Gowdy would be the first one leading the charge if something was even vaguely wrong. You know this. You. Know. This.
But he’s not likkin Trump’s feet so you trash him. Like you people always do.
I’ve been around long enough to know you guys and your ■■■■■■■■ theories…plus you love to play the victim
Here’s one example; did Trey Gowdy or did he not question Comey about Hillary’s testimony on national tv (growl)? Did he not expose Hillary’s many lies to Congress on national tv and get Comey to testify to that(growl)? What did Gowdy do about it (no teeth)?
Nunez will get the same treatment if he doesn’t fulfill the expectations he has set by his inflammatory remarks. Look at the polarization across the country? Look at the polarization of this board? If you talk the talk, you better walk that walk or you’ll trip and fall in the eyes of many who are watching.
If you want to know who is turning on Gowdy, it’s those who time after time saw and heard the same thing.
What is your solution if there are credible allegations of wrongdoing that may or may not involve the candidate? Is that not a law enforcement function?
1 Like
The legislative committee is limited in what they can do. The separation of powers ---- they make laws, but they cannot enforce laws. They can subpoena and interrogate, they can send a plea to the Department of Justice to prosecute, that’s about all.
Gowdy was not going to get anything accomplished with an Obama Department of Justice under an Obama administration.
What was creditable?
That may or may not be the whole truth but perception is the reality of the group we’re discussing.
You don’t know what the FBI did or why.
1 Like
It’s a function of law enforcement to make that judgement call. And they did, regardless whether you agree with it.
So, what is your proposed policy/protocol in Presidential campaigns when there is a credible allegation of wrongdoing?
1 Like
the trumpers have been given their marching orders. their cult leader has spoken and they must blindly follow
Glad to see you finally get it.
It wasn’t credible…nothing what libs did that was.
The line has been cross the moment they deciding to accept opposition party hearsay as excuse to investigate.
Investigate from outside. “Credible”? You’d have been better off without that word.
Yeah Hillary said the same thing back in 93…that why I love context…it makes people look like idiots.
You don’t want the FBI to investigate claims that Russians were infiltrating the trump campaign?
1 Like
Claims? I can claim anything.
You spied and attempted to entrap opposition candidate based on a claim from opposing party?
What country is this?
That is the exact expression (“credible allegations of wrongdoing”) used by the then Director of the FBI to describe the scenario.
You mean the same guy that said no creditable prosecutor would have prosecuted Hillary crimes?
What does it mean to “investigate from outside”?
Who is better informed about this case, you or Trey Gowdy?
