Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She didn’t even reach for alternative facts. Kellyanne was asked four times to say whether or not Lev Parnas was right when he said Trump knew exactly what was going on. Four tries and she still wouldn’t say.
She didn’t even reach for alternative facts. Kellyanne was asked four times to say whether or not Lev Parnas was right when he said Trump knew exactly what was going on. Four tries and she still wouldn’t say.
So what if he did? That doesn't change the bogus nature of this impeachment. Again, you don't impeach people based on their different interpretations of what the law authorizes (talking about the GAO report). If that was the case, Obama should have been impeached for unconstitutionally appointing officials in violation of the recess appointment clause (the Supreme court UNANIMOUSLY ruled against Barack in that case). Something tells me leftists would have been incensed if that happened and the GOP (being the adults in the room) didn't even consider it.
Its telling that the Dem partisan impeachment effort doesn't touch on what the GAO report says, which fundamentally is about differences in legal interpretation. No, the Dems opine (and it's nothing more than opinion) that they believe Trump was taking action for the purpose of harming a political opponent. But when there is more than one interpretation of something, intent is key (not opinion). And Democrats lack any evidence of intent.
So what if he did? That doesn't change the bogus nature of this impeachment. Again, you don't impeach people based on their different interpretations of what the law authorizes (talking about the GAO report). If that was the case, Obama should have been impeached for unconstitutionally appointing officials in violation of the recess appointment clause (the Supreme court UNANIMOUSLY ruled against Barack in that case). Something tells me leftists would have been incensed if that happened and the GOP (being the adults in the room) didn't even consider it.
Its telling that the Dem partisan impeachment effort doesn't touch on what the GAO report says, which fundamentally is about differences in legal interpretation. No, the Dems opine (and it's nothing more than opinion) that they believe Trump was taking action for the purpose of harming a political opponent. But when there is more than one interpretation of something, intent is key (not opinion). And Democrats lack any evidence of intent.
Trump literally admitted his crime. Like, he literally said it out loud in front of reporters and TV cameras.
She didn’t even reach for alternative facts. Kellyanne was asked four times to say whether or not Lev Parnas was right when he said Trump knew exactly what was going on. Four tries and she still wouldn’t say.
So what if he did? That doesn't change the bogus nature of this impeachment. Again, you don't impeach people based on their different interpretations of what the law authorizes (talking about the GAO report). If that was the case, Obama should have been impeached for unconstitutionally appointing officials in violation of the recess appointment clause (the Supreme court UNANIMOUSLY ruled against Barack in that case). Something tells me leftists would have been incensed if that happened and the GOP (being the adults in the room) didn't even consider it.
Its telling that the Dem partisan impeachment effort doesn't touch on what the GAO report says, which fundamentally is about differences in legal interpretation. No, the Dems opine (and it's nothing more than opinion) that they believe Trump was taking action for the purpose of harming a political opponent. But when there is more than one interpretation of something, intent is key (not opinion). And Democrats lack any evidence of intent.
Wait, I thought the argument from Trump's fan base was that he didn't withhold the aid? Now it's, yes he did withhold the aid, but the intent wasn't nefarious. You and everybody else knows exactly why he withheld it. He doesn't give a damn about corruption in Ukraine, only what damage he can do to his enemies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
