Foxx

hmm... https://twitter.com/Inevitable_ET/status/1221229400240336896

hmmm..... bad luck, coincidence, or something more? https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1221141302529662979 https://twitter.com/RedinVa2/status/1221174894228135938

as the gaffs mount, you are going to see more and more of this. not a winning strategy. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1221170225988755456

let's try this one more time. since it appears that you refuse to spend the measly two hours watching the WHC initial defense (the first in this whole sham) that i recommended to you, to get you up to speed. i will give a brief synopsis. of which, will be interspersed with my own beliefs. the reasons why the White house did not comply with subpoenas from the House inquiry is essentially two fold. the first is that the White House claims that the inquiry was fraudulently conceived. the theory goes something like this (though, trust me, you would be better off listening to the lawyers explain it). the Constitution rests the burden of impeachment with the House, not one person within that house but rather, the House. so when Nancy proclaimed that the House was going to start an impeachment investigation, she was putting herself above the Constitution. again, it explicitly states (and makes sense), that the power lies with the House. so because the White House believes that the inquiry was ill conceived, any demands that emanate from it are non starters. this belief is strongly based in historical precedent, meaning that every other impeachment that has been undertaken, there has been a House vote to approve the inquiry. this did not happen with the current ridiculousness. one must ask why that is when this Congress took three previous votes to begin an impeachment inquiry of Trump (all of which had nothing to do with the current madness). House Res. 646 in December of '17 (it was killed by a vote to table of 58 to 364), House Res. 705 in January of '18 (it was killed by a vote to table of 66 to 355). and the most recent one before this fraudulently conceived one, House Res. 498 in July of '19 (it was killed by a vote to table of 95 to 332). all of these votes were strictly along partisan lines (meaning the only yes votes ever recorded were Democrat votes, not a single Republican ever voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. with this knowledge in mind, if one is being objective, the obvious question here is, why didn't they merely have another vote to follow historical precedent? after all, precedent practically mandates it, not to mention the wording of the Constitution where it puts the onus on the House and not one single individual. in fact, it was argued that a partisan impeachment was the founders greatest fear (exactly what we have now, today, right here). back to the question... why not simply have the vote? i mean, their claims to this day is that the evidence is overwhelming, surely the Democrats had the votes this time right? the reason why they didn't have the vote is because they were going to impeach him come hell or high water because they know they can't beat him at the voting booth and they didn't want to put certain Representatives in jeopardy as being on the record for having supported something they knew was a farce. if it went sideways or worse yet, south, they could be in great danger of losing control of the House. so they worked around that by having a vote to 'affirm the ongoing proceeding', several weeks after the ill conceived inquiry had already begun. this provided them cover of sorts for their votes and allowed them to proceed with their agenda. tangentially related here is, why didn't the Dems appoint a special council to do the investigation like the precedent set with Clinton's impeachment? because they knew there was no there there and as with the Mueller report, they couldn't control the outcome. by acting as the judge and jury, they hoped to effectively influence the executioner (the Senate) by controlling the narrative. secondly, there is the whole separation of powers thing. executive privilege has historical precedent all the way back to George Washington. there is good reason for it as well. in matters of foreign policy (and any and all policy for that matter), you can't have people talking about the Presidents innermost thoughts. they can't say how the President really feels about certain things. and there are yet multitudes of other reasoning here that just makes exposing executive thoughts, conversations and/or documents, not a great idea. part of what the White House is doing by claiming Executive Privilege is maintaining that historical precedent for all of the future Presidents to come. just as it was preserved for this current Administration by the previous ones. now, whenever there is a dispute between two branches of government, the proper remedy is the third branch of government. the Dems did not want to take this route. when Bolton's aide was subpoenaed, he asked the court to rule on the validity of the subpoena. the Dems immediately pulled the subpoena. again, if one is being completely objective, they ask themselves why they did that. by most appearances, it, at the very least seems an odd thing to do. i have my thoughts on why they did that but i'll save them for a bit latter in this little missive. lastly here, once again is precedent. you will hear the Democrats say, we had witnesses at Clinton's Impeachment trial in the Senate. while that is true, there were no new witnesses. every witness that was called had previously testified. so, if the Democrat's request for the witnesses they want are granted, this would be setting new precedent, as they would be ones that have not previously testified. precedent is huge in Congress. oh, one other here is that this is not a court of law but rather a political court and there are differences. the Democrats are playing a dangerous game though. if they get votes to call witnesses they would like there is no guarantee that they will testify. and if they testify, they could be very limited in what they could and couldn't say. whereas, the witnesses the Republicans would want called, would not be afforded the same protections. it has the potential to go south on the Dems real fast. calling the whistle blower, Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would certainly have the potential of open a can of whoopass on them in short order, further exposing things they would rather not have put out into the open. with all of that being said... i too am on record here as wanting to see this venue used to bring it all out. let's just lay all the cards on the table and let them fall where they may. lets have the only ones left standing be those who are not dirty (though that may be a dangerous ask because there may be no one left standing (of which i would not be entirely disappointed with either)). i believe we are being presented with a golden opportunity here. we have the chance of a lifetime. to undercut the rampant graft that has infested the host, we need to seize upon the opportunity. to get a real good start on it, in one fell swoop, would be utilizing the situation that presents itself before us right ***** now. bring it all in, air it all out and kill all the dirty players (when i say kill, i don't mean to literally kill anyone, that is not for me to say but rather, to remove them from political life). i have been waiting most of my entire adult life for the time we now find ourselves in. i always thought it a fantasy that i would ever see a true reckoning and while it is not guaranteed that we will see that reckoning, it is closer to reality than at any time in the last 200 years. i like to think that even if we miss this chance, that it won't matter. they are never going to be able to put the paste back in the tube. look at the state of the world, humanity is rising in almost every corner. i believe that there was a powder keg in many places just waiting to be lit. did i think one man could change the entire world? he has.

this is terrible. hilarious but terrible.

i'm still a bit under the weather and have a headache already. i don't really want another one on top of it.

nah. you made a statement, i provided you with a readily available source to help you understand why the documents were blocked. you then proceeded to deflect. you're not interested in having an honest discussion. if you were, you would have commented on my assertion instead of completely bypassing it for an attempt to malign. all that tells me is that you have nothing. as such, we're done. i'm tired of your types, i don't have the time for your games. have a good day.

you're an idiot.

i was thinkin' maybe the Earth's sphincter is getting a bit loose with age...

if you were move than a drive by poster in the dungeon, you would understand exactly why evidence was blocked. hell, maybe even just watch today's, presentation by the WHC, they laid out exactly why the President didn't comply.

more of the clip of the Repub Sens after today's hearing. https://twitter.com/SenJohnBarrasso/status/1221134942555508737

https://twitter.com/SenateGOP/status/1221143097826037760

and here you have it, the prepared Dem talking point that i see being parroted everywhere. did we really think it would be a different card? https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1221134040994066432

interesting article. Mysterious particles spewing from Antarctica defy physics

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1220530885977690120

https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1221119716271497217 Philbin. https://twitter.com/MarkBednar/status/1221116172998934529 https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1221116459528736769

in order to have coerced someone, isn't a precondition of that, in large part, them being cognitively aware they are being coerced? https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1221121861263798274

no Adam, what they are doing is setting the record straight. correcting your distortions. https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1221117035234590720

here. a little more than 2 hous and 2 minutes. it really is quite good and doesn't drone on like someone else's presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vEtnfWQops

it's going to be interesting to see the parade of Dems before the cameras and their talking points the rest of the weekend. @Tiberius?

i was wondering if they were going to bring up all the crap Trump has had pilied on him by the Dems and do it with out being called conspiracy theorists. doing it from the perspective of, 'put youself in Trump's shoes' would appear to be how they are going to do it. not that the left and their lackey's, the MSM won't still call them that but it is a good tactical position, imo.

if it matters, i compared them to Fox and Fox is seconds ahead on their feed. additionally, there is no commentary.

i think an honest case could be made that Schiffty has lied 16000+times.

/impeachment https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1220824907027746817

right. the existing Air Force Command logo.