John Q. Public wrote:And keep in mind that removing Trump by impeachment (or otherwise) gives Pence the advantage of incumbency. I doubt that's anything the D's want.
Luca wrote:Source of the post I can certainly understand why you might want to hope so, pagan. I’m sorry, but it’d never work out............Luca
Luca wrote:Source of the post WHOA!
There were “individuals”?
And they had ties?
And they thought information deleterious to Clinton would benefit them?
Good lord. Somebody get a rope!
Y’know, maybe after all it was Miss Scarlett (get it? Scarlet as in red, like those atheistic commies) with the knife in the conservatory!!!!
Vilepagan wrote:I can't tell if this post is an attempt to downplay the results of the Mueller investigation or if you really are this naive and ignorant. Well, the opinion of Mr. Mueller is a lot less forgiving of the president...he had this to say about trump's "non-crimes':
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.".
Luca wrote:Source of the post For those with a diminished attention span, recall that two years ago this investigation started out with the supposition that a sitting US president had “colluded” with “Russia” to influence the election in his favor.
And now two years later you pin your hopes on “We cannot prove that the president did not obstruct justice in the investigation of this event that never occurred.”
Eventually you have to produce actual evidence of a crime because after two years “We can’t prove it didn’t happen” doesn’t quite meet any rational individual’s threshold of evidence.........Luca
Luca wrote:Source of the post Because after two years of investigation there was no proof of any criminal activity.
Most people including me don’t “like” the man, but he was fairly elected President and there was no crime.
John Q. Public wrote:So witness tampering, lying to investigators, encouraging your underlings to also lie and threatening and firing leaders of the investigation are all just hunky-dory as long as the charges are dropped? I don't think it works that way.
Vilepagan wrote:No, you're defending a known liar, and someone who may very well be guilty of obstruction..
Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot] and 1 guest