GG Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Pond sucking ... Hah 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Reminder: Senator Warner established a back channel communication with Deripaska through Adam Waldman, his attorney, during the election. Warner is in a lot of trouble. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 No wonder this slippery blob is afraid of a House sit down with an experienced lawyers. He won't be able to filibuster with nonsense as much. "Not a summary!" Blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, GG said: Pond sucking ... Hah That whole sequence had a lot of people on the Hill puckering tight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 The letter leaked about Barr‘s conduct is deeply embarrassing- for Bob Mueller Mueller is a partisan hack who wanted to do damage to Trump’s presidency. That much is now obvious to anyone who isn’t just rooting for Trump’s destruction at every moment and any cost So far from what I’ve seen of this hearing, the democrats are looking stupid while getting their fundraising emails ready. Russia!.............. Collusion!................ Impeachment! SEND YOUR CHECK *TODAY* STUPID PEOPLE!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 ***** up next, this should be a hoot -- he's a train wreck. ***** is censored. Senator C O O N S 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: what! the Dems refused to read an unredacted version after all their bellyaching? you just can't make this horseshit up.... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 *Mueller is appointed * LEFT: Savior! *Mueller doesn't find collusion * LEFT: Traitor! *Mueller says Barr didn’t share enough... * LEFT: Savior! *...But the summary was accurate * LEFT: TRAITOR!! *Mueller report available to read * LEFT: No thanks 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Mr. Co ons only wants to monologue -- he doesn't want to give Barr a chance to answer because he knows Barr is smarter than he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Co ons tried to take a parting shot at Barr without giving Barr a chance to respond. Barr just shrugs because Honey Badger don't care. Hawley is hitting the predicate of the FBI's investigation hard right now. Hawley just underlined the truth: This was an attempted coup and overthrow of a government by unelected intelligence officials. YUP! Senator Blumenthal is up now. De Nang Dick says "history will judge you (Barr) harshly" ... this is the guy who LIED ABOUT BEING A VIETNAM VET FOR YEARS! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 oh boy... Blumenthals up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Co ons tried to take a parting shot at Barr without giving Barr a chance to respond. Barr just shrugs because Honey Badger don't care. Hawley is hitting the predicate of the FBI's investigation hard right now. Hawley just underlined the truth: This was an attempted coup and overthrow of a government by unelected intelligence officials. YUP! Senator Blumenthal is up now. De Nang Dick says "history will judge you (Barr) harshly" ... this is the guy who LIED ABOUT BEING A VIETNAM VET FOR YEARS! Has anyone ever been judged harshly by history whose contemporaries claimed would be judged harshly by history? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: he's an idiots idiot. Edited May 1, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Pond scum saw more combat at Da Nang. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 22 minutes ago, Tiberius said: No wonder this slippery blob is afraid of a House sit down with an experienced lawyers. He won't be able to filibuster with nonsense as much. "Not a summary!" Blah blah blah. I've been trying to ignore you, but this post is so mind-numbingly stupid and ill-informed. Here are the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only ONE is NOT an attorney: no - Dianne Feinstein yes - Dick Durbin yes - Kamala D. Harris yes - Cory Booker yes - Mazie K. Hirono yes - Richard Blumenthal yes - Chris ***** yes - Amy Klobuchar yes - Sheldon Whitehouse yes - Patrick Leahy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Barr said there are 12-18 ongoing cases and he will NOT recuse himself from any of them. Which is bad news for the dems on this committee. Just now, DC Tom said: Pond scum saw more combat at Da Nang. That's so true. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Foxx said: oh boy... Blumenthals up. Blumenthal uses someone else's arm as his spine while they move his puppet-mouth. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Barr said there are 12-18 ongoing cases and he will NOT recuse himself from any of them. Which is bad news for the dems on this committee. Not all of them. Booker, for example...no one would waste their time enrolling him in a conspiracy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 finally, thank you! 'we are not in the business of proving someone did not do something. we are in the business of proving someone did something.' 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts