Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, twa said:

Let me know which (evidence or intelligence)  is required for legal charges such as collusion or treason. 

 

Now if droning him was a option .....:kiss-smileys:

Intent.

 

They have the idiotic actions by Trump part nailed down, now they just need to prove his motive was to prevent bad things happening to him or his buddies (hard to do, but not impossible).

Edited by RedskinsFan44
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, twa said:

Let me know which (evidence or intelligence)  is required for legal charges such as collusion or treason. 

 

Now if droning him was a option .....:kiss-smileys:

Are we at the stage where they would normally be showing the public evidence of legal charges?

 

I'll save you the trouble, no we're not.

 

But pretending the empaneling of grand juries, the issuing of subpoebas from said grand juries, the statements from long time officials in official settings, etc. Etc. Etc. mean nothing is ostriching at its finest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
Just now, DogofWar1 said:

Are we at the stage where they would normally be showing the public evidence of legal charges?

 

I'll save you the trouble, no we're not.

 

But pretending the empaneling of grand juries, the issuing of subpoebas from said grand juries, the statements from long time officials in official settings, etc. Etc. Etc. mean nothing is ostriching at its finest.

 

I think it is closer to

 

Head_up_ass.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, twa said:

you don't handle losing well 

P.S. I hope you don't feel like you "won". Democrats lost. Republicans saw their party absolutely obliterated. Vanquished. Gone forever. Replaced with whatever the **** you wanna call this sludge with Donald Trump as your mascot. I don't call it Republican.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Burgold said:

Listening to the former CIA chief speak. Gowdy tried to corner him, asking repeatedly if he knew of any member of the Trump Campaign that had communicated with the Russians during the election. Eventually, the Chief decided to answer and said unequivocally that, yes, he has seen evidence of interactions between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. 

 

Gowdy was not pleased. He obviously wanted a "I can not comment on ongoing investigations" or a "no." He flustered for a bit and then asked the Chief to name them. That, of course, the Chief refused to do.

 

Long ago, had an attorney tell me that one of the rules they taught him in law school, about a witness on the stand, was "Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to".  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I remember when these cretins had Hillary under oath at Benghazi hearings and they kept trying to trip her up. She owned them, for eleven hours.

 

I wish Gowdy was the representative in the district where I am moving, but he's not. I do get to vote against the old white man who represents the district where I will probably live.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

 

Then he woulda said that.  He didn't sound like he thought it was anything more than harmless, routine contacts.

37 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

I think the WH is purposefully emphasizing "collusion" in all these statements.  Cuz at this point, they know the people in the campaign were either strongarmed or just plain duped into being Russian pawns. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo the kKklown

Bozo the kKklown

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Burgold said:

Listening to the former CIA chief speak. Gowdy tried to corner him, asking repeatedly if he knew of any member of the Trump Campaign that had communicated with the Russians during the election. Eventually, the Chief decided to answer and said unequivocally that, yes, he has seen evidence of interactions between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. 

 

Gowdy was not pleased. He obviously wanted a "I can not comment on ongoing investigations" or a "no." He flustered for a bit and then asked the Chief to name them. That, of course, the Chief refused to do.

 

4 hours ago, StillUnknown said:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drowland

drowland

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Long ago, had an attorney tell me that one of the rules they taught him in law school, about a witness on the stand, was "Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to".  

 

Ha, that was the lesson from the OJ trial.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...