Nothing to investigate. They are "reviewing" the case, in a sop to the idiot in the oval office, so they can get the aid he was holding up.
Bidens son was hired in the years after a corruption scandal as part of an attempt to placate the US government and buy some credibility.
He was overpaid for what he did, which was essentially provide a vaneer.
Sorry, it isn't a new Benghazi.
(edit)
It was, essentially, a half-baked conspiracy theory from some book, and never panned out as an actual scandal. On par for what passes for "fact" in modern conservative circles these days.
Yes, "lawyers" and even lawyers are wrong about things from time to time. Fascinating observation that has nothing to do with Taylor or Vinland or anything else in this threadbeing a “lawyer” and being in totally wrong are not mutually exclusive
same thing being a “lawyer” and being a total ing clown(see michael avenatti).
well do you disagree that this will have a quick death in the senate thus its a nothing burger?
if you do disagree you are one “lawyer” that is wrong
Uh, didn't you say you were for impeachment, CC?
Have you changed your mind?
Do tell.
transcipt you say?
welp
They were paid a long time ago. What? There is no investigation? no something for something?Nothing to investigate. They are "reviewing" the case, in a sop to the idiot in the oval office, so they can get the aid he was holding up.
Bidens son was hired in the years after a corruption scandal as part of an attempt to placate the US government and buy some credibility.
He was overpaid for what he did, which was essentially provide a vaneer.
Sorry, it isn't a new Benghazi.
(edit)
It was, essentially, a half-baked conspiracy theory from some book, and never panned out as an actual scandal. On par for what passes for "fact" in modern conservative circles these days.
Why would anyone worry about the perfect call's being leaked?
Why not release the transcript now?
It just sitting there on that secret server in a basement or something....
I think he guy is an idiot and should have never pulled that bull . They can certainly justify impeachment. I just don't think they ultimately can prove quid quo pro since they got their money without an investigation.
Are you for impeachment and removal?
Yes or no.
i would be fine with him being removed but i'm saying I don't think they can get him removed.
Your answer is no. You are not for impeachment and removal.
It's not what I said. I said YES to impeachment. That is the process. I said YES I'm OK with him being removed because he is an embarrasing dumb .
I'm also saying they won't actually be able to remove him.
So just say this: "I am for impeachment and removal."
spurraider21
transcipt you say?
welp
posobiec
find the word transcript in that article chris
I would have removed him months ago if I had that power so that other candidates could get their programs going. Removing Trump just to get Pence is not that appetizing to me.
If they vote yes on impeachment the senate turns supermajority blue in 2020.Vote for impeachment, Trump snitches on all the Rs that are paid off by Russian Oligarchs via the NRA.
Vote no on impeachment, then the Senate turns Blue in 2020.
Times of the essence for them to make a decision.
Tick tock R MFers
So just say this: "I am for impeachment and removal."
I don't know that it will have a quick death in the senate - or - that it will be a nothing burger. But you sure seem as certain as this as you were of WW3well do you disagree that this will have a quick death in the senate thus its a nothing burger?
if you do disagree you are one “lawyer” that is wrong
off Chump. I explained my position fully. I'm not playing your ing game.
find the word transcript in that article chris
Not surprised tweet crew doesn't know what a transcript is
Yeah, we've already established you've all been lying about the memo and continue to do so.
Our question is why?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
