Westside Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: How did they kick Republicans out of a congressional office or meeting room. Did mean old Adam Schiff wave his broom stick at them? Republican Matt Gaetz was kicked out. Don't you ever get tired of being beaten like a pinata? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, westside2 said: Republican Matt Gaetz was kicked out. Don't you ever get tired of being beaten like a pinata? So they said, "All sh it heads have to leave" and he left. But the rest of the Republicans stayed. So how is that a secret meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 been waiting since he got elected for this stone cold lock of an impeachment is it time to start paying attention again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: So they said, "All sh it heads have to leave" and he left. But the rest of the Republicans stayed. So how is that a secret meeting? You know tibs, I don't dislike you. I really don't. I actually pity you. You have some serious issues that I think needs a professional to help you deal with it. Please get help before it's to late. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, westside2 said: You know tibs, I don't dislike you. I really don't. I actually pity you. You have some serious issues that I think needs a professional to help you deal with it. Please get help before it's to late. if everyone put tibs on ignore it would solve all the problems if you honestly enjoy babysitting him on here, a tip of the hat to you 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 11 hours ago, Warcodered said: Right why would there be any separation to both prevent and protect the President from abuse/perceived abuse of his power. You're confusing what you want with what actually is. Senate confirmation doesn't establish independence of cabinet positions, it serves as a check and balance on presidential authority. That stops at confirmation. The Senate limits the president's power to appoint, not his power to direct his subordinates. This is why cabinet member serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by him without recourse to Congress. Congress' powers are clearly laid out and proscribed in the Constitution, no matter what you personally feel. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: You're confusing what you want with what actually is. Senate confirmation doesn't establish independence of cabinet positions, it serves as a check and balance on presidential authority. That stops at confirmation. The Senate limits the president's power to appoint, not his power to direct his subordinates. This is why cabinet member serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by him without recourse to Congress. Congress' powers are clearly laid out and proscribed in the Constitution, no matter what you personally feel. glad someone actually READS the readily available rules before popping off in TDS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 33 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Didn't go to the Sabres game last night either but since I read about it, I know what happened. They won in OT. Eichel had great game. Do you think that is true? Were you there? Must suck to have to deny reality in order to keep your position afloat. Soon you will go to 'yeah all the accusations are true but it isn't a big deal'. I can keep going about the future fallback positions too. It is all pretty clear. With a few steps in the interim you will finish at ' Yeah, it was wrong and criminal and he shouldn't have done it but removing him wouldn't be good for our country.' Sad. well, I’ve never read a report that said the sabres won a game that they actually lost so I think your metaphor fails immediately. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, westside2 said: You know tibs, I don't dislike you. I really don't. I actually pity you. You have some serious issues that I think needs a professional to help you deal with it. Please get help before it's to late. I promise I will. You just don't know what it's like being around soap suds all the time! Rinse and drain all you want, but there's always more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, dubs said: This is an amazing article from April. I recall CNN and NBC covering it and an article in the Times also, not. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats%3famp Quote ...tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington. Which would have been...Yovanovitch's embassy. From Wikipedia... Quote she had been accused, without firm evidence, by some conservative media outlets and by President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as well as Ukraine’s then-top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, of being part of a conspiracy involving anti-corruption probes in Ukraine and efforts by the Trump administration to investigate ties between Ukrainian officials and the Hillary Clinton campaign Emphasis mine. Sounds like The Hill had some firm evidence... This is the most contrived "scandal" I've ever seen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You're confusing what you want with what actually is. Senate confirmation doesn't establish independence of cabinet positions, it serves as a check and balance on presidential authority. That stops at confirmation. The Senate limits the president's power to appoint, not his power to direct his subordinates. This is why cabinet member serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by him without recourse to Congress. Congress' powers are clearly laid out and proscribed in the Constitution, no matter what you personally feel. Too bad Trump doesn't want his acting members to face questions from the senate. He is terrified of any oversight. Failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 another nothingburger? okay, press the snooze button and come back in two weeks for the next fake impeachment hearings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/video-gop-lawmakers-kicked-out-of-democrats-top-secret-star-chamber-impeachment-proceedings/ VIDEO: GOP Lawmakers Kicked Out of Democrats’ Top Secret Star-Chamber Impeachment Proceedings . . 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 33 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That wasn't his committee. Talk about political theatre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 ROLL CALL: Democrats may come to regret choosing impeachment over independents: Base voters may be happy, but they won’t be the ones deciding the 2020 election. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Warcodered said: Which would only imply that he wasn't in the room when they were told and didn't tell them himself. Someone still could of told him or any of a bunch of possibilities but let's ignore that because it sounds better this way. Zeldin has been in every meeting, more than Schiff. He's listened to every witness and heard every piece of testimony. Ratcliffe is an accomplished attorney, and unlike Schiff and Pelosi and Schumer -- both men got Russia 100% correct the past three years. Does track record matter to you when judging information? Or do you only go by partisan lines? Honest question... See the hoops you are forced to go through just to elevate Schiff's narrative from laughable to plausible? You have to assume "things" happened/were said outside of Taylor's presence, then were filtered to Taylor second hand, that's a poor way to build a case... but you're suggesting we ignore all that so we can elevate a proven liar's narrative (Schiff's) to truth because it sounds better to your partisan politics that way. ...Which is why all I've been suggesting to you is NOT to take the words of proven liars as truth without doing your own due diligence first -- especially when those words are being dripped out in pieces rather than showing you the totality of the testimony. That's not a controversial position to hold, is it? Of course, the decision is yours. You can continue to give people the benefit of the doubt who lied to your face for three straight years -- or you can question them. One of these positions is rational, the other is Stockholm Syndrome. You can determine for yourself which is which. 12 hours ago, Warcodered said: Right why would there be any separation to both prevent and protect the President from abuse/perceived abuse of his power. See how much BS you have to run through to get around the very simple point I made? Trump is the chief law enforcement officer of the land and thus has every right to ask about ongoing investigations of which he's the ultimate head of. Nothing about that is unconstitutional, no matter how many times the NYTs and Schiff try to tell you otherwise. A simple reading of the document makes that clear. 12 hours ago, Warcodered said: ? An emoji with no response won't cut it here. Sorry. None of the quoted post you reacted to is conspiracy theory. It's backed by actual evidence and a timeline established by several investigations and testimony from multiple witnesses under oath. You stated CrowdStrike has no connection to the Ukraine, and you based that on cursory dive into the subject. But that's 100% incorrect. Dmitri is/was a Ukranian intelligence asset. That's a fact I dug up personally, and confirmed in OS. It's also a fact, confirmed by Comey himself, that the FBI was prevented from looking at the servers themselves by CrowdStrike. None of that is controversial or conspiracy theory -- yet you assume it is because you admit you did not know who or what CrowdStrike was until you did a cursory look. That's how they are continuing to lie to you. They know you won't dig for yourself. They know you won't question their narrative so long as it conforms to your partisanship. And they know, even though they lied to your face for three years (and that has been exposed, is not debatable) that you'll continue to believe them because you're unwilling to do the work for yourself. ...Because thinking for yourself is hard work and dangerous. And most don't have the stomach for it. Do you? 12 hours ago, Warcodered said: Or you know maybe not. https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong There's so much wrong in that article, it's hard to know where to start. But you should begin by examining who wrote it (a CIA defender/Brennan defender), who owns the companies who provided the "evidence" for this article (more CIA cutouts) -- then compare it to VIPs (former NSA/DoD employees with sterling records) and their record of success/accuracy. You'll quickly see one is not like the other... The forensic evidence is what it is. The article doesn't actually dispute it -- it just throws an admitted "possibility" out there while acknowledging they do not know the truth one way or the other. Then they bury that finding with paragraphs of disinfo. Like: * FancyBear being Russian/GRU. It's not. It's Ukranian -- a tool of their intel services... you know, where Dmitri was an asset (but the Ukraine is unconnected, right?) * Or that CrowdStrike was only brought in after the hacks. A blatant lie. They under contract long before, and during, the attacks. * Or that Splunk is a DoD funded startup and its owner is a Hayden acolyte. These are important, disqualifying, details you can't find if you just skim the article. But let's agree that we cannot know for sure one way or the other with just the metadata. That's a fair statement, imo. And it goes back to my original point which is: There are enough legitimate questions about the "hack" narrative itself to warrant a closer look at the only piece of evidence available -- the servers. Yet CrowdStrike, who has motive to lie for their client and for their own reputation, did not turn them over to the FBI despite the FBI requesting them. Honest question: Do you find that odd? Or are you 100% comfortable with how this all played out? Edited October 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 55% support impeachment !!! https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4069304002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: 55% support impeachment !!! https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4069304002 You can't even read your own material! It says 55 percent support an inquiry while 48 percent support removal. How the heck do they get anything else done in Greenwich, Seattle, and SF with polsters stopping obvious leftist types at coffee kiosks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: That wasn't his committee. Talk about political theatre DR already as drunk as Gaetz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts