Twitter | Search | |
Jon Ralston
You can argue Schiff should not have brought it up. Dumb and irrelevant. Fine. But this "You made the case that a crime was committed but then you insulted me so I vote for acquittal" is almost as inane as the "Hunter Biden's testimony is relevant" to impeachment argument.
Reply Retweet Like More
Robert Barnes Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
If Hunter Biden is irrelevant, then why did Democrats keep claiming (about a hundred times or more) that Hunter did nothing wrong & any investigation would be phony?
Reply Retweet Like
Jon Ralston Jan 24
Replying to @Barnes_Law
Even if he did wrong, that has nothing to do with what Trump was impeached for.
Reply Retweet Like
Surly T voted Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
Good God we're ruled by very small snowflakes.
Reply Retweet Like
Mike Freddoso Jan 24
Nah, that conclusion requires a presumption of sincerity. They just feel like that's the best excuse they've been given so far to toe the party line.
Reply Retweet Like
Bill Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
You can make this point without the caveat.
Reply Retweet Like
Ben Muse Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
Who said that? Certainly not Murkowski, who said he had her up to that point. Evidently she found most of the material helpful.
Reply Retweet Like
Paul Loop Jan 24
She, literally, said it.
Reply Retweet Like
NH Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
Two words Jon: Affirmative defense.
Reply Retweet Like
Ellen 🇺🇸 Jan 24
Replying to @RalstonReports
There was no crime.
Reply Retweet Like
OkCattleman Jan 24
Have we found out what has happened to the IG Atkinson's testimony yet
Reply Retweet Like
Red Center OP Jan 25
Exactly
Reply Retweet Like