Not true!
Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
Not true!
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Well get your members of the House up to speed with the impeachment of the president for all of this proof of obstruction. Do you need Nancy's number?
I said Mueller needs to testify before Congress to add clarity to the inconclusive report.
In the meantime your support for impeachment in the House remains at 58 out of 435 members which has remained the same since 2017. (A very slow growth)
In 2017 the Democrats requested a vote for impeachment with near 60 members and it failed.
Well, Mueller said he couldn't indict a sitting President for obstruction.
As for collusion, the collusion Paul Manafort did, for example, wasn't illegal.
What was illegal was lying about it to the FBI.
You haven't read the report, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Again, you are avoiding answering for why they did what they did by trying to put it on me to single-handedly spur the Democratic Party into action as a deflection tactic so you don't have to answer for the criminal actions taken by Trump and his allies.
It's so obvious that is your strategy here.
What a total fraud.
Getin the ring
Verified User
how many times you going to "assume" people havn't read what you claim to have read, I don't think you read it, how's that?
why don't you stop with the retard act, it's very transparent that you are a triggered crybaby, nothing more
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Inconclusive or not? It is either conclusive or inconclusive. What say you?
Since you refuse to answer for why Manafort shared polling data with Russia, I'll just take it as a tacit admission that Manafort colluded with Russia in order to win the election for Trump.
No other explanation for him sharing polling data with Russia makes any sense.
You haven't read the report and have actually taken steps to brag about not reading it.
One can only assume you have brain damage because of that.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
LOL too funny there. You're their savior! Well could you call them together and seek more members of Congress to actually care about your fantasy?
It wasn't his determination to make, according to the legislation that established the SC and the DOJ guidelines he was forced to operate within.
So why did Manafort share polling data with Russia?
Why did Trump order McGahn to fire Mueller?
Why did Trump's Counsel reach out to Flynn upon hearing of Flynn's cooperation with the SC?
These lingering questions will not have good answers for you or Trump.
That's why you're avoiding them by exercising any deflection you can.
"Inconclusive" only means that we need to conclude.
So "concluding" involves asking these questions of the people who took these actions, and of the people defending them...like you.
So you want to say that inconclusive = innocent, but you know that's not true. You're just hoping if you repeat it enough, you can fatigue the debate away from it.
But that's not going to happen because these questions are never going to go away until they're conclusively answered...and the only ones who can conclusively answer them is Trump himself...and Trump refuses to testify under oath.
Mueller through a spokesperson said the rule forbidding a president to be indicted did not come into play and had no bearing on the investigation and the report. I wish someone that is so adamant that Trump needs to be impeached or go to prison would take a second and tell us why. Everyone says he is guilty, guilty of what? I think this smacks of desperation by the dems.
Why did Manafort share polling data with Russians while he was campaign manager?
Why did Trump attempt to have McGahn fire Mueller?
Why did Trump order Hicks and McGahn to ignore the subpoenas?
Why did Trump's counsel reach out to Flynn when he found out Flynn was cooperating with the SC?
Why did the GOP change its Ukraine policy in its platform during the RNC in 2016?
These questions aren't going to go away.
Read the report.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
No need. The legal expert charged with doing so has determined Trump committed no crimes. That is good enough for me. It should be for you too
Mueller's own words the week after his 9 minuet speech. Why would the report say something other than what he said through his spokesperson?
Barr lied to the Senate in April about Mueller's response to his determination, so why do you trust his review of Mueller's report?
Weak excuse to not inform yourself of this thing you are trying to talk about.
Mueller's report says Paul Manafort shared polling data with Russian spies. Wanna answer for that? Or are you going to just pretend you didn't read it just now?