Can we talk about the obstruction of justice case Mueller and the Rats tried to bring against Trump?
Comments
-
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen. -
They don't have to cooperate. And why would he cooperate in a totally rigged partisan clown circus?HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen.
That's what trump said and it process you wrong. The AG is the guy. And that is who Trump refered to.
He had every right to call or corruption when he saw it. I fact he had a duty to do so.
Are you sure you're an attorney? -
Are you sure you’re an American? That document you claim to have sworn an oath doesn’t permit the Executive to avoid lawful examination.Sledog said:
They don't have to cooperate. And why would he cooperate in a totally rigged partisan clown circus?HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen.
That's what trump said and it process you wrong. The AG is the guy. And that is who Trump refered to.
He had every right to call or corruption when he saw it. I fact he had a duty to do so.
Are you sure you're an attorney? -
A Prosecutor, you shall never be.HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen. -
Does in this case. Sure you've read it?HHusky said:
Are you sure you’re an American? That document you claim to have sworn an oath doesn’t permit the Executive to avoid lawful examination.Sledog said:
They don't have to cooperate. And why would he cooperate in a totally rigged partisan clown circus?HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen.
That's what trump said and it process you wrong. The AG is the guy. And that is who Trump refered to.
He had every right to call or corruption when he saw it. I fact he had a duty to do so.
Are you sure you're an attorney? -
Imagine my disappointment.salemcoog said:
A Prosecutor, you shall never be.HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen. -
It isn’t hard. You really don't have to try.HHusky said:
Imagine my disappointment.salemcoog said:
A Prosecutor, you shall never be.HHusky said:
You can look into Biden to your heart’s content. That’s not a defense. Neither is the fact that Daddy didn’t get the benefit he sought because his scheme was discovered. Daddy didn’t come in and offer a different explanation—he just told everyone not to cooperate.Sledog said:
What personal benefit did he receive? The aid was delivered.HHusky said:
I guess we can have a debate here about whether withholding aid unless the President receives a personal benefit is impeachable then. That would be more honest than what’s going on in Washington DC.salemcoog said:
Hi there. I’ve always accepted that this was a bad move. Most sane people do. But it doesn’t warrant removal from office.HHusky said:
You girls won’t even concede Daddy did anything wrong. Don’t lecture me about bipartisanship.Sledog said:Entirely partisan impeachment. The thing the founders feared the most.
Now it'll be standard procedure for the party that holds the house.
Trump will still win regardless and the left losses Congress. Then we'll outlaw the Democrat party. That sounds fun. Mandate it be re named the He Man America Haters Club.
You'll need to be old to get that reference.
But you knew that already.
He said he wants nothing.
Saying you need to look into the Biden's maybe you could talk to the AG (I'll help you that's the attorney general) certainly sounds terrible. I mean why talk to the head law enforcement officer in the US about shady dealings by a US citizen. -
As a cop if I investigated a reported possible crime and there may be cause to investigate. But I receive untested, unverified information and I continue with my investigation and i learn that the info is no good and unreliable. I then provide false info to obtain three warrants and lie to the judge about the source of the information and withhold exculpatory information. My question is, how much time would I do in prison?
-
It would be 1 8 7 on a mother fuckin cop!Sledog said:As a cop if I investigated a reported possible crime and there may be cause to investigate. But I receive untested, unverified information and I continue with my investigation and i learn that the info is no good and unreliable. I then provide false info to obtain three warrants and lie to the judge about the source of the information and withhold exculpatory information. My question is, how much time would I do in prison?
-
It’s not in the paper, it’s on the wall!!!MikeDamone said:
It would be 1 8 7 on a mother fuckin cop!Sledog said:As a cop if I investigated a reported possible crime and there may be cause to investigate. But I receive untested, unverified information and I continue with my investigation and i learn that the info is no good and unreliable. I then provide false info to obtain three warrants and lie to the judge about the source of the information and withhold exculpatory information. My question is, how much time would I do in prison?
