Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
LOL. Demotard strategy.
Brilliant if your supporters are complete morons.
Says the guy with a party led by a pedophile scammer with dementia who refused to allow any testimony and keeps talking about a 'transcript' when the title says memorandum.
Says the guy with a party led by a drunken career politician who has weaponized the impeachment process while running roughshod over the Constitution as her district swims in shit.
Might not want to keep spouting a mouthful of Schiff.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7764...ower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law
LOL, that's all you got? 'Drunken'? From the party of 'I like beer', repeating same bullshit about 'weaponizing' from the lifelong scammer?
As for her district, its among the wealthiest in the country, too bad dumb inbred Cons with no education can't afford to pay so they shit on the streets like the cretins they are.
Here ya go, Tards. Your official impeachment talking points have arrived.
Ahhh yes. Have not heard the old "does not exonerate" rap for at least a few months. Not a legitimate election, Mueller did not exonerate because the process was rigged by the constitution, and now the constitution has rigged the process against convicting Trump.
See a pattern there.
Guess what Tards? No one did or does give a fig about exoneration. It is not even an underlying part of Anglo-American law or the impeachment process. You either convict or acquit. The binary thinkers among you outta love that, but I am guessing you won't. It will be "yeh but, if you close one eye and squint with the other and stand on one leg you can plainly see that he would have been convicted if it were not for that nasty constitution and the facts."
Anyway, read the article. That is what your talking points are. And don't for gawd's sake try to think for yourself rather than robo-post. You know that does not work out for ya, especially on weekends when your media matters links for next week have not arrived.
You are welcome.
'If you have a rigged trial there's no exoneration in acquittal': Sen. Chris Van Hollen
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rig...uittal-sen-chris-van-hollen/story?id=67959255
Ahhh yes. Have not heard the old "does not exonerate" rap for at least a few months. Not a legitimate election, Mueller did not exonerate because the process was rigged by the constitution, and now the constitution has rigged the process against convicting Trump.
See a pattern there.
Guess what Tards? No one did or does give a fig about exoneration. It is not even an underlying part of Anglo-American law or the impeachment process. You either convict or acquit. The binary thinkers among you outta love that, but I am guessing you won't. It will be "yeh but, if you close one eye and squint with the other and stand on one leg you can plainly see that he would have been convicted if it were not for that nasty constitution and the facts."
Anyway, read the article. That is what your talking points are. And don't for gawd's sake try to think for yourself rather than robo-post. You know that does not work out for ya, especially on weekends when your media matters links for next week have not arrived.
You are welcome.
'If you have a rigged trial there's no exoneration in acquittal': Sen. Chris Van Hollen
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rig...uittal-sen-chris-van-hollen/story?id=67959255
Treefrog does put so much effort into these straw men where he tells everyone what he thinks they were thinking.
He could get more without the tard stuff. The left can't keep low path like the tardpole.
McConnell and Graham stated on camera they WILL violate the oath they must take. They left no ambiguity. I'm fine with no trial until they are not on the jury and chief justice Roberts should not allow them on it knowing they spurn their duties.
Guess that could be Mitch's plan, nothing would surprise me.
He could get more without the tard stuff. The left can't keep low path like the tardpole.
McConnell and Graham stated on camera they WILL violate the oath they must take. They left no ambiguity. I'm fine with no trial until they are not on the jury and chief justice Roberts should not allow them on it knowing they spurn their duties.
Guess that could be Mitch's plan, nothing would surprise me.
Last edited: