Turley says the quiet part out loud.

Turley said there is no evidence to date, dupe.
Just as every Dem has. :rolleyes:
He didn’t say no evidence to date. He said no evidence sufficient to impeach, Fakey.

Which I already noted is what he said, simp.

And he might be right and he might be wrong.

But there is sufficient evidence to commence the impeachment investigation, as Turley also suggested. You hack.
 
He didn’t say no evidence to date. He said no evidence sufficient to impeach, Fakey.

Which I already noted is what he said, simp.

And he might be right and he might be wrong.

But there is sufficient evidence to commence the impeachment investigation, as Turley also suggested. You hack.
Those leftist hacks aren't used to honesty.
 
Wow. Russia collusion groupies whining about hypocrisy.
Facts: Russia. Russia. Russia.


Hillary Clinton's Campaign was not responsible for the for the Russia investigation.


Durham in his report, said the FBI opened it's investigation into possible criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in the Summer of 2016.

In the Fall of 2016, Hillary Clinton personally approved a plan to share with the press, a Trump-Russia allegation (the unsubstantiated allegation of an 'odd' computer link between a Russian Bank and a server at the Trump Organization). With the press?


There was Trump-Russia collusion — and Trump ended up pardoning the colluder.

The Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort admitted sharing info with Russians.

Mr Manafort had previously denied sharing polling data with suspected Russian spy Konstantin Kilimnik.
 
Last edited:
Says the creep that keeps insisting it is Big Bad Dante who is following somebody else's antics on usmb.
No dainty. You’re being fully dishonest, yet again.

You’ve posted several idiotic posts about your dire concern re things as crucial as my avatar and my handful of usernames.

Now, oddly, you seem upset by such questions? Poor poor you. (How many usernames are you up to now?)

Dainty, it’s already well established that you’re a liar and a pussy, but you do tend to latch on like a dog to a favorite toy.

I’m happy to report that your unparalleled love for me will be for ever unrequited.

:itsok:
 
As one of their first witnesses, Republicans called on Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who previously served as a Justice Department tax attorney. Turley was set to act as a content witness to help analyze the Biden family’s business dealings—but even he admitted there’s not enough evidence.

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

Turley also said he did believe it was “warranted” for the House to investigate potential connections between Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. But Republicans have been doing just that for months, and they still haven’t found proof linking the president to Hunter Biden’s work.



Was this something they knew he was going to say?
That's why you have an investigation to put all the evidence together to see if there are crimes that have been committed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top