I think you should just make your point. You have confused both sides with your naked reference to the LGBTQ.
Is Bonespurs really trying to claim that Somalia being a failed state is her fault? *LOL* You've gotta be unbelievably gullible to buy that horseshit. Err, wait----*reading posts*.
Trump Commits BLATANT Witness Tampering... Trump, literally, COMMITS Another "Impeachable Offense" during an Impeachment Hearing... Can there be any doubt (whatsoever) that Trump is a COMPLETELY TREASONOUS IMBECILE? :smh:
Rudy isn't eligible for impeachment...just an indictment, trial and jail time. The "crime family" is breaking-up. The Ukrainian Russian Rudy "associates" are going to help bring down Rudy. Rudy will exercise his referenced "insurance" to work a state's evidence deal...and so forth and so on. Manafort may try for a new deal as well. Republicans are going to realize that their choice in 2020 is to either turn on the President or try and run on a "pro-Putin" platform. How ironic...suppose their argument will be better a Russian dictator than U.S. socialism.
Really...I thought I heard him, on Fox, telling someone that he was acting at the request of the State Department. He showed his cell phone and said, "it's all right here." I presume that was a record of the State Department's request for his assistance in Ukraine. Also, as Trump's personal attorney, didn't his role end with the Muller Report? Or, as his attorney, were they seeking to open the investigation again? Were they jointly trying to disprove the report's conclusion that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, a conclusion reached under Obama and confirmed by Trump's administration? Why would Trump, who was not charged with conspiracy, try and absolve the Russians and send his personal attorney to do the investigation, when he had the entire U.S. State Department and Intelligence agencies, plus the Department of Justice, at his disposal?
Let's say that's all true, what Trump tweeted, I think the best thing for him to do is like his defenders in the house do the defending as their more versed in the ins and outs of political strategy imo. Also at times he has created more work for his defenders
and that's some of the reason i think it was bad political strategy. Your assertion isn't totally unrealistic because of the conflict of interest. I'm let the facts play out on that aspect before reaching a decision but it wasn't a wise decision imo if nothing else
What was wrong with this? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?attachments/100218/ The timing might have been poor, but he said nothing wrong.
This isn’t about Russians. This is about the ‘resistance’ doing everything they can to subvert a Presidency.
If saying one isn’t very good at their job and presidents get to pick their own ambassadors is intimidating to her, how in the hell was she ever an ambassador? Making mountains out of flat ground. This independent is not buying this bs.
Being intimidating and witness intimidation are not synonymous. Did you really think nobody noticed the word play? Did you think nobody would notice the clowns trying to run with the intimidation thing once the word intimidating was used?
What was it she witnessed again. Oh yeah. Nothing. Transcript: I got fired. Feel bad for me. Oh I had a big binder from the WH telling me what to say when asked about Biden and Burisma. Maybe she will be a witness at some point I guess.
You know what's really funny about this whole thing? If we're to believe all this big, multi-year, dragged-out Democrat hullabaloo, it appears that Trump managed to collude with, and then alienate BOTH the Russians AND the Ukrainians! Now, that's quite an accomplishment! . "Hey, I'm just one hell of a 'multitasker'... right?!"