Untrue...there is no evidence to be heard.
Y'all had over 60 chances in the courts to provide the evidence and y'all came up short.
Rand Paul sets democrat straight on impeachment/ incitement of violence!
- Thread starter Wolverine
- Start date
Untrue...there is no evidence to be heard.
Y'all had over 60 chances in the courts to provide the evidence and y'all came up short.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
TexanManWithPlans
Verified User
No. What I'm saying is that the asshole Republicans won't be able to subvert justice now. The fact that some Republicans actually support impeachment now, and the fact that virtually all retired Republicans support it and condemn Trump, ought to dispel any notion that this is a partisan effort from Democrats to "silence the Don."
He was worse and people got shot!
Wrong they never had a chance to offer the evidence!
So, where is your evidence of Bernie holding a rally the morning of the shooting?
You just keep believing that. It seems to be what you are good at. Believing things that aren't actually true.
If you decide to get over your willful disbelief, I suggest you read some of the court rulings where the courts actually discuss the evidence presented and how it doesn't rise to affecting the outcome or doesn't show any evidence of fraud. Many courts may have thrown out a case because of lack of standing but they still addressed the evidence and state that even if standing occurred the case still would have no merit based on the evidence presented.
He didn't but he incited violence the President told people to protest peacefully!
Yes, they did. They had over 60 chances to present the evidence and didn't because there is no evidence to present.
If there was, it would have already been presented.
I see. So not talking to a person incites them to violence but talking to a person doesn't. Hmm... Up is down in your world it seems.
Just to give you a clue about how wrong you are on this - Read this court ruling -
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1930
The court allowed testimony by both sides on signatures - The plaintiff's signature expert could not find a single signature that showed evidence of fraud. Nor could the defense expert.
The court allowed the examination of 1,626 ballots that were spoiled and needed to be duplicated. Of those ballots, 9 were found to have an error in duplication which showed that 99.45% of duplicate ballots were correct. The court allowed multiple people to testify about the duplication process but the testimony showed that when errors were pointed out the ballots were corrected. No one alleged fraud but rather the errors were unintentional mistakes.
The errors were not enough to overturn the outcome of the election based on the evidence presented to the court.
Wrong they never had a chance to offer the evidence!
Bernie's words incited the shooter!
CharacterAssassin
Verified User
He wasn't assaulted because of leftist political rhetoric, chucklefuck. He wasn't assaulted in a dispute between neighbors.
When you sober up, have your parole officer explain 'hypocrisy' to you.
Incitement requires there be a direct correlation between when the words were spoken and when the act occurred. A few hours would likely be the dividing line for what could be considered incitement.
So, when did Bernie speak to the shooter?
They had 60 chances in court and two full months to produce something, anything, and they couldn't.
They were so desperate that they begged the GA SoS to "find 11,800 votes".
Fact is, you got led around by your nose because they think you're a dog.
They lied to you about the election being stolen, and you believed them.
So that means you're a fucking idiot.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
exclusive realm of Demmycrat power......
You are wrong period!
I'm not wrong. Nothing was stolen, you just couldn't get enough votes to win.
I just shared a link on this very subject so you can read for yourself!