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.
I don’t think people see it that way.The masses who are poor and don’t vote tend to identify with the democrats so bezos and Soros don’t matter. The poor and blue collar historically vote democratic.
If the gop wins over these groups great. And if it doesn’t and they don’t vote I don’t want to hear them complain.
You might want to go back and look at the last election, sploogy. Your now defunct party has waged war on blue collar workers and does nothing but spew hatred at the working class. Trump held the working class vote across the board.
You poor Communists. Your entire universe is falling apart.
I shouldn't dance on your grave, but you really deserve it....
Lawyers involved in probe: Mueller may indict Trump
The lawyers know what Mueller has and they have spoken with attorneys on Mueller's team. Here is the Donald trying desperately to discredit the Dossier and all the while....it is the very effort he and his Repub conspirators are staging that is sinking him. The more distractions they throw out there, the more Mueller has in his case of obstruction of justice.
The way Mueller sees it, even if the indictment is challenged, and certainly it will be, it will doom the Donald for another term and will send the matter to the court to decide. If the court throws it back to Congress, then either the present congress puts on their "big boy pants" and impeaches him or the next Democratic congress impeaches him.
Sorry Donald, you may win a few battles in the short game, but Mueller is playing the long game. And personally, I feel Mueller has more evidence against Trump or his family in the areas of money laundering and/or collusion.
So, Nunes, keep pumping out the distractions! Each one puts another nail into the coffin of your boy.
I'm sure if you write and tell him how much this upsets you he will stop
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
If that's what he really believes than that's what he really believes. I can see how someone would make such an argument, I can also see how some will believe this entire process was deeply tainted from the start and they are desperately trying to help a Democratic Party that is broke, on life support, and in my opinion not very popular with the average American citizen right now (outside of two or three states).
Worse, details of the abuses by Obama in efforts to ensure she won, regardless of what laws or violations needed to take place. Nunes says it is just Stage One, Stage Two and more are coming forward. How much did Obama operate the U.S government like a Tinpot Dictatorship? Time will tell...
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Two lawyers representing WH staff say Mueller may indict Trump for obstruction of justice
Better tell the OP
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Two lawyers representing WH staff say Mueller may indict Trump for obstruction of justice
Better tell the OP
They walk willingly into the buzz saw of mockery, they seem unhinged don't they.
Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Two lawyers representing WH staff say Mueller may indict Trump for obstruction of justice
Better tell the OP
Apparently Jillian thinks JimH52 is a moron.Mueller doesn't have the stones to indict a POTUS, the SCOTUS will rip him a new one.
mueller doesn't indict, moron....
damn, you're one of the stupidest least informed people I've ever seen....
here..., LEARN SOMETHING.... ANYTHING...
For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.
more at link:
Perspective | Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Two lawyers representing WH staff say Mueller may indict Trump for obstruction of justice
Better tell the OP
Are you NAT's sock puppet or is he yours?Lawyers involved in probe: Mueller may indict Trump
The lawyers know what Mueller has and they have spoken with attorneys on Mueller's team. Here is the Donald trying desperately to discredit the Dossier and all the while....it is the very effort he and his Repub conspirators are staging that is sinking him. The more distractions they throw out there, the more Mueller has in his case of obstruction of justice.
The way Mueller sees it, even if the indictment is challenged, and certainly it will be, it will doom the Donald for another term and will send the matter to the court to decide. If the court throws it back to Congress, then either the present congress puts on their "big boy pants" and impeaches him or the next Democratic congress impeaches him.
Sorry Donald, you may win a few battles in the short game, but Mueller is playing the long game. And personally, I feel Mueller has more evidence against Trump or his family in the areas of money laundering and/or collusion.
So, Nunes, keep pumping out the distractions! Each one puts another nail into the coffin of your boy.
