Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

PoliTalker said:
Hello RAMSinLA,



Mueller said in his own words the President can't be indicted. It's in the Mueller Report.



Look at it this way. What if:

a) Hillary had won.

b) There were stories that Russians helped her win, and she might have been in on it.

I'll tell you what would happen if that was the case.

Conservatives would want her impeached. And I don't see how that could be called desperation.
Click to expand...

Clinton was already viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy and voters sometimes heard variations on this theme from Sanders and his supporters in the more contentious moments of the Democratic primaries. Clinton still would have been “Crooked Hillary” even without the Russians.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Then we have this.
Click to expand...

Enough with the white trash red state links.

Here's the letter Mueller sent to Barr on March 27th (1 of two letters he sent):
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.”

Barr lied about receiving this letter when he testified in April before the Senate.

Why did he lie about getting that letter?
 
Southern Chicken said:
If it was only One possible answer... Then why is there only 58 of 435 members of the House supporting impeachment?
Click to expand...

Forget about whether or not a sufficient # of reps support impeachment right now, and deal with the question as to why the guy you are defending here shared polling data with Russian spies for months.

You're just trying to back out of this debate by introducing this non-sequitur to avoid answering why Manafort did what he did.

So why did Manafort share polling data with Russians for months?

Why did you say "no collusion" when it clearly was collusion?

Why did you try to move the bar from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"?

These questions will eventually have to be answered.

You won't be able to avoid them.
 
Getin the ring said:
funny you feel this way, because fact is Hillary did get help from Russia, and still lost, she also got help from the media, from the Obama DOJ, and still lost.
I don't know how many different ways you can lose and still have supporters saying you didnt
Click to expand...

Hillary conspired with Russia to throw the election to Trump has gotta be the weirdest bad faith argument ever made.
 
Getin the ring said:
funny you feel this way, because fact is Hillary did get help from Russia, and still lost, she also got help from the media, from the Obama DOJ, and still lost.
I don't know how many different ways you can lose and still have supporters saying you didnt
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
LV426 said:
Forget about whether or not a sufficient # of reps support impeachment right now, and deal with the question as to why the guy you are defending here shared polling data with Russian spies for months.

You're just trying to back out of this debate by introducing this non-sequitur to avoid answering why Manafort did what he did.

So why did Manafort share polling data with Russians for months?

Why did you say "no collusion" when it clearly was collusion?

Why did you try to move the bar from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"?

These questions will eventually have to be answered.

You won't be able to avoid them.
Click to expand...

Why forget it? It is relevant... Not to you, but relevent
 
LV426 said:
Forget about whether or not a sufficient # of reps support impeachment right now, and deal with the question as to why the guy you are defending here shared polling data with Russian spies for months.

You're just trying to back out of this debate by introducing this non-sequitur to avoid answering why Manafort did what he did.

So why did Manafort share polling data with Russians for months?

Why did you say "no collusion" when it clearly was collusion?

Why did you try to move the bar from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"?

These questions will eventually have to be answered.

You won't be able to avoid them.
Click to expand...

Translation: :laugh:

55813620_2364867006880712_3660504264494546944_n.jpg
 
LV426 said:
How is it relevant to the question of why Manafort shared polling data with Russian spies for months, and why your defense shifted from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"?
Click to expand...

How are your arguments relevant to reality and the facts. Read the report and AG's conclusions.

Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
 
LV426 said:
Enough with the white trash red state links.

Here's the letter Mueller sent to Barr on March 27th (1 of two letters he sent):
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.”

Barr lied about receiving this letter when he testified in April before the Senate.

Why did he lie about getting that letter?
Click to expand...

Does your post above somehow disqualifies the link? It doesn't.

Barr said
"The letter’s a bit snitty, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people," he told the Judiciary panel."

Barr did really know the source of the letter. Mueller didn't dispute that the following conversation had taken place is the point.


"I said, 'Bob, what’s with the letter? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?'" Barr said during his testimony before the panel Wednesday.

"And he said that they were concerned about the way the media was playing this and felt that it was important to get out the summaries, which they felt would put their work in proper context and avoid some of the confusion that was emerging," Barr added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/441655-barr-on-mueller-bob-whats-with-the-letter

Mueller needs to testify
 
LV426 said:
It has nothing to do with why Manafort shared polling data with Russian spies for months, nor does it have anything to do with your defense of that shifting from "no collusion" to "OK collusion happened, but it's not illegal".
Click to expand...

Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Barr said
Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there...

Barr has no credibility, and lied before the Senate in April.

So I don't understand why you continue using Barr in your defense when you already acknowledge in your links that Barr lied to the Senate and that he misrepresented Mueller's report?

Why did Barr lie about his communication with Mueller?

These are questions that will have to be answered.
 
LV426 said:
How is it relevant to the question of why Manafort shared polling data with Russian spies for months, and why your defense shifted from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"?
Click to expand...


14% of the House shares your fantasy. Got anything else? Maybe John Dean can convince one more member to support your fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top