Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in
SD do the words “you can’t indict a sitting president “ mean anything to you? How about if they come from the top law enforcement officer in the land? A Trump appointee. How about the GOP controlled senate that along with the help of AG Barr basically threw the report in the garbage? Come on man. He was fully insulated from prosecution. Yet you go with the “witch hunt” theory. Its your brain man do what ya want with it. Lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
|
The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?
Maybe I'm actually wrong and there is a difference. If you can't indict him for collusion doesn't seem like you could indict him for obstruction either. But they still impeached him for the latter knowing the same thing.
Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion so they moved the goal post to obstruction?