Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate

you nut**bags reallyaren't going to like this next investigation

who's in charge?

come on, I know you can say it, say it

Mr. Barr, B.A.R.R Barr

Mr. Barr
 
We all know over 1000 prosecutors who read the report said Trump's obstruction would be easy to prove. They are professionals who know the law, not goofy Trumpettes. Trump has to block investigations because he cannot win.
 
We will celebrate in 2020 the victory of DJT and America

And if he doesn't win, you will delete this account and create a brand new one that argues the same stupid talking points from before, but minus the baggage of all your poor judgment and bad instincts.


Socialist democrats will need to explain how things are going so well

What is going so well?

The Atlanta Fed forecasts just 1.5% GDP growth this quarter.

Tomorrow's jobs report will be the weakest since 2010.

The DJIA has grown less than 3% since the Russia Tax Cut started 17 months ago.

Wages are flat for most workers, and didn't rise by $4,000-$9,000 like you all promised they would if we passed your Russia Tax Cut.

Impeachment support is at 45%; Trump only got 46% of the vote in 2016.

You're fucked.
 
45% percent of who? all Americans?
Or did they just poll CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, the Huffington post, and NY times, What was the sample?

Gaslight the poll all you want, but impeachment support is nearing the same share of the vote Trump got in 2016, and that's before proceedings have even started.

That number will only go up once they do.
 
same sample that had Hillary president right up until

SHE LOST :rofl2:

The polls weren't polls of the electoral college, and the polls had Clinton winning by 3% of the vote, which was her popular vote margin.

This stupid sophist argument needs to be aborted.

It does you no good because it just opens the door to the broadside attack of Trump losing the popular vote.
 
Mueller:
During its investigation the Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas under the auspices of a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants; obtained more than 230 orders for communications records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d); obtained almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers; made 13 requests to foreign governments pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before a grand jury.

Dumber:
"We need more investigations"

:rofl2: I love nut**bags

34 indictments, millions in assets seized, lawbreakers behind bars, Conservatives running scared.
 
who did?......Mueller said they did not conclude the president had committed any crimes......are you referring to some other investigation?.....

Liar.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
 
Nancy (the wicked witch of the West) is between a rock and a hard place.

If she impeaches, the radical Democrat Socialists will suffer a defeat at the polls in 2020 of Biblical proportions.

If she doesn't impeach, the radical Democrat Socialists will have a civil war of Biblical proportions,
 
a Don McGhan voicemail of him threatening Flynn, aka witness tampering, was just released

talk is this will help the country become more aware of the depth of Trump's treason, much like having Mueller come before congress and simply cite his own report
 
a Don McGhan voicemail of him threatening Flynn, aka witness tampering, was just released

talk is this will help the country become more aware of the depth of Trump's treason, much like having Mueller come before congress and simply cite his own report

Do you mean Dowd?
 
who did?......Mueller said they did not conclude the president had committed any crimes......are you referring to some other investigation?.....

They didn't count as crimes because they were attempts. Like everything, Trump failed at these attempts. However, an argument can be made that an attempted crime is still cause for impeachment.
 
They didn't count as crimes because they were attempts. Like everything, Trump failed at these attempts. However, an argument can be made that an attempted crime is still cause for impeachment.

why are you such an idiot?......attempted crimes are in themselves a crime.......like everything, you are ignorant........you got nothing because there were no crimes, no attempted crimes and no cause for impeachment........now, you may still try impeachment, because you don't need an underlying crime.......you just need him to be unpopular.......of course, you don't have enough votes to impeach, but you should do it anyway....because you're stupid......
 
why are you such an idiot?......attempted crimes are in themselves a crime.......like everything, you are ignorant........you got nothing because there were no crimes, no attempted crimes and no cause for impeachment........now, you may still try impeachment, because you don't need an underlying crime.......you just need him to be unpopular.......of course, you don't have enough votes to impeach, but you should do it anyway....because you're stupid......

Sorry I made you mad by being honest about Saint Trump. Do you need a diaper change?
 
Liar.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

Which means they clearly did not have confidence to charge him with a crime, I think that is what you mean. Please keep hanging your hat on that one statement though you will continue to look like the fool you are!
 
Which means they clearly did not have confidence to charge him with a crime, I think that is what you mean. Please keep hanging your hat on that one statement though you will continue to look like the fool you are!

Wrong again, you illiterate stupid fuck. It means nothing of the sort. There was hoong to be no criminal charges going in, BEFORE any findings of obstruction.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

What a bunch of illiterate morons. :rofl:
 
Wrong again, you illiterate stupid fuck. It means nothing of the sort. There was hoong to be no criminal charges going in, BEFORE any findings of obstruction.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

What a bunch of illiterate morons. :rofl:

:good4u: hoong from the Ming dynasty?
 
Back
Top