Pelosi On Impeachment Witnesses: “It’s Not A Question” Of “Proof” It’s About “Allegations”

It’s always that way with Commies.
Just make an accusation and you disappear into the Gulags.

Dem/Snowflake Rules For Conservatives: 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent'

Dem/Snowflake Rules For Dems: 'Innocent DESPITE Evidence / Confession Of Guilt'
 
82269103_10218293850769028_387318475716034560_n.jpg
 
It’s always that way with Commies.
Just make an accusation and you disappear into the Gulags.

So this moistened bint says we can't ignore allegations and have a duty to act upon them.

Well hell. Let's go. Look at all the alligations against the Biden's. Trump simply said we must look into them.

Her rules.

She just dismissed their own charges.
 
So....if an unnamed, faceless 'whistle blower' - who does not have to come forward because (as Schiff and DL claim) they are afforded 'anonymity' and 'immunity' - files a complaint accusing Speaker Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, and House Judiciary Chairman Nadler of celebrating their successful fastest Impeachment in US history based on the weakest Impeachment case in US history by having a late night drug and alcohol-fueled celebration in Pelosi's office that included sexual relations with trafficked kids and doing lines of coke off the backs of small farm animals the mere allegations - the most ingredient here - would be justification for Immediately stripping all 3 of them of their House positions of power / positions...until this matter is fully investigated and settled, and justification for launching an immediate investigation of all 3 of them...

...and if any of them protested, attempted to resist their entire personal lives being invaded, their bank accounts and finances plundered through, and / or opposed any one being called to testify against them they would be guilty of Obstruction and an abuse of power....

...and 'proof' behind the initial allegation would not be as important as the allegation itself.....

Got it.
 
Last edited:
So....if an unnamed, faceless 'whistle blower' - who does not have to come forward because (as Schiff and DL claim) they are afforded 'anonymity' and 'immunity' - files a complaint accusing Speaker Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, and House Judiciary Chairman Nadler of celebrating their successful fastest Impeachment in US history based on the weakest Impeachment case in US history by having a late night drug and alcohol-fueled celebration that included sexual relations with trafficked kids and doing lines of coke off the backs of small farm animals the mere allegations - the most ingredient here - would be justification for Immediately stripping all 3 of them of their House positions of power, launching an immediate investigation of all 3 of them, and if any of them protested, attempted to resist their entire personal lives being invaded, their bank accounts and finances plundered through, and opposed any one being called to testify against them they would be guilty of Obstruction and an abuse of power....and 'proof' behind the initial allegation would not be as important as the allegation itself.....

Got it.
Sounds serious.
 
So....if an unnamed, faceless 'whistle blower' - who does not have to come forward because (as Schiff and DL claim) they are afforded 'anonymity' and 'immunity' - files a complaint accusing Speaker Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, and House Judiciary Chairman Nadler of celebrating their successful fastest Impeachment in US history based on the weakest Impeachment case in US history by having a late night drug and alcohol-fueled celebration that included sexual relations with trafficked kids and doing lines of coke off the backs of small farm animals the mere allegations - the most ingredient here - would be justification for Immediately stripping all 3 of them of their House positions of power, launching an immediate investigation of all 3 of them, and if any of them protested, attempted to resist their entire personal lives being invaded, their bank accounts and finances plundered through, and opposed any one being called to testify against them they would be guilty of Obstruction and an abuse of power....and 'proof' behind the initial allegation would not be as important as the allegation itself.....

Got it.
Like I always say... I am NOT defending Trump, I'm saying NO to this idiocy as I would in any situation.
 
Last edited:
This sounds frighteningly like we have to pass it to see whats in it.

Yup. And who needs proof when you have hearsay allegations??

Woman is an imbecile.
When you hear a conversation, it is not hearsay.
I overheard someone in the store mention that you play with dolls. In a funny sort of way.

As you state, that’s not hearsay.
I heard he hates gender neutral dolls.
 

Forum List

Back
Top