No evidence?

[Botany]

Just keep it up. So by repeating that time after time will not make that lie true.

Then he said that Trump wanted to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 in the Ukraine.
Straight up Russian talking point.

Chairman Nadler There is a vast preponderance of evidence.

[alwaysinasnit]

1. I would like to take that further and suggest that the evidence is clear and convincing, if not

beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Botany]

2. But "they" had Ivy League-rs giving testimony aka smart people can't be trusted

... talking to the Fox News base.

Although Trump has tens of tons of more shit on him Nancy P, Schiff, Nadler, and others ...
had it narrowed down to the 2 charges, abuse of power and obstruction from which they
could make an open and shut case from

[Arthur_Frain]

3. Gotta work "clock and calendar" in there somewhere.

Sound bites for fox don’t cha know?

[Botany]

5. Don't forget "the will of the 63 million Trump voters"

nicely skipping over the 66 million HRC voters and the 16 million who were removed
before the 2016 election.

[Arthur_Frain]

7. That's right!

But if you could somehow work the electoral college landslide into the same statement, you’d be approaching a critical mass of hypocrisy.

Might want to clear the room of non rethugs before we try that. Who knows what would happen?

[Sogo]

4. "Trump wanted to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 in the Ukraine."

Why not take the findings of your Intelligence Communities, Donald?

They ALL told you it was Russian meddling and nothing to do with Ukraine....

[Botany]

6. You can't be pro Trump and pro American @ the same time.

BTW all 17 US Intel Agencies were lying too.

[Sogo]

8. Sounds like a good bumper sticker:

You can't be pro Trump and pro American @ the same time.

[Botany]

9. Please do so

Or pass it around "the internets"