Say it Aint So

[AFrench2]

Just to make sure I get this straight...you want to impeach President Joe Biden in 2021...because he got arrested as a kid for trespassing?

Apparently, it doesn't matter what charges you bring up for impeachment. Bogus, lies, propaganda.....doesn't matter. Yes, impeach senile man immediately in jan 2023 when Rs take back house and then impeach him monthly.

Impeach him monthly for what?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Just to make sure I get this straight...you want to impeach President Joe Biden in 2021...because he got arrested as a kid for trespassing?

Apparently, it doesn't matter what charges you bring up for impeachment. Bogus, lies, propaganda.....doesn't matter. Yes, impeach senile man immediately in jan 2023 when Rs take back house and then impeach him monthly.

Impeach him monthly for what?

For having a disturbing avatar? As for what it matters, the Democrats want to make sure DJT can never run for political office again.

= Disturbing

 

[AFrench2]

I'll change it for you, bud

 

[AFrench2]

there ya go

 

[Lastamender]

No, it really really does not. It points out that you're seething mad that Trump lost to Biden by 8 million people.

But it definitely does not point out any hypocrisy in a 21 year old kid getting arrested for trespassing
to
people killing cops on their way to hang the Vice President of the US and try to appoint an unelected Dictator by way of insurrection.

How old was Kavanaugh when he was in high school? Your argument falls flat, which is no surprise.

The unelected dictator is now the illegitimate president.

No, he is legitimate.

Bullshit. The fraud was massive and obvious.

No it was not. The courts said there was no proof. You have to quit listening to liars.

Show me where a court said that. I'll wait. Proof cannot be decided until the evidence is heard and it never was.

In a scathing ruling late Saturday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption.

Trump's legal team cried vote fraud, but courts found none

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — As they frantically searched for ways to salvage President Donald Trump's failed reelection bid, his campaign pursued a dizzying game of legal hopscotch across six states that centered on the biggest prize of all: Pennsylvania.

apnews.com

Old news. The corruption in our courts was highlighted by the fraud.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it really really does not. It points out that you're seething mad that Trump lost to Biden by 8 million people.

But it definitely does not point out any hypocrisy in a 21 year old kid getting arrested for trespassing
to
people killing cops on their way to hang the Vice President of the US and try to appoint an unelected Dictator by way of insurrection.

How old was Kavanaugh when he was in high school? Your argument falls flat, which is no surprise.

The unelected dictator is now the illegitimate president.

No, he is legitimate.

Bullshit. The fraud was massive and obvious.

No it was not. The courts said there was no proof. You have to quit listening to liars.

Show me where a court said that. I'll wait. Proof cannot be decided until the evidence is heard and it never was.

In a scathing ruling late Saturday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption.

Trump's legal team cried vote fraud, but courts found none

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — As they frantically searched for ways to salvage President Donald Trump's failed reelection bid, his campaign pursued a dizzying game of legal hopscotch across six states that centered on the biggest prize of all: Pennsylvania.

apnews.com

Old news. The corruption in our courts was highlighted by the fraud.

What fraud? They never proved fraud. They said it many many times, over and over for the Cameras, but when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, they offered the courts little or no credible evidence. Judges are on record bending over backwards to allow them to bring in what they'd claimed on TV, but they never did. They never had It, It doesn't exist.