Just like it was Obama’s job to make sure Tea Party groups weren’t defrauding the IRS, right?Originally Posted by DONW
|
|
|
|
|
Just like it was Obama’s job to make sure Tea Party groups weren’t defrauding the IRS, right?
Bill Clinton 'rape victim' explodes on Obama and Trump impeachment
'He knew EVERYTHING. He gave the orders. They all reported to him'
Published December 22, 2019 at 1:11pm
Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly has accused President Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 when he was attorney general of Arkansas, is now speaking out on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, and is scorching former President Barack Obama for allegedly leading the "coup" to oust Trump from the Oval Office.
On Saturday, Broaddrick posted on Twitter a somewhat comical comment about the delay by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in delivering the two articles of impeachment against Trump to the U.S. Senate for trial by indicating: "If they ever decide to send the Articles to the Senate.......A Total of 2 American Presidents will have been impeached For Humiliating HILLARY."
More
https://www.wnd.com/2019/12/bill-clinton-rape-victim-explodes-obama-trump-impeachment/
Published December 22, 2019 at 1:11pm
Yet, you aren’t concerned about the victims of Trump’s sexual assaults?
You crack me up!
Back to the current great hoax...the "I" word.
Many liken the impeachment process as the House serving as a grand jury and indicting someone and the Senate serving as the regular jury (must be a term for it) and deciding if the indictment has merit. Well...in this case the grand jury has issued an indictment with the admission it lacks merit. If the House is so sure President Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense then their "case" should be "iron clad," no doubt, obvious. Instead, typical of goofy Pelosi et al ("we have to pass it to see what's in it") the House needs the Senate to do their job for them. Otherwise, the House (Pelosi) would say "here it is, in all its glory, foolproof, all the hard, indisputable evidence anyone needs to vote in favor of removing the POTUS from office." But...
We had such evidence in Klinton's case since he committed perjury. Yet the Dems in control of the Senate at the time voted to acquit.
Fortunately enough Americans see through this hoax. Of course, there are those, like the goofy woman on Facebook who was seriously asking what is the process for Krooked Killary to be sworn in as POTUS after Trump is removed. Funnier still were some of the comments attempting to speculate on it. Such as, well, I think the Supreme Court would hold a ceremony, probably no fancy inauguration in DC. LOL! Are people really this stupid? Scarier still, do these people actually vote? I assume Goosey votes and he's about as stupid...either that or just evil and is in cahoots with the commie bastards.
So, come on Nancy! send over your slam-dunk evidence. Do it!
Something has been bugging me.
Some of the “witnesses” say they they understood “investigate corruption” to mean investigate Biden. But as far as I know, not one person has testified that Trump said Biden. Unless they already knew he was corrupt and warranted investigation, how did they know if Trump was talking about Biden?
Oh, he said Biden. He said he understood that an investigation into Hunter was stopped by our VP (we all know how, too.....the infamous quid pro quo where he refused to give Ukraine the billion in aid unless they fired the prosecutor that was doing the investigating). Unlike Biden, he did not say anything about holding up US aid until this was done. The only time aid came up was when he lambasted the Europeans (and especially Germany) for not helping Ukraine like the US was doing.
He also mentioned Crowdstrike. which is a subject NO DEMOCRATS want to address because it will show true collusion, obstruction and foreign influence in our election process. This is what scared them so much.
He also told the new President of Ukraine that he was starting to associate with some of the same corrupt folks that had haunted the previous administration in Ukraine. He did not threaten to withhold anything because of this, either.
Ukraine has gotten more support under Trump than the previous administration, and Trump has released real MILITARY aid to them, which is annoying to the Russians he is supposed to be in love with.
An impeachment based on this is one of the DUMBEST things that could have been dreamed up, which explains why...well, nevermind. I was taught if you can't say something positive you shouldn't say anything at all.
Here's the transcript (very short read):
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...d-the-document
Well, don’t I feel stupid. I read excerpts, but not whole transcript.
Not at all. This whole thing, like the Mueller thing, is such a waste of time.
Best to just ignore them and hope they all stop!
Why would anybody want to assault a porn queen? You better not forget the 2x4 or you might be in there for a while.
The problem is that you have been following right wing news. The word Trump never used was “corruption”. And that is probably because this is the only time in his presidency where it seemed to matter. It certainly hasn’t come into play with his family and their dual role as corporate leaders and members of his administration. Or all the many corrupt members of his campaign and administration that are now serving time. When pressed on the issue, Trump was unable to cite any other instance where he has tried to do something about corruption anywhere else in the world.
Durham and Barr will take care of those corrupt democrats.
That is incredibly inappropriate and misogynistic.
This is truth.
Unlike the political circus directed by Pelosi, Shumer, Schiff (and McConnell to some extent), real evidence is being collected and analyzed by Durham and Barr that can and will stand up in a court of law.
I just hope whatever they come up with isn't as vapid as the Mueller report. Of course, Mueller couldn't find what he was searching for (for almost TWO YEARS) that Schiff maintained he had in his possession.....proof of collusion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote