Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Love it. A Trump supporter complaing about corruption. Did you get a degree at Trump U? 

 

Are you a Libertarian? 


not that it matters, but Ivy League. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

#Boomerang

 

 

 

 

 

So, it's now guilty until proven innocent?

 

Ok, got it.

 

Pelosi has to lay off the freaking bottle. Being drunk with loose dentures is no way for an old person to go into their twilight years.

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

No it's more like trying to teach imbeciles 2+2=4 and the Trump supporters just answer, No! 2x2 =4 so Trump can't be guilty 

 

These Democrats think 1 and 1 is 57, so what's the fvcking difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta give credit to the Dems for this again. They have singe handedly exposed two professions as frauds: 

 

federally elected officials and the bureaucracy 

 

AND

 

overeducated useless people
 

kudos!!  ? 
 

the longer this continues, the more people are waking up. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...probably another senior moment, but wasn't there an unwritten rule that children of a President were "off limits" as far as criticism?....yet this Harvard skank (perhaps with her wife's approval) decides to attack Trump's kid Barron?.....no wonder IT was invited to testify with her strong Obama ties.....fair and balanced.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...probably another senior moment, but wasn't there an unwritten rule that children of a President were "off limits" as far as criticism?....yet this Harvard skank (perhaps with her wife's approval) decides to attack Trump's kid Barron?.....no wonder IT was invited to testify with her strong Obama ties.....fair and balanced.....


Payback will make this seem like a walk in the park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:


Payback will make this seem like a walk in the park

 

...LMAO....not an 'effin chance.....they will twist the need to delve into the children to expose the root cause of Trump's dirty deeds, misgivings, failed family life/child upbringing to arrive as the dastardly SOB we're dealing with today.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...LMAO....not an 'effin chance.....they will twist the need to delve into the children to expose the root cause of Trump's dirty deeds, misgivings, failed family life/child upbringing to arrive as the dastardly SOB we're dealing with today.....


No...

 

trump will win in 2020 and with a GOP house will rain a total ***** storm on the Dems in revenge

Edited by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...probably another senior moment, but wasn't there an unwritten rule that children of a President were "off limits" as far as criticism?....yet this Harvard skank (perhaps with her wife's approval) decides to attack Trump's kid Barron?.....no wonder IT was invited to testify with her strong Obama ties.....fair and balanced.....

 

No, not what happened.  Again: she attacked Trump for naming him "Barron" and violating the Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility, which is not only not "attacking Trump's kid," but is infinitely stupider than that.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dubs said:


that’s not true. At best it’s unclear.  There is precedent for impeachment of district judges for conduct before he was in office. 
 

If Dems thought they had him on that, we’d have seen this charade last year. Point is they don’t, and Tibs still can’t point to a single “crime” committed by this president. No one can. 
 

 

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

So... personally hearing things third-hand is no longer the correct legal standard for 'personal knowledge'?

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

From what little I have seen of this, it doesn't appear these idiots have much courtroom/appellate experience.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 

 

Wow, quite literally none of this is true.

 

Amazing.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Albwan said:

EK9QTKFX0AEkRW4.thumb.jpg.bbadd9e67cd5a1772b1bf5f903a6ffc2.jpg

 

No matter how miserable and messed up it might be at home, today I'm so thankful

for what I have and thankful I don't have to come home to or interact with this woman.


This kook was thought to be a possible replacement for Scalia by some!? :blink:  She did not make the short list, but for someone, anyone, to think she was an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court ... Oy. And here's an article from 2009 with the hopin' and wishin' for her to replace Souter.

Makes me wonder if she'd have been on Hillary's list?

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 


haha. None of this is true. None. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, not what happened.  Again: she attacked Trump for naming him "Barron" and violating the Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility, which is not only not "attacking Trump's kid," but is infinitely stupider than that.

That’s not the way the game is played by either side. Any mention of any child in any capacity automatically triggers the “Children are off limits” clause.  Righteous indignation follows.  In the testimony provided today by Phyllis from The Office, she’s part of the resistance and invoking the boy’s name in the impeachment hearing was scripted, intentional, and designed to intimidate him and send a clear message to DJT—no one is off limits. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

You know who the real winners are in all this?  Her law students, who probably had a couple classes canceled so she could attend this.

Probably near exam time. She’s gonna be all worked up grading now.

Edited by Kevbeau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...