Politicspolitics

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:41 AM

Before Wednesday, how many here believed the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump?

I notice how the narrative has gone from "no evidence" to "not enough evidence", and from "totally exonerated" to "innocent until proven guilty".

69 replies, 1560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Before Wednesday, how many here believed the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump? (Original post)
okletstalk May 2019 OP
foia May 2019 #1
okletstalk May 2019 #5
kevlar May 2019 #7
def_con5 May 2019 #10
rampartb May 2019 #2
Gunslinger201 May 2019 #3
foia May 2019 #18
Butchie_T May 2019 #4
okletstalk May 2019 #8
Butchie_T May 2019 #11
kevlar May 2019 #13
okletstalk May 2019 #22
kevlar May 2019 #34
kevlar May 2019 #38
Feed-the-Bears May 2019 #37
Nostrings May 2019 #41
DDKick May 2019 #43
Bob the Bilderberger May 2019 #6
okletstalk May 2019 #12
Butchie_T May 2019 #19
okletstalk May 2019 #24
HermantownHawk May 2019 #26
okletstalk May 2019 #28
HermantownHawk May 2019 #33
okletstalk May 2019 #44
Nostrings May 2019 #42
okletstalk May 2019 #45
Nostrings May 2019 #46
okletstalk May 2019 #47
Nostrings May 2019 #48
okletstalk May 2019 #49
Nostrings May 2019 #50
kevlar Jun 2019 #69
Butchie_T May 2019 #31
Trumplethinskin May 2019 #54
specs May 2019 #9
okletstalk May 2019 #17
specs May 2019 #35
DDKick May 2019 #14
Gunslinger201 May 2019 #16
Butchie_T May 2019 #20
CornFed May 2019 #25
quad489 May 2019 #15
okletstalk May 2019 #21
HermantownHawk May 2019 #23
okletstalk May 2019 #27
Nostrings May 2019 #52
okletstalk May 2019 #53
Nostrings May 2019 #55
kevlar May 2019 #56
Nostrings May 2019 #57
kevlar May 2019 #58
okletstalk May 2019 #59
kevlar May 2019 #60
okletstalk May 2019 #61
kevlar May 2019 #62
okletstalk May 2019 #65
kevlar May 2019 #66
okletstalk May 2019 #67
kevlar May 2019 #68
Nostrings May 2019 #64
quad489 May 2019 #29
specs May 2019 #36
kevlar May 2019 #40
quad489 May 2019 #51
rahtruelies May 2019 #30
Tolk May 2019 #32
Boston May 2019 #39
Currentsitguy May 2019 #63

Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:45 AM

1. You left out the reality option: Deep state & MSM coup.

Pretty obvious to me once the totally absurd pee tape allegations come out.

Trump upset the apple cart by beating the professional pols at their own game by not being one.

It irks them even more that he's been so successful using common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #1)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:53 AM

5. The question is why do Trump officials and supporters keep lying?

Now that we know Mueller's true thoughts about his report, it becomes obvious that Barr blatantly misrepresented the report. He's still trying to spin it. There are lies taking place right out in the open that you are missing, and you are looking instead for some type of huge conspiracy deep state coup.

If Barr and Trump are really bringing down some evil deep state, why do they have to use lies and deception? Shouldn't the truth be on their side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #5)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:58 AM

7. Nope.

That narrative is false fantasy.

It is you who is missing much, deliberately I might add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #5)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:02 AM

10. All I hear is Barr lied, Barr misrepresented the report

Would you be kine enough to demonstrate the misrepresentation in Barr's initial report to Congress?

Insufficient evidence does not mean here's proof of the conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:46 AM

2. i think mueller went from "i can't talk or they will destroy my career" to

"I can't talk or they will kill my family."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:52 AM

3. Still waiting for all that Collusion Proof Schiff says he has

Maybe he should have given it to Mueller

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #3)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:10 AM

18. I hope you have a lot of supplies stocked. It's gonna be a LONG wait.

Maybe Schiff will expose his vast evidence of collusion during the impeachment hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:52 AM

4. I believe, and still do that it...

.....clears the President. Once Barr said no charges, that ended it all from an investigation standpoint. Everything after that is chaff and fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Butchie_T (Reply #4)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:00 AM

8. He ain't cleared, no matter what Barr says

The second part of the report details a bunch of obstruction, and that falls into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Barr, Trump and everyone else need to start from the truth and go from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #8)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:02 AM

11. Yes he is

Whether you choose to believe it or not. No charges=cleared.

That math is not hard to comprehend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #8)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:04 AM

13. Sorry,

you are incorrect.

Mueller had many options, he took one that cleared the President over several that did not.

You are clearly the intended audience for lefty narratives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #13)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:18 AM

22. Mueller's options were limited by OLC

He explained that. Barr himself in his so-called response even said the opinion says you can't indict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #22)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:57 AM

34. Nope, try again.

Why don't you list the options for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #22)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:13 AM

38. For comparison.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr found 11 counts against then-President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, to include obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering.

He didn’t indict Clinton.

Plenty of other options not taken that are not limited by OLC.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #8)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:10 AM

37. If this statement is true...

“The second part of the report details a bunch of obstruction, and that falls into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Then why hasn’t someone in the house moved to impeach the POTUS?

It is common knowledge that impeachment is the only prosecutorial option here.
If Lefty is so sure of Meuler’s evidence there is always that option.
Is Lefty afraid of the dirty laundry that would be aired in an impeachment trial, or are they just pragmatic enough to know that such a trial would spell their electoral doom in 2020?
Either way the facts as we know them are that the POTUS is innocent and will remain so until he is “found” guilty.
Strongly hinting at guilt does not a guilty POTUS make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #8)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:20 AM

41. Now its you who is lying.

"The second part of the report details a bunch of obstruction..."

Incorrect.

Muellers report says "potential obstruction".

It clearly has not occured to you that using the word 'potential' confirms that they are not obstruction.

Unless you can say they are (mueller couldn't), under American jurisprudence, they aren't.

You are what's commonly known as Wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #41)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:01 AM

43. Do you mean like Hillary had the potential to be president.

But she didn’t win so she is not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:58 AM

6. It's the role of the prosecutor to bring charges

No charges brought means he's innocent. If Mueller knew he couldn't charge a sitting president, why did he take on the mission of finding dirt on him?

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #6)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:04 AM

12. Mueller said he left it to Congress

It's in the report, and he mentioned it on Wednesday. Things are different when a sitting president is involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #12)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:14 AM

19. Hahahahahahah

You don’t or choose not to get it. Once Barr and Rosenstein decided that no charges would be levied, it all ended there.

Clinton received the same decision from Comey and that decision was not challenged by the Attorney General then. So she was cleared as well.

Too bad you cannot see the parallel there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Butchie_T (Reply #19)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:25 AM

24. Sorry you don't get it

I didn't end with the lies of Barr and his buddy Rosentein. The truth remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #24)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:27 AM

26. What did they lie....

....about, exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HermantownHawk (Reply #26)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:34 AM

28. Barr just recently lied about Mueller having the ability to charge a sitting president

In the same sentence Barr said he "felt" Mueller could have made the decision, and then said the OLC opinion says you can't indict.

That's pretty much an out in the open lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #28)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:57 AM

33. You are confused...

......Barr indicated that Mueller could have said Trump committed a crime. Mueller chose not to.

Pretty much says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HermantownHawk (Reply #33)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:06 AM

44. Apparently you didn't read Barr's response to Mueller's statement,

or you would be able to tell the glaring contradiction Barr made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #28)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:27 AM

42. Another lie.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/446077-doj-special-counsel-say-there-is-no-conflict-on-mueller-barr

You're also ignoring the fact that Mueller told barr in front if multiple witnesses, 3 times, that his decision was not based on OLC opinion.

Again, you're what's commonly known as wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #42)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:16 AM

45. This is another thing you should be questioning Barr on.

If Barr is supposed to have read the report he would know Mueller writes in it that the reason he didn't make the decision was based on OLC. It's in Mueller's report. But, when asked about it, Barr goes off on some misdirection about how he and Mueller talked about it. Barr didn't want to answer in a way that would prove the reason Mueller didn't make the decision. IT'S IN THE REPORT written by Mueller and it says OLC! Why couldn't Barr have just answered the question?

All the righties should be asking themselves this question, why does Barr always take the opportunity to misrepresent Mueller's report? It's you all that are looking dumb for believing Barr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #45)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:28 AM

46. Why question barr and not mueller?

"If Barr is supposed to have read the report he would know Mueller writes in it that the reason he didn't make the decision was based on OLC."

The missing accusation of criminal conduct, which would make that meaningful instead of trivia, is...well...missing.

The ignorance you demonstrate on this issue, whether real or just pretend, isn't something the rest of us share, nor can you make us.

The only ones misrepresenting the report, are you on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #46)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:37 AM

47. Boy, you completely missed that!

You referred to Barr claiming he talked to Mueller about OLC, did you not?

Do you not get it that Barr's BS about talking with Mueller does not jive with what is actually written by Mueller? Why don't you ask yourself why Barr didn't honestly answer the question when he was asked if the OLC influenced Mueller when it is spelled out in the report that it did?

Have you read the report? If you did, then your problem is with reading comprehension. Sorry, but there is no other way to explain your last post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #47)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:48 AM

48. Not even a little bit.

"Do you not get it that Barr's BS about talking with Mueller does not jive with what is actually written by Mueller?"

Do YOU not get it, that what Mueller wrote is trivia without an accompanying accusation of a crime?

Again, why question what Barr said but not what Mueller said?

Because you wish mueller to be right and Barr to be wrong.

And, *I'm* not the one with the reading comprehension problem, you are.

The OLC opinion covers only indictments, not accusation of criminal activity.

'potential obstruction' is by definition NOT obstruction.

Have someone explain it to you using small words if you're having trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #48)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:51 AM

49. Then why all the lying from Barr?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #49)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:57 AM

50. What lying?

Just because you either do not understand what Mueller said , or choose to misrepresent it as something it isn't, does not mean Barr is lying.

It does, however mean that you're desperate, and you look it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 08:07 AM

69. You never acknowledge the facts

preferring to ask irrelevant questions instead.

Your ignorance appears to be self inflicted.

There it is again in black and white and you still cannot wrap your head around the simple and most significant facts.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #24)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:54 AM

31. I am not the one with a

Comprehension problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #6)

Fri May 31, 2019, 11:17 AM

54. No charges have been brought against Hillary either

It's nice to know that Righty now thinks she is innocent of all crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:01 AM

9. lol @ the racist npc for not understanding that exonerated is the same as innocent until proven

 

guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #9)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:10 AM

17. No, exonerated is not the same as "innocent until proven guilty".

Where are you getting that from?

You catch a criminal and take him to trial. He's considered innocent until proven guilty, but he is not "exonerated" until proven guilty. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #17)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:07 AM

35. lol @ the NPC for not understanding that if you are innocent of a crime, you are exonerated.

 

If you are guilty NPC you cannot be exonerated, I think your programmer is confused about the English language.

If there is no crime after an investigation, you are innocent and exonerated Also if you are ever accused of a crime you did not commit, you best not defend yourself, otherwise, you are obstructing

lol @ the NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:04 AM

14. Everyone who doesnt drink liberals kook aide.

I don’t think democrats realize just how little trust thinking people have in them.

When the entire premise starts from the Hillary campaign who doesn’t know how to tell the truth it says a lot.

The lemmings that follow the Democrats are actually brain dead at this point and can’t think for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DDKick (Reply #14)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:08 AM

16. Was Kook Aide a pun or fat finger?

Either way I love it!


(And I’m gonna steal it )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #16)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:15 AM

20. I think that was intentional

I’m stealing it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DDKick (Reply #14)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:25 AM

25. High-5 for "kook aide"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:04 AM

15. ''innocent until proven guilty'' has always been the standard here in the US, as has the burden...

...of proof always fallen upon the accuser. Not sure what the standards are from wherever you are from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #15)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:16 AM

21. Trump is innocent until proven guilty

That is a standard I fully believe in.

He's not exonerated until proven guilty though. There is a difference. He could be guilty as hell while being considered innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #21)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:21 AM

23. Clearly, he's exonerated.....

......investigators found no criminal activity from the President.

This isn't hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HermantownHawk (Reply #23)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:28 AM

27. No criminal activity?

Where have you been? You talking about the actual report, Barr's lies, or what? Because the report shows some criminal activity. Read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #27)

Fri May 31, 2019, 10:15 AM

52. Thats right: NO criminal activity.

If there had been, the word 'potential' would not have been used.

What part of that do you not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #52)

Fri May 31, 2019, 10:25 AM

53. Cite it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #53)

Fri May 31, 2019, 11:21 AM

55. I guess its you who hasn't read the report.

"The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself."

"President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful mean s of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers , and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis."

"reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives"

"possible obstruction-of-justice"

Go read it yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #55)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:05 PM

56. It takes lots of effort

to avoid reality at this level.

Willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #56)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:16 PM

57. Yep.

Though you'd think that maybe they'd consider that the majority of their party in the house - our democracy donchaknow - doesn't agree with them.


Naa, I'm just kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #57)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:19 PM

58. I am amazed by the dancing and twisting

required to avoid all logic and fact to support a self serving narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #55)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:20 PM

59. Glad you're at least reading it. Now keep going.

Cite a few examples of the "possible" obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #59)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:22 PM

60. Do you always run away from posts that expose your bullshit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #60)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:26 PM

61. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #61)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:48 PM

62. Any comment on 38?

Or any of the direct questions you have been asked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #62)

Fri May 31, 2019, 03:26 PM

65. 38 is not even in the form of a question

But, if you want a comment, it would be that we know what the OLC says about the current situation, and we know Mueller brought it up. Even Barr admits that much. Barr is confused, or at least acts like he's confused, on what Mueller meant, but that is just a ploy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #65)

Fri May 31, 2019, 04:07 PM

66. Wrong on all counts.

I must assume you cannot comprehend what is being posted, by myself or other posters who have indicated you are incorrect on multiple occasions.

Stuck on stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #66)

Fri May 31, 2019, 04:10 PM

67. The problem would be your posts lack any proof or evidence that I am wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #67)

Fri May 31, 2019, 09:21 PM

68. No, it's all there.

Credit to the others who have provided you with the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #59)

Fri May 31, 2019, 01:07 PM

64. For what?

Unless they're legally portrayed and catagorized as *actual* obstruction (they weren't), they AREN'T actual obstruction.

What part of that is unclear to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #21)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:40 AM

29. ''He's not exonerated until proven guilty though''...and here we go again...LOL!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #21)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:08 AM

36. lol @ the NPC for thinking that exonerated means that you are guilty.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #21)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:15 AM

40. No, you do not.

You are confused, deliberately so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #21)

Fri May 31, 2019, 10:15 AM

51. ''That is a standard I fully believe in''...you sure have an oddly ass-backwards way of showing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:47 AM

30. before and after Wednesday sport

The President committed no crime as per the lack of EVIDENCE of a crime and hence no OBSTRUCTION. However on the part of pukes like Comey and Clinton there is plenty of COLLUSION to carry out a TREASONOUS COUP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:56 AM

32. Muellers job was to say whether or not crimes were committed

 

He was unable to say any were and went full political.
No collusion no obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:13 AM

39. Again, "Total Exoneration" is a new judicial standard, at odds with a thousand years of our history.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Mueller was charged with
1. finding if there was enough evidence to prosecute on collusion or not
2. finding if there was enough evidence to prosecute on obstruction or not

He was NOT charged with finding "Well, there's not enough evidence to prosecute, but look at this stuff we found"!

AND HE KNOWS IT! He specifically says that it wouldn't be fair to give details on what they found when there
are not charges for him to defend himself of, BUT HE DOES IT ANYWAY!

Mueller fans are freaking stupid if they think this new standard of justice won't bite THEM sometime!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Original post)

Fri May 31, 2019, 12:57 PM

63. At this point there is no path that leads to removal from office

And, aside from a few loud voices in guaranteed districts, House Democrats know impeachment will be political suicide in the upcoming elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics