The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
*** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD ***
|
(01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote:(01-26-2020, 08:39 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: You don’t need probable cause to open an investigation. I’d suspect that most investigations don’t have it in the beginning anyway. You’re moving the goal posts. I addressed your comment to show you that your understanding of probable cause in relation to investigations is incorrect. You set a standard of probable cause to help justify saying Trump shouldn’t have started an investigation when probable cause isn’t necessary to start one. As for this post, that isn’t even close to what he said anyway so I’m not sure why your representing it that way. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.