volfanjustin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 22,654
- Likes
- 23,620
You literally just confirmed my point. You’ve got your girl Nancy screaming AG Barr “committed a crime” yet I’ll bet you money she doesn’t act on a criminal referral. This is all just idiot lib theater to obstruct AG Barr from doing his job.
If a crime was committed then indict and convict. Or STFU and move on. And with regards to indicting AG Barr, Eric Holder cannot stop laughing at that notion.
We’re beyond Trump. He’s not going anywhere. Now you idiots are on defense against AG Barr. Tick tock
Sigh.
The reason that does not apply is that because it is a political question for Congress, the issue is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Republicans laughably (but predictably) want to have it both ways. You want to hide behind the point that Trump cannot be charged with a crime while in office, then you want to apply the criminal burden of proof to what he did.
McGahn says that Trump called him and tried to get Mueller removed over the bogus conflict of interest claim, McGahn threatened to resign, then Trump told him not to tell anyone he had asked for that.
Trump says that is not true.
I'd venture a guess right now that, even if you included Trump supporters, about 80 % of the country immediately believes McGahn and thinks Trump is lying. Again.
Fact is, that would be an impeachable offense. By itself, it just would be. Add it to the rest, and its an easy call.
The Dems may not think it politically wise to do so, which is fine with me. But just theoretically speaking, its easily enough to toss his fat azz out of the WH.
Apparently neither committed any offense which rises to a need for indictment by the House for Trump or indictment by the DOJ for AG Barr since no charges are being leveled.Barr committing a crime is a different issue than Trump having committed one.
People had no issue with FISA when it was just brown terrorists and stuff but now that a politician got caught by it, it's a problem.
You want the surveillance to stop when the foreign target talks to U.S. citizens?
It's becoming crystal clear that you all can't get Trump. Mueller didn't have enough evidence to conclude that either obstruction or collusion took place. (BTW, several on Mueller's team donated to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Probably a legit COI, but I digress)Sigh.
The reason that does not apply is that because it is a political question for Congress, the issue is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Republicans laughably (but predictably) want to have it both ways. You want to hide behind the point that Trump cannot be charged with a crime while in office, then you want to apply the criminal burden of proof to what he did.
McGahn says that Trump called him and tried to get Mueller removed over the bogus conflict of interest claim, McGahn threatened to resign, then Trump told him not to tell anyone he had asked for that.
Trump says that is not true.
I'd venture a guess right now that, even if you included Trump supporters, about 80 % of the country immediately believes McGahn and thinks Trump is lying. Again.
Fact is, that would be an impeachable offense. By itself, it just would be. Add it to the rest, and its an easy call.
The Dems may not think it politically wise to do so, which is fine with me. But just theoretically speaking, its easily enough to toss his fat azz out of the WH.
These free love hippie libs used to hate the government
Now they love power
It's becoming crystal clear that you all can't get Trump. Mueller didn't have enough evidence to conclude that either obstruction or collusion took place. (BTW, several on Mueller's team donated to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Probably a legit COI, but I digress)
Now Dems are trying to smear Barr for being as transparent as possible.
Yall are absolute scumbags.