Of course you would. Originally Posted by gfejunkie
You have to have evidence of a crime and a perpetrator of that crime before you can prosecute. All we have here is a riot in the asylum of Washington D.C. brought to you by the ever entertaining Dancing Democrats, lol. They'll spend the remainder of this term coming up with new ideas to impeach Trump, it's quite sad.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
It's trivially obvious that the man who recommended that Comey be fired -- Rosenstein -- wouldn't view the subsequent firing of Comey as obstruction. Only a moron would continue to argue that that was obstruction of justice. And you are being willfully blind to the fact that it was hildbeest -- NOT Trump -- who set up an unsecure server to hide evidence and who destroyed numerous devices with hammers and BleachBit to destroy evidence after said evidence had been subpoenaed. Originally Posted by I B HankeringBut, but, but Clinton won’t work for Barrs defense. Hell, even judge Napaltanio has stated there may have been crimes committed. I think Fox has given him his own program now. Now the original topic was Barr and his behavior I don’t intend to run down the rabbit hole of deep state bullshit with you.
But, but, but Clinton won’t work for Barrs defense. Hell, even judge Napaltanio has stated there may have been crimes committed. I think Fox has given him his own program now. Now the original topic was Barr and his behavior I don’t intend to run down the rabbit hole of deep state bullshit with you. Originally Posted by Jaxson66You'd be the one spouting "bullshit". hildebeest is very much a current concern of Barr's. Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein have conclusively stated that no crimes were committed. You, Nadler, Fauxcahontas, Adam Schitty, Swalwell, and all of the anti-Trump Rinos can whine, cry and stamp your pathetic little feet until doomsday, but Congress cannot "prosecute" a damn thing without going through Barr, and Barr and Rosenstein have made their ruling.
That's going to be the administration's defense argument against impeachment. "Ahhh . . . the president was just letting off some steam. He really didn't mean for his staff to subvert the republic."
Yeah. Sure. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500