AG Barr's investigation about the IG report (Video)

[g5000]

Well worth a watch.

If I were a Democrat, I'd think about not making too many more statement's they'll have to eat.

Trump's ***** Barr didn't get the results his boss wanted, so now he's going to investigate the investigators? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

They're eating they're own now.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

OK, so why not let the voters decide? 63mil voted for him in 2016. Since he was elected the Dow has gained 10,000 pts. Let us decided in 2020. Why is that such a big deal?

Who said the voters aren't going to get to decide in 2020?

You support impeachment and removal. Yes or No?

Still kind of on the fence. I go back and forth. I want an actual trial with actual witnesses. Not a fixed trial.

I don't get the point though. Are you saying we can't impeach people because we should have elections instead?

My point is that impeachment should be bi-partisan. This one is not.

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well worth a watch.

If I were a Democrat, I'd think about not making too many more statement's they'll have to eat.

Trump's ***** Barr didn't get the results his boss wanted, so now he's going to investigate the investigators? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

They're eating they're own now.

Troll. You're my *****.

 

[colfax_m]

1. Cohen lied to protect Trump's lies. Trump claimed there was no deals with Russia. Cohen decided to conform to that lie.
2. Papadopolous admitted to lying for Trump. Trump claimed there was no connection in the campaign with Russia. Papadopolous decided to conform to that lie.
3. Flynn lied to protect Trump. Trump claimed there was no discussions with Russians. Flynn decided to conform to that lie.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump. Trump claimed they had no connection with Wikileaks. Stone decided to conform to that lie.

1. Trump told Cohen to end negotiations for the Tower in January, and he kept negotiating. He lied to keep his job, and got caught, duh.
2. Popadope didn't admit lying for Trump, he "lied" because he was setup by the CIA and didn't know it, 2-weeks in jail, some "crime".
3. Flynn spoke with Kisliak and said "I don't recall" an answer that Hillary always used, but Flynn gets nailed in an FBI perjury trap
4. Stone didn't need to lie about wikileaks, who cares if he spoke to wikileaks and Trump didn't know, another case of stupidity, not criminality.

Lets look at Hillary's criminality by comparison:
1. The UraniumOne scam, a quick $47m
2. The Clinton Foundation, aka pay-to-play cash cow
3. Her illegal bathroom server
4. Her destroying subpoenaed evidence
5. Her saying "I don't recall" 39x when questioned
6. Her missing 30,000 emails
7. Her mishandling of classified information
8. Her getting a pass from Comey from prosecution because of her "intent" (does Trump get the same pass?)

1. Trump never told Cohen to stop negotiations. He lied so as not to contradict Trump.
2. Papadopolous wasn't set up. He lied and admitted it. He admitted he did it to protect Trump.
Excerpts From the New York Times Interview With George Papadopoulos
3. There's no way Flynn "forgot" he talked to Kislyak about sanctions. That was the entire point of the phone call. Here's how it went down. Flynn got a text from Kislyak to call him. Flynn called someone in a senior position in the Trump campaign for advice about what to say about sanctions. He got orders from them. He then called Kislyak and told them what he was told to say. Immediately after hanging up with Kislyak, Flynn called the senior Trump admin official to tell them the job was done. Kislyak called Flynn a few days later to tell him the Russians took into consideration what he told them and acted accordingly. Flynn passed this along to the Trump campaign.
You want me to believe that Flynn FORGOT all this happened a few weeks later? Give me a break.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump because Stone talked to Trump about his contacts which Trump had publicly denied.

Do you see a pattern? People close to Trump lie on his behalf in an effort not to contradict Trump's lies. This is how Trump eats people's souls.

1. "“Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress." Trump Tower Moscow, and Michael Cohen’s lies about it, explained
2. Popadopulous was setup, just ask him Papadopoulos argues he may have been 'entrapped'
3. As the DNI Flynn's job was to talk to Russians and other countries, this was not a campaign "perjury" but after moving into the WH. The FBI recorded the conversation and if Flynn got one word wrong its a crime. That is by definition a "perjury trap": How come Hillary can say "I don't recall" 39x and its fine?
4. Stone is a moron who got what he deserved if he lied under oath. No one cares if Trump had someone contact wikileaks and see if what they had. Especially after Hillary actually paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump. The Steel Dossier is "foreign interference in a US election" how come that gets a pass and wasn't investigated by Mueller as "Russian Collusion"?

1. Nice link. It doesn't say what you claimed.
2. Papadopolous already admitted to lying and why he did it. Entrapment? That's absurd. No one attempted to compel the coffee boy to lie about his contacts.
3. Flynn wasn't the DNI when he called Kislyak. He lied about it after he became DNI. Flynn didn't "just get one word wrong". He decided to omit an entire process he undertook. Stop trying to minimize what he did. That is not "by definition" a perjury trap. A perjury trap is totally different. If you ask someone a very specific detail a year later and they say something wrong, it's hard to prove it was intentional. If Flynn just happened to remember half a dozen phone calls, coordination and planning that went into a policy objective just 3 weeks later, then it looks a hell of a lot more intentional. And Flynn didn't say "I don't remember". He said it didn't come up.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump. They're both morons.

1. Cohen actually said that quote, and then tried to say Trump told him what to do in "tongues". Yeah, ok, like I believe Cohen.
2. I gave you the link where Popadope said he was setup. Prove he wasn't.
3. Here is the link on Flynn's lies, in the pdf indictment: Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000 smells like a perjury trap to me. Mueller wanted to squeeze a few Trump guys, and Flynn stepped in it, nice reward for a military career, huh?
4. Agreed, Trump had no clue WTF he was up against.

1. Trump makes his desires known. Obviously, since everyone seems to tell the same lies as him. He's a thug and a mobster. He learned from the scumbags like Roy Cohn.
2. Papdopolous doesn't know anything about a setup. I provided the link where he confessed to why he did it. No one asked him to lie to the FBI.
3. Who made Flynn lie? No one.
4. Trump knew one thing for sure. He has plenty of the 5th Ave type supporters.

 

[colfax_m]

Who said the voters aren't going to get to decide in 2020?

You support impeachment and removal. Yes or No?

Still kind of on the fence. I go back and forth. I want an actual trial with actual witnesses. Not a fixed trial.

I don't get the point though. Are you saying we can't impeach people because we should have elections instead?

My point is that impeachment should be bi-partisan. This one is not.

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump told Cohen to end negotiations for the Tower in January, and he kept negotiating. He lied to keep his job, and got caught, duh.
2. Popadope didn't admit lying for Trump, he "lied" because he was setup by the CIA and didn't know it, 2-weeks in jail, some "crime".
3. Flynn spoke with Kisliak and said "I don't recall" an answer that Hillary always used, but Flynn gets nailed in an FBI perjury trap
4. Stone didn't need to lie about wikileaks, who cares if he spoke to wikileaks and Trump didn't know, another case of stupidity, not criminality.

Lets look at Hillary's criminality by comparison:
1. The UraniumOne scam, a quick $47m
2. The Clinton Foundation, aka pay-to-play cash cow
3. Her illegal bathroom server
4. Her destroying subpoenaed evidence
5. Her saying "I don't recall" 39x when questioned
6. Her missing 30,000 emails
7. Her mishandling of classified information
8. Her getting a pass from Comey from prosecution because of her "intent" (does Trump get the same pass?)

1. Trump never told Cohen to stop negotiations. He lied so as not to contradict Trump.
2. Papadopolous wasn't set up. He lied and admitted it. He admitted he did it to protect Trump.
Excerpts From the New York Times Interview With George Papadopoulos
3. There's no way Flynn "forgot" he talked to Kislyak about sanctions. That was the entire point of the phone call. Here's how it went down. Flynn got a text from Kislyak to call him. Flynn called someone in a senior position in the Trump campaign for advice about what to say about sanctions. He got orders from them. He then called Kislyak and told them what he was told to say. Immediately after hanging up with Kislyak, Flynn called the senior Trump admin official to tell them the job was done. Kislyak called Flynn a few days later to tell him the Russians took into consideration what he told them and acted accordingly. Flynn passed this along to the Trump campaign.
You want me to believe that Flynn FORGOT all this happened a few weeks later? Give me a break.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump because Stone talked to Trump about his contacts which Trump had publicly denied.

Do you see a pattern? People close to Trump lie on his behalf in an effort not to contradict Trump's lies. This is how Trump eats people's souls.

1. "“Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress." Trump Tower Moscow, and Michael Cohen’s lies about it, explained
2. Popadopulous was setup, just ask him Papadopoulos argues he may have been 'entrapped'
3. As the DNI Flynn's job was to talk to Russians and other countries, this was not a campaign "perjury" but after moving into the WH. The FBI recorded the conversation and if Flynn got one word wrong its a crime. That is by definition a "perjury trap": How come Hillary can say "I don't recall" 39x and its fine?
4. Stone is a moron who got what he deserved if he lied under oath. No one cares if Trump had someone contact wikileaks and see if what they had. Especially after Hillary actually paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump. The Steel Dossier is "foreign interference in a US election" how come that gets a pass and wasn't investigated by Mueller as "Russian Collusion"?

1. Nice link. It doesn't say what you claimed.
2. Papadopolous already admitted to lying and why he did it. Entrapment? That's absurd. No one attempted to compel the coffee boy to lie about his contacts.
3. Flynn wasn't the DNI when he called Kislyak. He lied about it after he became DNI. Flynn didn't "just get one word wrong". He decided to omit an entire process he undertook. Stop trying to minimize what he did. That is not "by definition" a perjury trap. A perjury trap is totally different. If you ask someone a very specific detail a year later and they say something wrong, it's hard to prove it was intentional. If Flynn just happened to remember half a dozen phone calls, coordination and planning that went into a policy objective just 3 weeks later, then it looks a hell of a lot more intentional. And Flynn didn't say "I don't remember". He said it didn't come up.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump. They're both morons.

1. Cohen actually said that quote, and then tried to say Trump told him what to do in "tongues". Yeah, ok, like I believe Cohen.
2. I gave you the link where Popadope said he was setup. Prove he wasn't.
3. Here is the link on Flynn's lies, in the pdf indictment: Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000 smells like a perjury trap to me. Mueller wanted to squeeze a few Trump guys, and Flynn stepped in it, nice reward for a military career, huh?
4. Agreed, Trump had no clue WTF he was up against.

1. Trump makes his desires known. Obviously, since everyone seems to tell the same lies as him. He's a thug and a mobster. He learned from the scumbags like Roy Cohn.
2. Papdopolous doesn't know anything about a setup. I provided the link where he confessed to why he did it. No one asked him to lie to the FBI.
3. Who made Flynn lie? No one.
4. Trump knew one thing for sure. He has plenty of the 5th Ave type supporters.

OK, the small fish got fucked over for lying, they're bad.
Trump is president and will likely win re-election.
Durham will most likely indict several deep state coup plotters who setup those small fish and carried out the biggest political scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Where the Obama admin used the power of the Federal government to illegally spy on the Trump campaign, and got caught.

 

[colfax_m]

1. Trump never told Cohen to stop negotiations. He lied so as not to contradict Trump.
2. Papadopolous wasn't set up. He lied and admitted it. He admitted he did it to protect Trump.
Excerpts From the New York Times Interview With George Papadopoulos
3. There's no way Flynn "forgot" he talked to Kislyak about sanctions. That was the entire point of the phone call. Here's how it went down. Flynn got a text from Kislyak to call him. Flynn called someone in a senior position in the Trump campaign for advice about what to say about sanctions. He got orders from them. He then called Kislyak and told them what he was told to say. Immediately after hanging up with Kislyak, Flynn called the senior Trump admin official to tell them the job was done. Kislyak called Flynn a few days later to tell him the Russians took into consideration what he told them and acted accordingly. Flynn passed this along to the Trump campaign.
You want me to believe that Flynn FORGOT all this happened a few weeks later? Give me a break.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump because Stone talked to Trump about his contacts which Trump had publicly denied.

Do you see a pattern? People close to Trump lie on his behalf in an effort not to contradict Trump's lies. This is how Trump eats people's souls.

1. "“Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress." Trump Tower Moscow, and Michael Cohen’s lies about it, explained
2. Popadopulous was setup, just ask him Papadopoulos argues he may have been 'entrapped'
3. As the DNI Flynn's job was to talk to Russians and other countries, this was not a campaign "perjury" but after moving into the WH. The FBI recorded the conversation and if Flynn got one word wrong its a crime. That is by definition a "perjury trap": How come Hillary can say "I don't recall" 39x and its fine?
4. Stone is a moron who got what he deserved if he lied under oath. No one cares if Trump had someone contact wikileaks and see if what they had. Especially after Hillary actually paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump. The Steel Dossier is "foreign interference in a US election" how come that gets a pass and wasn't investigated by Mueller as "Russian Collusion"?

1. Nice link. It doesn't say what you claimed.
2. Papadopolous already admitted to lying and why he did it. Entrapment? That's absurd. No one attempted to compel the coffee boy to lie about his contacts.
3. Flynn wasn't the DNI when he called Kislyak. He lied about it after he became DNI. Flynn didn't "just get one word wrong". He decided to omit an entire process he undertook. Stop trying to minimize what he did. That is not "by definition" a perjury trap. A perjury trap is totally different. If you ask someone a very specific detail a year later and they say something wrong, it's hard to prove it was intentional. If Flynn just happened to remember half a dozen phone calls, coordination and planning that went into a policy objective just 3 weeks later, then it looks a hell of a lot more intentional. And Flynn didn't say "I don't remember". He said it didn't come up.
4. Stone lied to protect Trump. They're both morons.

1. Cohen actually said that quote, and then tried to say Trump told him what to do in "tongues". Yeah, ok, like I believe Cohen.
2. I gave you the link where Popadope said he was setup. Prove he wasn't.
3. Here is the link on Flynn's lies, in the pdf indictment: Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000 smells like a perjury trap to me. Mueller wanted to squeeze a few Trump guys, and Flynn stepped in it, nice reward for a military career, huh?
4. Agreed, Trump had no clue WTF he was up against.

1. Trump makes his desires known. Obviously, since everyone seems to tell the same lies as him. He's a thug and a mobster. He learned from the scumbags like Roy Cohn.
2. Papdopolous doesn't know anything about a setup. I provided the link where he confessed to why he did it. No one asked him to lie to the FBI.
3. Who made Flynn lie? No one.
4. Trump knew one thing for sure. He has plenty of the 5th Ave type supporters.

OK, the small fish got fucked over for lying, they're bad.
Trump is president and will likely win re-election.
Durham will most likely indict several deep state coup plotters who setup those small fish and carried out the biggest political scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Where the Obama admin used the power of the Federal government to illegally spy on the Trump campaign, and got caught.

Flynn isn't a small fish. Cohen is his long time personal attorney, hardly small fish. Stone is his long time ally, not a small fish either. Papadopolous, definitely small fish, not going to argue there.

When Durham doesn't back up your nonsense conspiracy theories, I'm sure you'll tell us another nonsense conspiracy theory about Durham being "deep state". There is no penetrating your bubble.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You support impeachment and removal. Yes or No?

Still kind of on the fence. I go back and forth. I want an actual trial with actual witnesses. Not a fixed trial.

I don't get the point though. Are you saying we can't impeach people because we should have elections instead?

My point is that impeachment should be bi-partisan. This one is not.

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

 

[colfax_m]

Still kind of on the fence. I go back and forth. I want an actual trial with actual witnesses. Not a fixed trial.

I don't get the point though. Are you saying we can't impeach people because we should have elections instead?

My point is that impeachment should be bi-partisan. This one is not.

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My point is that impeachment should be bi-partisan. This one is not.

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

 

[colfax_m]

I see no reason to require it to be bipartisan, especially when one party is more loyal to their president than the constitution.

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your post is case in point of why we should let the people decide.

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

It is your fault for that asshole strawman statement.

I'll explain since you're dumb.

Biden had a serious conflict of interest that he was advocating for this Ukrainian prosecutor fired when he knew the prosecutor was investigating the company that his son was a board member. And there is a public interest in knowing that. And so you know that the president uses very loose language every time he speaks. He's talked about investigating.

Don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz. A Democrat. A Clinton supporter. A legal and constitutional expert. You are embarrassed to state where you live. Maybe you can share why your legal knowledge is superior to this retired Harvard Law Professor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

 

[colfax_m]

Is that what the founders intended?

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

It is your fault for that asshole strawman statement.

I'll explain since you're dumb.

Biden had a serious conflict of interest that he was advocating for this Ukrainian prosecutor fired when he knew the prosecutor was investigating the company that his son was a board member. And there is a public interest in knowing that. And so you know that the president uses very loose language every time he speaks. He's talked about investigating.

Don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz. A Democrat. A Clinton supporter. A legal and constitutional expert. You are embarrassed to state where you live. Maybe you can share why your legal knowledge is superior to this retired Harvard Law Professor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

There was no active investigation into Burisma when Biden was involved. His son's involvement in Bursima gave the appearance of conflict, but after testimony from those involved, that appearance was just that. An appearance. There was no actual corruption. The idea that Biden fired Shokin for personal purposes is a bogus theory pushed by corrupt Ukrainians to curry favor with Trump. It doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Trump didn't want scrutiny. He wanted a weapon.

I don't believe Dershowitz one bit. He's elitist. He defends the elitists. He apologizes for the elitists.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes. Founders did not intend for it to be a partisan process. Let the people decide unless the crime is overt where everyone agrees it is one. Here only half do. You and I cannot even agree.

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

It is your fault for that asshole strawman statement.

I'll explain since you're dumb.

Biden had a serious conflict of interest that he was advocating for this Ukrainian prosecutor fired when he knew the prosecutor was investigating the company that his son was a board member. And there is a public interest in knowing that. And so you know that the president uses very loose language every time he speaks. He's talked about investigating.

Don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz. A Democrat. A Clinton supporter. A legal and constitutional expert. You are embarrassed to state where you live. Maybe you can share why your legal knowledge is superior to this retired Harvard Law Professor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

There was no active investigation into Burisma when Biden was involved. His son's involvement in Bursima gave the appearance of conflict, but after testimony from those involved, that appearance was just that. An appearance. There was no actual corruption. The idea that Biden fired Shokin for personal purposes is a bogus theory pushed by corrupt Ukrainians to curry favor with Trump. It doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Trump didn't want scrutiny. He wanted a weapon.

I don't believe Dershowitz one bit. He's elitist. He defends the elitists. He apologizes for the elitists.

I disagree. I believe Dershowitz. I do not believe he is an elitist. I believe Biden is dirty and hooked up his son who had zero experience in the field. So let the voters decide. You have a dog in the fight as do I. So let's let our dogs fight it out at the ballot box in 2020. You afraid Trump wins again?

Poor little Leftist. Facts don't care about your feelings. People like you are what is wrong with America today. You're as bad as the Alt Right.

 

[colfax_m]

If that was the case why is the threshold for impeachment a simple majority and conviction 2/3rds? If everyone has to agree, why not make it unanimous?

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

It is your fault for that asshole strawman statement.

I'll explain since you're dumb.

Biden had a serious conflict of interest that he was advocating for this Ukrainian prosecutor fired when he knew the prosecutor was investigating the company that his son was a board member. And there is a public interest in knowing that. And so you know that the president uses very loose language every time he speaks. He's talked about investigating.

Don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz. A Democrat. A Clinton supporter. A legal and constitutional expert. You are embarrassed to state where you live. Maybe you can share why your legal knowledge is superior to this retired Harvard Law Professor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

There was no active investigation into Burisma when Biden was involved. His son's involvement in Bursima gave the appearance of conflict, but after testimony from those involved, that appearance was just that. An appearance. There was no actual corruption. The idea that Biden fired Shokin for personal purposes is a bogus theory pushed by corrupt Ukrainians to curry favor with Trump. It doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Trump didn't want scrutiny. He wanted a weapon.

I don't believe Dershowitz one bit. He's elitist. He defends the elitists. He apologizes for the elitists.

I disagree. I believe Dershowitz. I do not believe he is an elitist. I believe Biden is dirty and hooked up his son who had zero experience in the field. So let the voters decide. You have a dog in the fight as do I. So let's let our dogs fight it out at the ballot box in 2020. You afraid Trump wins again?

Poor little Leftist. Facts don't care about your feelings. People like you are what is wrong with America today. You're as bad as the Alt Right.

Dershowitz isn't an elitist? What the hell was he doing hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein all the time? Just helping him with a little legal problems here and there, getting a few massages on the side. No big deal.

You believe Biden is "dirty" despite all the evidence to the contrary?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

2/3 means the other party likely has some in agreement too. 100% is not feasible. Are you asking just for the sake of asking?

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

It is your fault for that asshole strawman statement.

I'll explain since you're dumb.

Biden had a serious conflict of interest that he was advocating for this Ukrainian prosecutor fired when he knew the prosecutor was investigating the company that his son was a board member. And there is a public interest in knowing that. And so you know that the president uses very loose language every time he speaks. He's talked about investigating.

Don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz. A Democrat. A Clinton supporter. A legal and constitutional expert. You are embarrassed to state where you live. Maybe you can share why your legal knowledge is superior to this retired Harvard Law Professor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

There was no active investigation into Burisma when Biden was involved. His son's involvement in Bursima gave the appearance of conflict, but after testimony from those involved, that appearance was just that. An appearance. There was no actual corruption. The idea that Biden fired Shokin for personal purposes is a bogus theory pushed by corrupt Ukrainians to curry favor with Trump. It doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Trump didn't want scrutiny. He wanted a weapon.

I don't believe Dershowitz one bit. He's elitist. He defends the elitists. He apologizes for the elitists.

I disagree. I believe Dershowitz. I do not believe he is an elitist. I believe Biden is dirty and hooked up his son who had zero experience in the field. So let the voters decide. You have a dog in the fight as do I. So let's let our dogs fight it out at the ballot box in 2020. You afraid Trump wins again?

Poor little Leftist. Facts don't care about your feelings. People like you are what is wrong with America today. You're as bad as the Alt Right.

Dershowitz isn't an elitist? What the hell was he doing hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein all the time? Just helping him with a little legal problems here and there, getting a few massages on the side. No big deal.

You believe Biden is "dirty" despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Lies. He is suing the person who stated he hung out with Epstein.

As far as Biden he is not denying the Burisma involvement and he bragged on TV how he got the prosecutor fired. As I said you're the epitome of what is wrong with America today.

 

[OKTexas]

Well worth a watch.

If I were a Democrat, I'd think about not making too many more statement's they'll have to eat.

Again, if he or Durham drag anyone into court, that person can point to Horowitz's report and say, "See, no political bias, no illegal survellience".

Done.

Oh, yeah, and any trial would take place in Washington DC, where they voted 96% of Hillary. Good luck finding a jury willing to buy Durham's bullshit.

Sounds like a great justification for a change of venue.

.

 

[MAGAman]

Is it my fault that the Republicans don’t care about the constitution?

Troll much?

The Constitution doesn't support a coup based on partisan hatred and political motives.

 

[OKTexas]

1. McCabe Lying to investigators 3 or 4x is NOT doing his job. Strzok and Page nailed "Andy" as one of the ring leaders of the (legally started, but criminally ended) Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plots. His wife getting $700,000 from the DNC for her campaign might have affected his judgment?

2. Is this comment to Obama? "If you see a foreign government trying to steal an election don't say anything?" Why didn't BO stop the FB ads? The Obama admin deliberately kept the Trump campaign in the dark hoping that they'd contact a Russian...they didn't, as Mueller confirmed.

Actually, they did, because Manafort, Flynn, and a bunch of other Trump associates are going to jail. Hope they save a chair for Rudy.

Here's the real problem. No one on either side really thought that Trump would win on a technicality. They figured he was going to lose, so there was no point in making a bigger deal about it. Now we are papering it over because they don't want to let us know our elections can be so easily rigged by a foriegn power.

Heck, I think we won't find out how much the Russians interference helped Trump for decades...

You ******* commie bastard, a president elected in accordance with our Constitution is NOT A ******* TECHNICALITY!!!!!!! It's the law of the land.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

1. McCabe Lying to investigators 3 or 4x is NOT doing his job. Strzok and Page nailed "Andy" as one of the ring leaders of the (legally started, but criminally ended) Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plots. His wife getting $700,000 from the DNC for her campaign might have affected his judgment?

2. Is this comment to Obama? "If you see a foreign government trying to steal an election don't say anything?" Why didn't BO stop the FB ads? The Obama admin deliberately kept the Trump campaign in the dark hoping that they'd contact a Russian...they didn't, as Mueller confirmed.

Actually, they did, because Manafort, Flynn, and a bunch of other Trump associates are going to jail. Hope they save a chair for Rudy.

Here's the real problem. No one on either side really thought that Trump would win on a technicality. They figured he was going to lose, so there was no point in making a bigger deal about it. Now we are papering it over because they don't want to let us know our elections can be so easily rigged by a foriegn power.

Heck, I think we won't find out how much the Russians interference helped Trump for decades...

You ******* commie bastard, a president elected in accordance with our Constitution is NOT A ******* TECHNICALITY!!!!!!! It's the law of the land.

.

If you argue with insane people, you may go insane.