Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I'm no fan of either but who do you believe
McGahn who said under oath that he was told by Tramp to fire the Mueller.
Or Tramp??
- one or the other lied. Just who do you think it was? And if it was McGahn should he be indicted for lying under oath??
Either McGahn lied under oath, or Tramp is lying on national television to the American People.
Just put McGahn or Trump down. That is all you need to do.
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump
So do you think McGahn should be indicted for lying to Mueller while under oath??
He said what he believed to be true. That is not a lie. The Mueller report also gives credence to the fact that he may have misunderstood what Trump said.
It doesn't matter anyway. If Trump ordered McGhan to fire Mueller, it is perfectly legal, so you cannot obstruct justice by acting legally. The question is better as to why Trump would tell someone else to do what he was perfectly capable of doing legally?
BTW, I guess the Democrats no longer believe in attorney-client privilege anymore. That will not set well for them when they are sitting at the defense table and the prosecution calls their attorney to testify against them.
So Obama's attorney is called to the stand, and is asked, "What illegal acts has the former President told you that he has committed? Remember, you are under oath and the threat of perjury! No, you cannot refuse to answer because you Democrats did away with attorney client privilege during the Mueller investigation, don't you remember? The President's White House counsel was called to testify against him."
And investigation into himself. BS, if he would to fire Mueller, there would be impeachment as soon as the Dems took control of the house, since the republicans wouldn't do a damn thing, and tramp and the GOP are still obstructing.
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
then he replied 36 times with "I cant remember" answers ..
Trump of course. If he'd wanted to fire Muller, he would have.I'm no fan of either but who do you believe
McGahn who said under oath that he was told by Tramp to fire the Mueller.
Or Tramp??
- one or the other lied. Just who do you think it was? And if it was McGahn should he be indicted for lying under oath??
Either McGahn lied under oath, or Tramp is lying on national television to the American People.
Just put McGahn or Trump down. That is all you need to do.
He couldn't fire anyone else except on his show, the Apprentice. Gutless wonder person.
What about it has you so concerned?Are you sure you are not committing a bifurcation fallacy?I'm no fan of either but who do you believe
McGahn who said under oath that he was told by Tramp to fire the Mueller.
Or Tramp??
- one or the other lied. Just who do you think it was? And if it was McGahn should he be indicted for lying under oath??
Either McGahn lied under oath, or Tramp is lying on national television to the American People.
Just put McGahn or Trump down. That is all you need to do.
What exactly did Trump say and what exactly did McGahn say that has you so concerned?
Page 335 of the full report is page 123 of Volume II
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
Trump submitted written answers to questions provided by Mueller's team.
And again, Trump's legal team were not able to cross-examine the witnesses that Mueller's team interrogated. The report is a one-sided political document. There was no collusion, no obstruction and hence, no indictment.
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
then he replied 36 times with "I cant remember" answers ..
Comey couldn't remember 245 times. And you point is?
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
Trump was asked to testify under oath, in person; he refused.
Trump's legal team submitted written responses to SC Mueller's investigation.
Trump submitted written answers to questions provided by Mueller's team.
And again, Trump's legal team were not able to cross-examine the witnesses that Mueller's team interrogated. The report is a one-sided political document. There was no collusion, no obstruction and hence, no indictment.
Here's a fair question: Did you believe Trump more when he denied paying Stormy Daniels or when he admitted paying stormy Daniels?
The same both times?
Much worse question. Trump lies like no president or anyone else you can think of, forever.McGhann has integrity. You cannot use that in describing Trump. This is easy. McGhann is telling the truth.A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
You asked... I answered.Trump
So do you think McGahn should be indicted for lying to Mueller while under oath??
A better question is: do you believe your own judgment or the spin pushed by the Anti-Trump Lamestream Media?
testimony given under oath is media spin ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - sure.
Testimony under oath in a real legal proceeding is subject to cross examination. No such cross examination occurred. This is a one-sided political hit job. If the evidence existed to indict, then a proper judicial process would have enabled Trump to present his defense. But that would have upset the political agenda - hence no charge and just political attacks.
So you want McGahn indicted, and perhaps Mueller as well, since he had so many conflicts of interest.
No, I want Barr to investigate the abuse of power and coup attempt orchestrated by the Obama Administration. The Mueller report is a political hit job with very low credibility. He never should have been appointed in the first place. The Obama admin and its embeds knew all along that there was NO COLLUSION. This is the worst abuse of power in the history of the United States. Never before has an outgoing administration attempted to overthrow its successor.
Trump fired Comey to put an end to the Russia investigation. Trump said so in his own words.I'm no fan of either but who do you believe
McGahn who said under oath that he was told by Tramp to fire the Mueller.
Or Tramp??
- one or the other lied. Just who do you think it was? And if it was McGahn should he be indicted for lying under oath??
Either McGahn lied under oath, or Tramp is lying on national television to the American People.
Just put McGahn or Trump down. That is all you need to do.
No, I want Barr to investigate the abuse of power and coup attempt orchestrated by the Obama Administration. The Mueller report is a political hit job with very low credibility. He never should have been appointed in the first place. The Obama admin and its embeds knew all along that there was NO COLLUSION. This is the worst abuse of power in the history of the United States. Never before has an outgoing administration attempted to overthrow its successor.
Everyone, including the Obama administration, knew there was Russian INTERFERENCE.No, I want Barr to investigate the abuse of power and coup attempt orchestrated by the Obama Administration. The Mueller report is a political hit job with very low credibility. He never should have been appointed in the first place. The Obama admin and its embeds knew all along that there was NO COLLUSION. This is the worst abuse of power in the history of the United States. Never before has an outgoing administration attempted to overthrow its successor.
The Mueller inquiry is now an attempt by the outgoing Obama administration to overthrow (how's that supposed to work?) the subsequent administration. Mueller should not have been appointed because (!) the Obama admin knew there was no collusion.
Utterly, completely, totally hysterical. But really, Obama should be ashamed of himself for appointing Rosenstein deputy AG, that crook, in order to get that "hit job" started.
