That's the whole point, she's an african american saying what "all us whites" like to hear. She's used race her entire career to get ahead and she's making huge bucks now that she's using it on the MAGA side.
You're using CNN as a source? lol
She's paid to hate BLM, shes a token paid for by the higher ups at TPUSA.
If you say so.
So are you paid to promote Candace? If you didn't care why would you write so much? PANIC.
She's a lot like AOC. It's scary.
Did you not see the link?
Just a reminder that Candace is a paid troll who is a total democrat and BLM sympathizer.
https://newsone.com/3848636/candace-owens-receipts-con-artist/
I've spoken with her at two rallies and I am absolutely convinced she is no MAGA fan and is just in it for the money. The first time I spoke with her was when I was volunteering at a Trump rally near my house and she was speaking. I was in charge of financials and she kept coming into my office and demanding her check, even though the agreement was we'd pay via electronic wire later that night. She popped into my office four times in three hours asking for her money.
My adopted daughter was in the trailer and Candace was very rude to her. She's of color and Candace blew her off and would refuse to engage with her while we were settling the payments. It was gross.
This is a stupid argument because we all know deer feel pain and we hunt them with every right.
No one impeached a private citizen.
Try to keep up here, the resolution passed on 1/13. It went to the Senate right away, but the senate held it and didn't vote on it. They took it up after Trump was out of office, but the case was for something he did before while he was in office.
This would be like if you lived in Maryland and broke into a house, but then you immediately moved. The state of Maryland still hears that case and you will be tried in Maryland no matter where you moved to. If you moved to Texas, Maryland wouldn't suspend the case just because you moved. It works the same in this case law.
If they introduced the impeachment on Jan 21, 2021 then yes, it would be too late and they'd be impeaching a private citizen, but since the case was introduced before that it stands and they have to take it up.
There's no huge conspiracy here, it's just time and how time works.
Do you understand that, or is it too complex?
There is case law supporting impeaching someone even after they leave office if it is filed while they are in office. In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and quit.
The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.
Source: went to law school and graduated but don't practice law.
But there wasn't. Where are you getting this information?
But they didn't impeach him after the 20th, it was before that, while he was still President. They didn't continue after he was no longer President, it was all done in 48 hours, the 13th and 14th of January.
I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this?
Anyone who was close to Epstein or even hung out with the guy needs to be under a magnifying glass.
Sure, but that's like saying heart attacks are mild. Sure most of them aren't a big deal and people easily recover, but some heart attacks are very fatal.
Getting attacked by a dog is mild. Most dog attacks don't even require stitches. But, every year a bunch of kids and elderly people die from dog attacks.
It's not at all about that. It specifically says they are all in the study group, the dude making the video just arbitrarily says let's remove these 700 people because I feel like it based on this one number I misread.
But you can't actually assume they only ate rare burgers. That's just an assumption you've made and not scientific data. You can get sick eating well done meat if the meat was already rancid.
That's the exact point, it's arbitrary to remove those 700 people, he just makes an assumption based on something he says. There's no data to back up what he is saying.
I agree with the conclusion, but you can't just make shit up.
Ok, maybe you should take a break.
No, their reasoning was he attempted to stop the election certification, that's insurrection and interrupting a peaceful transition of power. It's not invalid for them because if he was removed a few days before the end of his term he could never hold public office again, he couldn't even run a post office in Mississippi.
"Mild" varies greatly from person to person.
It's not fog of war, listen to what this guy says. He literally misinterprets the data and just makes shit up. See my other comment above about that.
This is dumb. He wasn't a private citizen. He was still president until 1/20/21, the impeachment was 1/13/21.
The reason was stated as insurrection, they had their panties in a bunch because of 1/6 and thought it was coup attempt or something instead of just tourists.
You can see the articles of impeachment right here, that idiot Omar laid it all out: https://omar.house.gov/sites/omar.house.gov/files/Omar_impeachment.pdf
This is so dumb. What are we even doing here?
ehhh, who controls them? Can you trust all cops?
The source is stupid, but the info they have on her past is spot on. She's a race baiter.