3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Only if you're triggered. Thanks transplant for the link. Went right over your head, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 It looks like what it is, a political show trial by a bunch of frustrated, angry apparatchiks who don’t have much of anything solid to work with. And, seen on Facebook: “It’s like Watergate, but with morons.” Turley: Under Democrats’ ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard, Obama Could Have Been Impeached. REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL) JUST BROUGHT A BLOW TORCH TO THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND SET A GLORIOUS BONFIRE: “‘To all of the witnesses: if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand.’ *silence*” Related: Nothing’s more convincing than liberal professors yelling at you. . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said: Seems there's nothing to get ahead of... So no sources mentioned and they conveniently fail to mention that Misfud may be affiliated with British or Italian intelligence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Joe Biden says he won’t appear voluntarily if called as a witness in Senate impeachment trial . 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Totally ‘objective and fair’ impeachment witness Pamela Karlan had to cross the street to avoid a Trump hotel [video] . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) 17 hours 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. The executive conducting foreign policy in ways that comply with our existing treaties is now impeachable. Reap the whirlwind, stupid. Edited December 5, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 . 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 . 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 This is a quick read from Dershowitz explaining the criteria for impeachment. It's as concise a summary as I've seen. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473035-what-are-not-criteria-for-impeachment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 13 hours ago, Doc said: I was going to post the other day, when I heard that Jonathan Turley was going to appear, that he's an excellent and balanced law prof and that they made a mistake inviting him. i for one would have liked it had he been allowed to speak more. watching his body language yesterday, while others spoke was amusing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Nancy is set to babble in a few minutes: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Turley confessed, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” This was the Republican witness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Turley confessed, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” This was the Republican witness Stabbing someone in the heart to kill them, if proven, can be a prosecutable offense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Turley acknowledged, “[Trump’s] call was anything but ‘perfect’ and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Turley acknowledged, “[Trump’s] call was anything but ‘perfect’ and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.” So Sondland told two friends, and they told two friends, and they told two friends …… Edited December 5, 2019 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Turley acknowledged, “[Trump’s] call was anything but ‘perfect’ and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.” But not impeachable. I have to be right, my print is larger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gary M said: So Sondland told two friends, and they told two friends, and they told two friends …… And he told the impeachment inquiry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Looks like Nancy is going full steam ahead with impeachment... "Today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment." Thelma and Louise ain't got nuthin' on today's Democrats. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Looks like Nancy is going full steam ahead with impeachment... "Today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment." Thelma and Louise ain't got nuthin' on today's Democrats. Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: But not impeachable. I have to be right, my print is larger. Morning third, hope all is well with you Turley also confessed, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Chairman Mr. Magoo is going ahead with impeachment. Who said the circus is dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting? Probably, but they've never cared about long-term consequences, especially when they can just pretend to be victims when their own tactics and precedents are used against them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Koko78 said: Probably, but they've never cared about long-term consequences, especially when they can just pretend to be victims when their own tactics and precedents are used against them. Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting? they don't care about anything or anyone but themselves and their feelings at the moment then again, 90% of us wouldn't be here if liberals thought a few seconds about the consequences of their actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting? Doubtful. But if they are aware of the concept of "turnabout is fair play" they no doubt have a plan concocted to have the Republican Party outlawed as a hate group if not before 2020 then very likely by 2024. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting? I think they consulted with Harry Reid on this decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Morning third, hope all is well with you Turley also confessed, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” He confessed? If proven? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, RochesterRob said: Doubtful. But if they are aware of the concept of "turnabout is fair play" they no doubt have a plan concocted to have the Republican Party outlawed as a hate group if not before 2020 then very likely by 2024. they are animals only concerned about the immediate situation, but don't worry.... huge animals that will snap their spine are patiently waiting one step into the woods.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble Even you don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, RochesterRob said: Even you don't believe that. why do you bother with that waste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, row_33 said: why do you bother with that waste Just letting his handlers know that I don't buy their nonsense. His puppet strings are no doubt being pulled by some leftist organization. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: He confessed? If proven? You're an idiot. It has been proven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, RochesterRob said: Just letting his handlers know that I don't buy their nonsense. His puppet strings are no doubt being pulled by some leftist organization. it has to be a joke, nobody could be that much of an incorrigible knucklehead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately! Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Presidential Misconduct: Some Historical Perspective by David Harsanyi Original Article This week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trotted out a trio of dispassionate legal experts to explain why the impeachment of Donald Trump was justified. They were there to bring a veneer of gravitas and erudition to what’s been, until now, a highly partisan affair. But however smart people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be, they aren’t immune from peddling partisan absurdities. Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately! Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. this times infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Evidence-Starved Democrats, Like Oliver Twist, Know They Need 'More Issues & Insights, by The Editorial Board Original Article The Washington Post editorial Wednesday on the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report gave the game away. “The Democratic report lacks direct testimony of Mr. Trump confirming the quid pro quo … It also acknowledges ‘unanswered questions’” – and “the speedy referral” of the impeachment inquiry from the intelligence panel to the House Judiciary Committee “smacks of political expediency.” Intel panel chairman Adam Schiff was urged to do some more digging so the committee can “provide a fuller and, to many Americans, more persuasive picture of his guilt,” the Post’s editorial board said under the title, “There’s more to learn” – perhaps the Freudian slip of the year. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, dubs said: this times infinity Of course the just as important alternative would be to have some whack a doodle professor fly in from San Francisco and comment on the name of the President’s son. Yes, that would be just as appropriate. Not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: What Did We Learn From the Impeachment Hearing? “Rounding up a few academics to complain about any Republican isn’t exactly a daunting task. That’s like wandering around Hyannis Port in the summertime and bumping into a drunk Kennedy.” Democrat Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses: Witnesses were chosen by Democratic committee leadership. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, B-Man said: KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: What Did We Learn From the Impeachment Hearing? “Rounding up a few academics to complain about any Republican isn’t exactly a daunting task. That’s like wandering around Hyannis Port in the summertime and bumping into a drunk Kennedy.” Democrat Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses: Witnesses were chosen by Democratic committee leadership. Absence of black impeachment witnesses? WTF? Witnesses should be limited to those who have first hand factual relevant evidence of which there is none. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts