Jonathan Turley: ‘No Alternative’ to Impeachment Inquiry into Biden

[struth]

Turley is a legal scholar just like I'm a chippendales dancer. Maybe he used to be, but these days he's just a faux noize shill.

True in the demafasict reich constitutional scholars are simply shills

 

[Nostra]

Turley is a legal scholar just like I'm a chippendales dancer. Maybe he used to be, but these days he's just a faux noize shill.

Dumbest post of the day.

 

[Kilroy2]

You really are uninformed.

So says the uninformed.

 

[Nostra]

So says the uninformed.

Thanks for confirming my post, Simp.

 

[Kilroy2]

1. They have money transfers and money laundering
2. They may have bribery from Burisma, they do have extortion already
3. They have open borders
4. They have illegally paying off student loans
5. The dems impeached Trump for a legitimate phone call, so stop whining

If what you say is true then why would they not move for impeachment. Why do they need more is it because desperate times call for desperate moves. Or is it they know nothing and have nothing.


You mean the legitimate phone call to ask for more votes so that he would win. Even provided a specific number so that they get it right. The phone call where he states baseless claims and they responded that none of his accusations were found to be true.

 

[Kilroy2]

Thanks for confirming my post, Simp.

Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[Kilroy2]

You really are uninformed.

I am really impressed in the way you can write 4 words that say nothing.

 

[otto105]

The EVIDENCE will be presented at the IMPEACHMENT TRIAL and the FBI will look like incompetent partisan hacks.

What evidence?

Your Mom...

 

[Nostra]

I am really impressed in the way you can write 4 words that say nothing.

You are still uninformed, Simp.

 

[Lumpy 1]

When Democrats get all bitchy about nothing, it’s usually something..

 

[kyzr]

If what you say is true then why would they not move for impeachment. Why do they need more is it because desperate times call for desperate moves. Or is it they know nothing and have nothing.
You mean the legitimate phone call to ask for more votes so that he would win. Even provided a specific number so that they get it right. The phone call where he states baseless claims and they responded that none of his accusations were found to be true.

Apparently the inquiry gives them more subpoena power, so they can gather more evidence, like foreign bank accounts.

 

[kyzr]

When Democrats get all bitchy about nothing, it’s usually something..

The MSM are already all spouting the exact same party line, "there is no evidence, even some republicans agree"

 

[kyzr]

What evidence?
Your Mom...

Lots of evidence, soon to have more.
1. They have money transfers and money laundering and bank records
2. They may have bribery from Burisma, they do have extortion already, seen the video?
3. They have open borders, even democrat mayors could attest to
4. They have illegally paying off student loans, $39b

 

[Votar Roja]

Gregg Jarrett: There is incriminating evidence against Joe Biden​

 

[kyzr]

Seriously. Can anyone name a single substantive solution to America's most pressing issues put on the table by Trump's submissive cucks in Congress?
Me neither.

1. Cutting the Budget to reduce the deficit.
2. Demanding that the border be closed.
3. Opened an Impeachment Inquiry into Joe Bidens corrupt activities
4. Letting the US voters know what the corrupt Biden admin has been doing via an Impeachment Trial, since the corrupt MSM covers up for Biden.

 

[j-mac]

Turley is a legal scholar just like I'm a chippendales dancer. Maybe he used to be, but these days he's just a faux noize shill.

Translation: “I don’t like what he says”

 

[Crepitus]

Translation: “I don’t like what he says”

You seem to have a broken translator, because what I said was he's an idiot.

 

[struth]

You seem to have a broken translator, because what I said was he's an idiot.

He's one fo the greatest legal minds of this generation.

 

[Crepitus]

He's one fo the greatest legal minds of this generation.

You only say that because you agree with him.

He may or may not have been a "great legal mind" at one point, but he's decided money is more important and now says what Fox tells him to.

 

[struth]

You only say that because you agree with him.

He may or may not have been a "great legal mind" at one point, but he's decided money is more important and now says what Fox tells him to.

You only call him an idiot because he highlights how your demafasict agenda runs counter to the Constitution and freedom

Get back to us when you have something meaningful to say