Sally Vix wrote:
He came out of the inquiry as clean as a whistle.
I don't want to know where you keep your whistle.
Sally Vix wrote:
He came out of the inquiry as clean as a whistle.
I don't want to know where you keep your whistle.
Sally Vix wrote:
Calyope wrote:
The stupid f*ck speaks again! Don't you Americans read anything that has to do with your own country? Mueller said precisely that he could not exonerate him. The US House of Representatives is investigating Trump for impeachment purposes, and one of the issues is obstruction of justice as laid out by Director Mueller. You are an idiot racist wanker. Go give Trump another pash.
For you to say that Mueller could not exonerate reveals your naivete in the law of the land. A prosecutor or investigator's task is never to exonerate the target. The target (Trump in this instance) has a presumption of innocence. Mueller was never going to exonerate Trump. His task was to look at the evidence and decide if their was sufficient evidence to bring charges against Trump. His crackpot team after 3 years found nothing on Trump. So, this is all dead.
You are an idiot. Mueller said precisely that he could not exonerate him, so have issue with Mueller if you want, but he said it both in print and verbally. Therefore, the report did not exonerate him as you say. The fact that the US House of Representatives is continuing with their impeachment process, including the issue of obstruction of justice, says that your hope is ill-gotten. None of this is dead. Idiot racist wanker.
Whistle farts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
He came out of the inquiry as clean as a whistle.
I don't want to know where you keep your whistle.
She personally cleaned his little whistle. Then swallowed.
Read this Sally, you stupid f*ck:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-panel-approves-procedures-for-trump-impeachment-probe-11568297009
Sally Vix wrote:
For you to say that Mueller could not exonerate reveals your naivete in the law of the land. A prosecutor or investigator's task is never to exonerate the target.
Do you purposefully ignore facts or are you simply trolling?
Well, I just realized Sally, that you're so stupid you probably don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal even though it has a conservative bent.
Read this instead:
reading is fundy and all that wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
For you to say that Mueller could not exonerate reveals your naivete in the law of the land. A prosecutor or investigator's task is never to exonerate the target.
Do you purposefully ignore facts or are you simply trolling?
It's quite simple. Sally is just stupid. An idiot racist wanker. Just makes up stuff. Living in a fake world, devoid of reality just like the stupid American President he worships. Sally isn't smart enough to troll anyone. Just f*cking stupid.
Calyope wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
For you to say that Mueller could not exonerate reveals your naivete in the law of the land. A prosecutor or investigator's task is never to exonerate the target. The target (Trump in this instance) has a presumption of innocence. Mueller was never going to exonerate Trump. His task was to look at the evidence and decide if their was sufficient evidence to bring charges against Trump. His crackpot team after 3 years found nothing on Trump. So, this is all dead.
You are an idiot. Mueller said precisely that he could not exonerate him, so have issue with Mueller if you want, but he said it both in print and verbally. Therefore, the report did not exonerate him as you say. The fact that the US House of Representatives is continuing with their impeachment process, including the issue of obstruction of justice, says that your hope is ill-gotten. None of this is dead. Idiot racist wanker.
Calyope, you just revealed yourself as an illiterate. You don't know the difference between verbally and orally. Very embarrassing that your "education" did not allow you to understand the difference. I won't explain to you but will allow you to learn on your own the difference. You are like on the JV and I am on the All-time winning team. Learn something Caly
Sally Vix wrote:
You don't know the difference between verbally and orally.
You cannot even spell, grammar girl. You have given Trump both verbal and oral praise.
Trollminator wrote:
I didn’t think they would go for impeachment or that it was a strategically wise idea.
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
L L wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I didn’t think they would go for impeachment or that it was a strategically wise idea.
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
I am not entirely comfortable saying that Trump should not be impeached. I am conservative as they come but want the Congress to look into his transgressions.
L L wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I didn’t think they would go for impeachment or that it was a strategically wise idea.
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
I am for impeachment for two main reasons:
No president should feel that he can commit felonies and obstruct justice and stonewall house oversight. If the House does not impeach, the message on the down the line is that the president is exempt from House oversight.
The likely absolving by the senate is irrelevant. The House needs to do what it knows - that President Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors therefore its job is to impeach. Make the R SOBs in the senate mark a vote. Make them do it. Whoever votes to absolve will have a stain on his or her name for all of american history.
Sally Vix wrote:
L L wrote:
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
I am not entirely comfortable saying that Trump should not be impeached. I am conservative as they come but want the Congress to look into his transgressions.
They are looking into them you idiot racist wanker! You said this issues was dead. You know nothing. Don't pretend now that you do know something, because you don't.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
I am for impeachment for two main reasons:
No president should feel that he can commit felonies and obstruct justice and stonewall house oversight. If the House does not impeach, the message on the down the line is that the president is exempt from House oversight.
The likely absolving by the senate is irrelevant. The House needs to do what it knows - that President Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors therefore its job is to impeach. Make the R SOBs in the senate mark a vote. Make them do it. Whoever votes to absolve will have a stain on his or her name for all of american history.
^This
An exploratory committee to have a meeting about an inquiry of an investigation to maybe take a vote on impeachment.
Strong
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
Impeachment is not supposed to be a strategy.
It is a tool of oversight.
If they see wrongdoing, they should accuse.
Mueller took several people to trial while investigating Trump but specifically said that he could not indict Trump regardless of what he found. That was Congress' job.
I agree with Sally here.
Not impeaching Trump says that they think he did nothing wrong.
And he can campaign on that.
If he were impeached by the House Democrat majority and found not guilty on party lines in the senate then both parties can say - this was my vote on Trump, what do you think?
I am for impeachment for two main reasons:
No president should feel that he can commit felonies and obstruct justice and stonewall house oversight. If the House does not impeach, the message on the down the line is that the president is exempt from House oversight.
The likely absolving by the senate is irrelevant. The House needs to do what it knows - that President Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors therefore its job is to impeach. Make the R SOBs in the senate mark a vote. Make them do it. Whoever votes to absolve will have a stain on his or her name for all of american history.
The house will impeach but the senate will ignore it. The senate will never take a vote. You heard it here first.
L L wrote:
An exploratory committee to have a meeting about an inquiry of an investigation to maybe take a vote on impeachment.
Strong
It is hard to keep up with all of Trump's corruption, but a vote to impeach will happen in the House.
Republicans Lose Again wrote:
L L wrote:
An exploratory committee to have a meeting about an inquiry of an investigation to maybe take a vote on impeachment.
Strong
It is hard to keep up with all of Trump's corruption, but a vote to impeach will happen in the House.
I will bet you a $100 that it won't. Never going to happen. An impeachment vote in the House guarantees Trump a re-election.
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
1:49.84 - 800m Freshmen National Record - Cooper Lutkenhaus (check this kick out!!)
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Men who run twice a day and the women who love/put up with them