doesn't "SHIELD" him from being investigated. The POTUS has every right to protect the U.S. from CRIMINAL ELEMENTS LIKE BIDEN! He is not going to be able hide behind the cloak of Presidential Candidate: Its the right of the POTUS to go after criminals!
Maybe so, but then again it's the dems job to go after a dirty dufus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Investigations were made Tal, but the demonrats weren't satisfied and then Trump had the temerity to accuse one of their sacred cows of illegal activity and influence peddling. He should have allowed someone else to make the request, but we all know Trump doesn't trust anyone. Has he abused his office? probably
Here's the reality.
Dems. "Mr. Trump, you're guilty."
Trump. "Where is your evidence?"
Dems. "We don't need evidence. We hate you because you defeated our liberal darling, so that's good enough for us."
He had that chance Clete and if I'm not mistaken the fool could have just made a formal request through the DOJ to the Ukraine government to start an investigation but NOOOOO, he just full out asked a foreign government for an investigation into his political opponent and the repubs deny that was the wrong thing to do. Then we could have impeached DOJ AG for playing political partisan games. No impeachment, and the dems would have no choice but to wait for a judge to finally hand down a judgement for testimony, and documents and the election would probably be over by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No doubt the dufus has abused his office, and his oath, and his country.
We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate. That's how it works. So your spin is silly even if I took it as twisted humor which I don't. Hating a guy is no excuse for bad behavior no matter how you spin it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is plainly your motto. I don't think the American people will go for such an outrageous view of justice.Quote:
We don't need evidence
Talaniman: You sure the JAPANESE haven't secretly taken over the Democrat Party? The DEMOCRAT PARTY SHOULD BE RENAMED "PARTY OF KAMIKAZE" because they are committed so hard to leftist ideals that they are bashing their collective brains out on the suicide mission of trying to remove Trump from Office knowing full well, well beforehand, that their attemp will be in vain. The whole Democrat fiasco of the IMPEACHMENT Inquiry is a total POLITICAL EXERCISE, it has nothing to do with justice, as proven by no need for evidence and as proven by no need to Due Process: YOU KNOOW IT IS SIMPLY DESIGNED AS AN ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE TRUMP FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS: AND IT IS FAILING IN THAT ATTEMP! FAILING BIG TIME!
Demos launch and Impeachment missile at Trump.....missile is steered by incompetent Little Adam Schiff and Jerry "The Penguin" Nadler and missile misses by a country mile: Trump is found not guilty in Senate Trial. Entire Impeachment Inquiry is ACADEMIC! Demos knew going into all this that they had NO CHANCE of removing Trump from Office because they knew they couldn't get past the Senate. All Demos did was lose voters, lose elections, guarantee Trump's reelection, and do what they do best: SPEND TONS OF TAXPAYER $$$s!
Half the country supported the impeachment inquiry, and that number is unchanged as the vote in a few days for articles of impeachment against the dufus. Let me clarify my previous statement as it should have read you don't need evidence to start an investigation. Thank you for pointing that out as justice is in the process of being done. The senate get's it's chance soon to decide what must be done and that's the process of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
For all that rant and rave you left out the attempt by the dufus to connect the Biden's and Ukraine corruption to tarnish them for the purpose of re electing the dufus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Tal didn't say that. You chopped off his sentence to make it untrue. He actually said: "We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's how it works, btw.
You are appealing to context, but even at that, it still has the same meaning. "We don't need evidence" in a legal proceeding, which impeachment clearly is, is still an outrageous view of justice. It is admitting that a person can be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors without evidence. In what way do you agree with that?Quote:
Tal didn't say that. You chopped off his sentence to make it untrue. He actually said: "We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate."
Now if you want to make it purely political then your statement would make more sense, but God help us if all of this boils down to nothing more than politics. I can think of nothing more wretched than that. That a political party would attempt to basically depose a duly elected president simply out of political expedience would do violence to everything a democratic republic stands for.
No! Get a grip! The evidence will be presented elsewhere, NOT YET! There's no charge at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So that's how it works now? Accuse him of guilt, brand him as guilty, and then try to find evidence? What an interesting perspective you have.Quote:
No! Get a grip! The evidence will be presented elsewhere, NOT YET!
Me get a grip?? What are all those exclamation marks about? You seem rather stirred up.
You've never had a civics or US government course apparently. Please read up on how this works.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Oh, yes, I'm stirred up!!!! We teachers get stirred up when people don't do research.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I see. You can't explain it, so I need to look it up. Right.Quote:
You've never had a civics or US government course apparently. Please read up on how this works.
Just read my comment above again. It works here as well.Quote:
Oh, yes, I'm stirred up!!!! We teachers get stirred up when people don't do research.
Just so you'll know, I'm well aware that the House functions somewhat like a grand jury in impeachment. If they have evidence of a crime, they can vote on impeachment and, if passed, it is then passed to the Senate where what could be referred to as a trial takes place. If 2/3 of the Senate can be convinced the president is guilty, then he/she is removed from office. But to send articles of impeachment simply because you don't like someone is both absurd and despicable. Sorry that your liberal dogma prevents you from seeing that.
JL, tal explained it!!!!
The impeachment process in U.S. government was first suggested by Benjamin Franklin during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Noting that the traditional mechanism for removing “obnoxious” chief executives — like kings — from power had been assassination, Franklin glibly suggested the impeachment process as a more rational and preferable method.
- The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
- The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
- If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
- If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.
https://www.thoughtco.com/impeachmen...rocess-3322171
This was real easy to find, JL. Be sure to fist-bump your reference librarian!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for repeating what I had already said. The difference is that I wrote mine without having to go to some cheesy website and was thus able to write my own summary. You just copied what someone else wrote. And you really think you warrant a fist bump for that?Quote:
The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.
I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.
I'm not your reference librarian. Plus I'm retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"Quote:
I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.
OK, I'll ask you. Which witnesses had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump? Something more than, "I think he wanted to...", or "My brother said he heard my friend say that Trump might have..." I'd also like to know if you think the fact the both the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said there was no quid-pro-quo should be considered pretty weighty evidence. Hmmm?Quote:
You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"
And talk about just throwing your ethics and honesty out the window, your "Facts be damned" quote was taken so far out of context, and so dishonestly, that you just lost a couple of weeks worth of fist bumps. Rep. Collins was saying, and this is very clear, that the dems, "don't care...facts be damned." You really should be ashamed to have so completely misrepresented the truth.
Pick up this video at about the one minute mark. Maybe this is why you are not my reference librarian. Do I have to do all the work around here???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH62Wmbli0
The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.
In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine.
Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.
I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you like this website?????
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...all-to-ukraine
Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.Quote:
The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.
In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine.
Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.
When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.
I'm sure that's how it was.Quote:
I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!
The one that is a mouthpiece for the democrat party and is dated 9/25? That one?Quote:
You must start paying much, much better attention.
My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Very sorry you are having difficulties. I always encourage people to post, but be prepared to have your material challenged.Quote:
My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.
Sorry to hear that WG, look after yourself and don't let the bastards get to youQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
W.G.: Sorry to hear you are having a rough stretch....get some rest....believe me: We'll still be arguing when you get back! You won't miss much! Get well, W.G.!
Hamilton did warn us about the perils of Impeachment being "weaponized"! He know that potential existed.
Yes indeed. You know how to give and take.Quote:
This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....
Hope you feel better soon and that God's healing virtue will be yours.
We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez. His attack dog Barr had two weeks to spin his yarn we know now is not only grossly inaccurate but obviously deceptive. Unfortunately Mueller's lackluster hearing performance didn't catch everybody's attention either, and was further spun by the right as nothing to see here and taken as no collusion, no obstruction by the liar in chief to his masses.Quote:
Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.
Obstruction was laid out as dull as it was, as was Russian interference, but what was missed is Mueller's decline to dig any further into the dufus's alleged conspiracy citing obstruction, destroying documents and non cooperation by his inner circle to explain all those mysterious contacts with Russian government agents. Barr did the same thing with the WB testimony, and the latest justice department report from last week aided by his handpicked special investigator in spinning everything in the dufus's favor. Of course only the right ignores those facts to parrot the dufus version of events and allows him to not just get away with it but keep doing it, fine by you right? You get to holler no evidence and ignoring the evidence against him, while at the same time smearing the dufus opponents without any evidence at all. As my evidence against the right wing loony allegation of smear tactics I submit the obvious hollering about the Bidens yet no formal charges or call for investigation by DOJ, even after Ukraine has said a formal request is needed as per the Treaty between the USA and Ukraine. That just let's me know that all that the dufus wanted was political talking points against his political foe. The right wing noise machine has embraced this wholeheartedly, and quite willingly, and without ANY evidence which only points out the utter HYPOCRISY of you and the rest of your loons.
All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned, and REPUBS don't want them question because the gig would be up for the dufus. Of course you guys can have that can you?Quote:
When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.
I echo that sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
WG's link has not been proved false at all and continues to be factually true as evidenced by the articles of impeachment, so I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it. I know that suggestion falls on deaf ears.
All the liberal dems were excited about Mueller UNTIL his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken, and then it was time to bring in the First Army of Excuses.Quote:
We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez
So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?Quote:
All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy
It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.Quote:
but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned,
False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.Quote:
So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?
You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law. You prefer to ignore the obvious and look deeper into an issue and lie to yourselves and yes the American people do see through those lies which is why there is this public political conflict that you can only OBSTRUCT the finding of FACT, subvert the TRUTH, and deny the country JUSTICE, by screwing up the process.Quote:
It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.
As evidence Moscow Mitch has announced he will cooperate with the WH to guarantee the dufus cannot be removed. Under what rule of law are the accused and the JURY allowed to fix the outcome of a trial? Only in right wing loony land of course.
"Your honor, on the basis of the weak and paltry "evidence" we have thus far presented, we are now absolutely certain that if we could just bring in some more witnesses to say who knows what, that we could prove our case." Please pardon me for laughing.Quote:
The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.
I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."Quote:
False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.
They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.
Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.Quote:
You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law.
It is I who is doing the laughing at your paltry parroting of right wing spin. An excuse for the dufus to obstruct and I sorely wish the dems would call the dufus bluff and take time to proceed through the court system as any reasonable prosecutor would do. I understand though given this artificial time line the dems have made though to just add that as obstruction since any REASONABLE person who had EVIDENCE of his innocents would certainly want everyone and his mama to know and end this case. That's NOT what the dufus is doing. What's he hiding, and if he has the TRUTH why hide it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Mueller cannot charge a sitting president of anything because of DOJ policy and has said so MANY times, and why he did NOT recommend charges. Without LINKS to back up what you say I will dismiss YOUR opinion of what the Times has written! I will point out he convicted everybody he DID charge since they had NO such DOJ executive protection. That should tell you something dude, along with the fact there are a few pending and active court cases still open.Quote:
I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."
NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.Quote:
They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.
I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?Quote:
Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.
Quote:
NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.
My apologies. I intended to include the link and just failed to do so. Here you are. It's also true that Mueller could have simply said there was overwhelming evidence of obstruction, but then explain that he declined to prosecute per DOJ policies. Wonder why he didn't do that??? Also note that you lib dems spent a year and a half loudly hollering that Trump had colluded with the Russkies to win the election. After Mueller shot you down on that, then you picked another pig trail to go down. You might as well just admit that you hate the guy because he beat your liberal darling and will do practically anything, ethical or not, to be rid of him.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...419-story.html
So if they can't show guilt, by your own admission, then why are they proceeding? "Your honor, we plainly cannot prove the accused to be guilty, but we hate him and want to cause him discomfort, so we intend to proceed with the trial." What do you suppose any decent judge would then do? You know what that person would do and so do I. "Case dismissed!"Quote:
I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?
Thanks for the links and I read it differently with the added details they provide and I think it's a shame Mueller presented evidence but did NOT deem to comment or pursue it, and we know Barr said nothing to see here so it's dead. The same argument he makes for not investigating the referall fron the IG about the WB, and boohooing IG Horowitz findings in that report. Some pattern has emerged that clearly shows his protection of the exec instead of doing his job. That's as bad as Moscow Mitch saying he will work with the WH to protect the dufus no mattter what.
The dufus subverted our government and took it over without firing a shot. As to how far the courts can go with what is before them...we'll see. No I doubt the case can be dismissed unless you guys retake the house. Weboth can agree we are in full scale civil war though I bet. Glad I don't have to shoot my right wing fellow Americans though so that's a good thing.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 PM. |