B-Man Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Someone asked for it earlier..............turn the sound up ? . 3 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2021 March 31: By this date, the Census Bureau will send redistricting counts to states. This information is used to redraw legislative districts based on population changes. https://2020census.gov/en/important-dates.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, ALF said: 2021 March 31: By this date, the Census Bureau will send redistricting counts to states. This information is used to redraw legislative districts based on population changes. https://2020census.gov/en/important-dates.html Some states have had states courts redraw the districts, like PA, where Dems saw big gains in fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 54 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Sadly, you may be right here Biden fighting corruption, no problem. The ramblings of a broken man. Sorry that you lost your paycheck for posting inane gibberish here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Impeachment articles............ CONRAD BLACK: This Tawdry Impeachment Spectacle Must Run Its Course. The Cult Of Pelosi Is A Deadly Thing For Democrats’ Future. HEH: Elise Stefanik, who antagonized Schiff in impeachment hearings, named Trump NY campaign chair. Rand Paul Goes to War: If 4 GOP Senators Vote for New Witnesses, He’ll Demand Subpoena for Hunter Biden. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, B-Man said: Someone asked for it earlier..............turn the sound up ? ... @Buffalo_Gal ? ETA: watch Jerry Lewis Nads... that waddle is too funny. Edited January 17, 2020 by Foxx 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 On 1/15/2020 at 11:34 AM, John Adams said: I'm not asking whether you think this is impeachable, but which of these statements do you think is false: 1) Trump withheld aid to influence Zelensky to investigate at least one of the Bidens. 2) Trump withheld a personal meeting until Zelensky announced that he would investigate at least one of the Bidens. On 1/15/2020 at 12:13 PM, Foxx said: both are patently false. there was a deadline for the aid to be released. it was released before said deadline and anything said and/or done in the interim is a non-starter. the President is the last arbiter of our justice system. if he thought there was potential criminal actions with regard to past actions on behalf of certain people, it is well within his purview to investigate it. period. https://twitter.com/Nigel22222/status/1218040929195634688 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) Republicans swore an oath to be impartial. What a joke. The bible was used. Why? Obviously these people are there to aid in the cover up, nothing more Edited January 17, 2020 by Tiberius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 12 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Republicans swore an oath to be impartial. What a joke. The bible was used. Why? Obviously these people are there to aid in the cover up, nothing more right. and the Democrats are impartial. this is a political exercise, not a judicial one. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Sadly, you may be right here Biden fighting corruption, no problem. Right, because getting rid of a guy who is investigating corruption is a good step toward that end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Bannon nails my thoughts perfectly here. put it all out there, every single thing. end this ***** charade once and for all. https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1218146332134633473 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: Biden fighting corruption, no problem. Fine. Let him and Hunter testify. If they have nothing to hide, there should be nothing wrong with calling them as witnesses. Edited January 17, 2020 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Ken Starr, Dershowitz join Trump’s impeachment defense team By Adam Shaw, John Roberts | Fox News Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation into then-President Bill Clinton, and attorney Alan Dershowitz will join President Trump’s impeachment defense team, Fox News has learned. The prominent lawyers were among several attorneys added to the team as the president's impeachment trial gets underway, with proceedings kicking off a day earlier and moving into full swing next Tuesday. The team will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, former federal prosecutor Robert Ray and Jane Raskin -- who was part of the president's legal team during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Both Starr and Dershowitz are former Fox News contributors. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-starr-dershowitz-join-trumps-impeachment-defense-team 2 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: Ken Starr, Dershowitz join Trump’s impeachment defense team By Adam Shaw, John Roberts | Fox News Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation into then-President Bill Clinton, and attorney Alan Dershowitz will join President Trump’s impeachment defense team, Fox News has learned. The prominent lawyers were among several attorneys added to the team as the president's impeachment trial gets underway, with proceedings kicking off a day earlier and moving into full swing next Tuesday. The team will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, former federal prosecutor Robert Ray and Jane Raskin -- who was part of the president's legal team during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Both Starr and Dershowitz are former Fox News contributors. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-starr-dershowitz-join-trumps-impeachment-defense-team Just shut it down now... Starr and Dershowitiz NEVER lose a case! edit to add this quote form the article ? The inclusion of Starr drew an immediate reaction from Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton eventually led to his impeachment before he was acquitted in a Senate trial. "This is definitely an 'are you f----ng kidding me?' kinda day," she tweeted. Edited January 17, 2020 by Cinga 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Impeachment Is ‘Pornography For The Trump-Deranged.’ . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 i agree. political or judicial in nature, a fact witness should not be leading, nor have any position within the prosecution. https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1218211049373151244 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1218210780744540160 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 On 1/15/2020 at 12:04 PM, Kemp said: 1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story? 2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? Rudy has already said he has operated solely as a personal representative for Trump, pro bono, which by the way is illegal because it's a donation violation. I wonder who is paying Rudy for all his trips and expenses. We know he isn't. 2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? 3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify? I await your well thought out answers, but am aware that I'm more likely to get responses that evade the questions and instead bring in the usual side-steps. But why should you act differently when your lapdogs will cheer whatever you write? Sorry, I'm a couple days late on this response. I will give your questions a go. Then I've got a couple for you. 1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story? Yes and no. He should have testified at the "investigation" level, in the House Committees. However, and probably because he's got serious credibility issues, Neither Schiff nor Nadler chose to have him testify. Parnas did give materials to the House, so it isn't like he was a stranger to them. Now, AFTER the Articles of Impeachment were deliberated and voted upon you want to hear from Parnas and you think he's important to the prosecution of the trial against the President. You do realize that Parnas cane forward before the House Managers walked the Articles to the Senate. They could have taken his testimony during Pelosi's delay. I think they really don't want to hear from Parnas. 2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? It seems as though he may have been. However, who cares? The Aid was released to Ukraine. There was no abuse of power vis a vis the aid to Ukraine. There's no requirement that the President host anyone at the White House. There's nothing preventing any President from wanting to root out an appearance of impropriety of a former V.P. who now is seeking to become President. Don't you want to know if Joe Biden is a crook? 2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses. There's no case and no proof. 3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify? (A) "prove your innocence"? There are a lot of countries in our world that require Defendants to prove their innocence. Thank God we don't live in one of those countries. (B) nobody has proved any guilt. (C) don't forget that this is a political process, not a judicial proceeding. Questions for you: (A) Why do you presume that Parnas is more credible than Trump? You responding "Trump lies all the time" won't cut it as an answer. (B) Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? You don't find it odd that the whistleblower won't come forward? (C) Do you want to hear from Schiff's staff -- or Schiff for that matter? It is pretty clear that there was a bit of coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff. (D) Do you discount the several times that Zelensky said that he wasn't pressured by Trump? (E) Impeachment is a purely political exercise. It seems that a great number of Politicians are staking their political futures on successfully being the ones to "bring down" the President for using hos power for political gain. Their official actions are blatantly undertaken for "political gain". There's no "high crime" here. There's no "misdemeanor" here. Why isn't this hypocritical bahavior on the part of Congressional Democrats? (F) Because of the flimsy nature of the two charges levied against the President, don't you find it uncomfortable that Congress is trying to disenfranchise the voters that put this President in office -- in an election year? Why not wait and see what the voters have to say? (G) Why do you only appear in PPP when you think someone's finally "got" the President? (H) Why did you call anyone who's questioning the House Democrats "stupid" or "evil" of both? WTF is wrong with you? (I) Why are you so sure of yourself? Shouldn't you be more skeptical since you've bitten on all the other "gotcha bait" in the past and nothing has come of any of them? 5 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts