Still waiting for the investigation to start. What's the delay Breitbarter? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/clinton-cash-everything-for-sale-everything.276579/
What is the delay on them starting this impeachment investigation? Why are the Democrats refusing to have a formal vote by the whole House?
No delay cupcake. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42579732 Clinton Foundation investigated by Justice Department
A year and a half investigation and what? She in jail yet? Lock her up, Trumpanzee style. Heh. But figures within the Justice Department and FBI doubt any charges will be brought, the Washington Post reports. But Mr Sessions at the time told a Senate hearing there was no basis to appoint a special counsel to investigate the "Uranium One" sale.
It's been like two days. What's the rush Mojo? You want to line up your quacky ducks and start with your Mark Levin diatribes? Why wait?
Facts are back pedaling. Did you read your own article clown show? I guess not. Keep at it though big boy. You posted an article from a year and a half ago about an investigation where the DOJ and DBI doubt any charges will be brought. That is quite a victory for you. Nice job. Back to ignore son.
Here's something from 9 months ago cupcake. Thanks for bringing it up again! It needs more exposure. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-evidence-in-2017-alleging-clinton-foundation Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing
Sounds like you were ignorant of investigations involving the Clinton Foundation and keep deflecting to avoid embarrassment over your ignorance.
I don't do internet searches for Clinton investigations like you do. That's your obsession, not mine. So let me know when they find something on any of the Clinton Cash conspiracy theories. Keep at it.
Probably because the House was still controlled by the GOP and not under the purview of Mueller. Saudi Arabia is important in regard to foreign policy but Trump's reasons for defending Saudi Arabia and leaving them off of the Travel ban wasn't because of that. He stated publicly that he likes the Saudis because they buy a lot of his toys and pay a lot of money.
Politically, it makes sense. On day 1, literally (i'm sure you didn't meant this), if you start impeachment proceeding, you are absolutely seen as not accepting the result of the election. Politically DEAD. Around the time Muller started his investigation, if you start impeachment proceeding, you are seen as not waiting for the results of an independent investigation. Pretty risky politically. On the day Muller concluded his investigation, Barr lied to American happen. For a few weeks the US public was lied to. By the time the DEM got what they needed, it was an uphill climb. At this time, I do favor impeachment, but I also understood why they didn't proceed. The DEM got played by dirty trick and they failed to respond. Add to this - the Mueller report isn't easy to read, isn't easy to understand, is easy to manipulate and was manipulated. All of that resulted in polling that show a lack of support for impeachment (30s in support of impeachment). The moderate D were understandably from a political point, not on board for impeachment. Pelosi held the line to protect them. This event is different. There was a whistle blower that was blocked. Multiple news reports from WSJ to WP reported POTUS abused his power. He admitted to it on live TV. More importantly, from a political point of view, this was easy to understand, is much harder to manipulate, and as I said, he admitted it. The DEM had a small windows to react before Trump team does a Barr's repeat and they took the opportunity - and they also did this only after several critical moderate D wrote an OpED supporting impeachment proceeding to formally starts. This event in totality is politically easier to proceed with impeachment and that is reflected in polling after the fact - a double digit jump in support for impeachment, with every group (including Republican) more in support of impeachment. So from a political point of view, it makes sense and Biden isn't really a necessary aspect of it.
I'm not sure why you're using the word whataboutism in response to my post. See I'm against whataboutism, when I see people who are corrupt like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I don't say ohhh what about this corruption by this candidate, my party is good your party is bad! I instead say all corruption is bad, therefor... **** em bof.
Because this thread is not about Hillary, it is about Trump, they are not related. If you want to discuss Hillary - by all means start a thread about her - bringing her up is the definition of Whataboutism. DD
Yeah, I agree whoever initially brought her up is doing "whataboutism", my post was about finding those who are arguing between the two looking silly to me.
