Re: “Donald Trump’s 10 top Impeachable offenses” #1.
Not a single sentence in that hate-motivated, bolshevik-supported fabrication is true.
Just a look at the first “claim”, and we see a totally disconnected opinion attached to a lie.
All claims in this fabrication are no better than a poorly constructed lie with a pretentious opinion written as fact.
We start with, “Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the Russia investigation.” How about one instance or one sentence uttered by President Trump to show that? Nothing. If President Trump were trying to impede investigations why does he not fire Mueller? That would end it. Trump has repeatedly stated he is not going to end the investigation when asked.
It is the intent for President Trump to wait for all the truth to be discovered by Mueller, that the DNC and Hillary Clinton conspired to hire Fusion GPS to create a fake dossier. Fusion GPS contracted, with Clinton money, an ex British agent, Christopher Steele, to create a dossier. Steele went to Russia, conspired with his Russian contacts, and fabricated a dossier.
Dan Bongino, in his book, “Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump” uses liberal news sources and words from democrats and democrat supporters to outline the conspiracy and lengthy account of democrat and liberal crimes. real crimes, conspiracy, treason, obstruction, sedition, and others are listed.
But, back to bolshevik-dick’s hate-motivated lies. Bolshevik-dick, then follows that first outright lie with another lie, that President Trump admitted it. When and where did he admit this claim? Why can dem/libs never reference any of their claims? Is it because the claims have have no reality to them, originating in the hate-crazed imaginations of those who lose every argument and every point of argument and discussion?
Any respectable writer, promoter, journalist uses references because references give credence. No credence with 100 percent of the lies and fabrications in bolshevik-dick’s fairy tale means no truth, no reality, just hate.
Dick adds, “…that is a clear case of obstructing justice.” Can dick cite the law that describes how that is a crime? No? Are we surprised? Can dick admit that it is just his/her/its opinion attached to his/her/its fabrication. No? Are we surprised?