Kemp Posted September 30, 2023 Share Posted September 30, 2023 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s not tough for me in the least Kempy. The world keeps turning, but thank you for your concern. As for the impeachment inquiry, settle in and sit tight. There’s plenty of time for dialogue, testimony and evidence. Worst case scenario is it’s all a big misunderstanding. They've been investigating. They said they already had the proof. When given their opening night, even the folks like Steve Bannon said Comer had nothing. Why not just admit this is all just a smear campaign to make Donnie feel good? Yeah, I know you can't admit that without losing your cult cred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 30, 2023 Share Posted September 30, 2023 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Why not just admit this is all just a smear campaign to make Donnie feel good? Smear campaign to help Donnie in the primary and general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted September 30, 2023 Share Posted September 30, 2023 On 9/29/2023 at 11:14 AM, Tommy Callahan said: lol, a ***** bird provided a great example for my comment above it. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/event/meeting-on-documents-protected-under-internal-revenue-code-section-6103-2/ Bump for the msm parrots still talking about a lack of receipts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 30, 2023 Share Posted September 30, 2023 4 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Bump for the msm parrots still talking about a lack of receipts. Sorry Mi no comprende Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 10 hours ago, Doc said: Why would they need to do it now? What they're already doing is obviously working. And again, if he doesn't run... What they’re doing is obviously working No, it’s not Because eventually they’re gonna have to ***** or get off the pot. Eventually, the American people are going to see that all they’re doing is running sham investigations with no actual proof, and then watch those polls turn as Trump starts to go through his court dates. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 https://apnews.com/article/government-shutdown-mccarthy-congress-republicans-732baaa19c91f981e492fd0e6a76aba8 Blink. Perhaps Gym Jordan and his acolytes are losing some control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 55 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: What they’re doing is obviously working No, it’s not Because eventually they’re gonna have to ***** or get off the pot. Eventually, the American people are going to see that all they’re doing is running sham investigations with no actual proof, and then watch those polls turn as Trump starts to go through his court dates. No. Just keep investigating until election time...or until Joke says he's not running again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 50 minutes ago, Doc said: No. Just keep investigating until election time...or until Joke says he's not running again. You know that’s not going to play well right you can’t sit there and keep on running Cham investigations with absolutely no evidence. People are smart enough to figure that out. And I’m not talking about the Magus. Those people will never figure anything out. I’m just talking about your middle of the line people. Meanwhile, the indictments to Trump are very real criminal investigations with real proof The best thing that could’ve happened for Joe Biden was Donald Trump running again because one of these younger candidates might’ve beat him out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 5 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I guess you're not very curious in the classic sense. In the psych sense, indeed you are. I had to go all the way to page 4 in Turley's written testimony to find this. I listened to it so had to confirm it. took all of 5 minutes. Seems pretty succinct and self evident unlike your ramblings... If you got all the way to page 4, how did you completely f*** up page 2 (and pages 1, 3, and 5-36)?? This is what Turley said: I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. This what you stated he meant: I think he meant that these impeachment proceedings are not constitutionally bona fide. I agree in the case of the current one. Take the L here, Champ. There’s no shame in relying on what someone else told you someone else said, but it’s pretty shameful to dig in and lob insults at someone just trying to rightsize your thought process. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 12 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: You know that’s not going to play well right you can’t sit there and keep on running Cham investigations with absolutely no evidence. People are smart enough to figure that out. And I’m not talking about the Magus. Those people will never figure anything out. I’m just talking about your middle of the line people. Meanwhile, the indictments to Trump are very real criminal investigations with real proof The best thing that could’ve happened for Joe Biden was Donald Trump running again because one of these younger candidates might’ve beat him out It's not a sham investigation. Again there's enough there to at least impeach him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If you got all the way to page 4, how did you completely f*** up page 2 (and pages 1, 3, and 5-36)?? This is what Turley said: I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. This what you stated he meant: I think he meant that these impeachment proceedings are not constitutionally bona fide. I agree in the case of the current one. Take the L here, Champ. There’s no shame in relying on what someone else told you someone else said, but it’s pretty shameful to dig in and lob insults at someone just trying to rightsize your thought process. He did say that....and it no way refutes my summation. It actually compounds it. You deceptively ignored the section of his statement that I highlighted which I will do again since you're being obstinate and vague. You've taken the L every time we've sparred. This is a knockout. But go ahead. Try to deceive the chorus... " I have previously expressed concern over the recent departures from the historical practices used in impeachment inquiries. Regardless of the outcome of this inquiry, I am hopeful that the House can restore important procedural and due process protections to these inquiries." 14 th Amendment Procedural Due Process “Procedural due process” concerns the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The key questions are: What procedures satisfy due process? And what constitutes “life, liberty, or property”? Historically, due process ordinarily entailed a jury trial. The jury determined the facts and the judge enforced the law. In past two centuries, however, states have developed a variety of institutions and procedures for adjudicating disputes. Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950). With regard to the meaning of “life, liberty, and property,” perhaps the most notable development is the Court’s expansion of the notion of property beyond real or personal property. In the 1970 case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the Court found that some governmental benefits—in that case, welfare benefits—amount to “property” with due process protections. Courts evaluate the procedure for depriving someone of a “new property” right by considering: (1) the nature of the property right; (2) the adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures; and (3) the burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Aren't you a country esquire? Edited October 1, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 5 hours ago, Kemp said: They've been investigating. They said they already had the proof. When given their opening night, even the folks like Steve Bannon said Comer had nothing. Why not just admit this is all just a smear campaign to make Donnie feel good? Yeah, I know you can't admit that without losing your cult cred. We’ve addressed this Kemp, please try and keep up. You slow yourself down muttering about cults, and to be completely honest, it’s more than a tad creepy. The impeachment inquiry will continue, as it should, until it’s resolved. With luck, if Impeachment is warranted, he’s impeached. If not, well, then not. I think your commitment to Biden, and willingness to explain away serious allegations and return to business as usual reveals an unhealthy devotion to Man v country, but let’s assume it’s a smear campaign against your guy. So? That’s American politics, baby, so sit back and enjoy the ride. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 that's a big L, country esquire https://www.transitchicago.com/howto/riding-the-train/ What say ye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Doc said: It's not a sham investigation. Again there's enough there to at least impeach him. No, there’s not because you don’t have the votes you don’t have the votes. This isn’t a situation whenever the Democrats control the house whenever they have the overwhelming majority. did you even bother to watch the Fox News coverage and listen to their anchor say that it was a waste of time or listen to their front line witnesses? They were all saying there wasn’t enough evidence present in order to be able to impeach him it’s a sham investigation they don’t have the evidence For Christ sake, they got caught fabricating evidence Edited October 1, 2023 by John from Riverside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 12 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: He did say that....and it no way refutes my summation. It actually compounds it. You deceptively ignored the section of his statement that I highlighted which I will do again since you're being obstinate and vague. You've taken the L every time we've sparred. This is a knockout. But go ahead. Try to deceive the chorus... " I have previously expressed concern over the recent departures from the historical practices used in impeachment inquiries. Regardless of the outcome of this inquiry, I am hopeful that the House can restore important procedural and due process protections to these inquiries." 14 th Amendment Procedural Due Process “Procedural due process” concerns the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The key questions are: What procedures satisfy due process? And what constitutes “life, liberty, or property”? Historically, due process ordinarily entailed a jury trial. The jury determined the facts and the judge enforced the law. In past two centuries, however, states have developed a variety of institutions and procedures for adjudicating disputes. Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950). With regard to the meaning of “life, liberty, and property,” perhaps the most notable development is the Court’s expansion of the notion of property beyond real or personal property. In the 1970 case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the Court found that some governmental benefits—in that case, welfare benefits—amount to “property” with due process protections. Courts evaluate the procedure for depriving someone of a “new property” right by considering: (1) the nature of the property right; (2) the adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures; and (3) the burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Your summation is garbage. It’s not Opposite Day, Squidward, there’s not a treasure map written in disappearing ink on the back of the constitution, and the DaVinci Code was fiction. He said what he said, you should read it, again, before looking foolish (again). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Your summation is garbage. It’s not Opposite Day, Squidward, there’s not a treasure map written in disappearing ink on the back of the constitution, and the DaVinci Code was fiction. He said what he said, you should read it, again, before looking foolish (again). so how do you interpret what I reproduced from his testimony? How would you summarize it (in 100 words or less)? In what ways does it not support my summation, counselor? LOTS of bluster, dude. Little substance....confident Professor Turley would be unimpressed by you. Edited October 1, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 7 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: so how do you interpret what I reproduced from his testimony? How would you summarize it (in 100 words or less)? In what ways does it not support my summation, counselor? LOTS of bluster, dude. Little substance....confident Professor Turley would be unimpressed by you. Read. His. Words. Not. Yours. (Dude). 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Read. His. Words. Not. Yours. (Dude). I read them and interpreted them. Your turn, Counselor. I don't have at hand one of those corny, silly, disparaging labels. That's your game, not mine. But as I said, the words meaning are self evident and clearly hearken to the 14th and the 5th (Umm he's a constitutional lawyer testifying on the constitutionality of the proceedings - u think he might be referencing the constitution?). Only a dummy😁 or liar could not recognize that. Edited October 1, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 20 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: No, there’s not because you don’t have the votes you don’t have the votes. This isn’t a situation whenever the Democrats control the house whenever they have the overwhelming majority. did you even bother to watch the Fox News coverage and listen to their anchor say that it was a waste of time or listen to their front line witnesses? They were all saying there wasn’t enough evidence present in order to be able to impeach him it’s a sham investigation they don’t have the evidence For Christ sake, they got caught fabricating evidence Again John, they have more than enough to impeach Joke based on the sham of an impeachment over the phone call (you want to talk about no evidence). And they have the votes. They just don't need to impeach him anytime soon and will just keep investigating until we hear about whether Joke truly plans to run again. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2023 Share Posted October 1, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Doc said: Again John, they have more than enough to impeach Joke based on the sham of an impeachment over the phone call (you want to talk about no evidence). And they have the votes. They just don't need to impeach him anytime soon and will just keep investigating until we hear about whether Joke truly plans to run again. if what you say is true which it isn’t then they should count for the vote why are they not calling for the vote? They’re not calling for the vote because they don’t have the evidence they have been reduced to fabricating evidence, which really should be looked into whenever this is all, said and done taking some thing and trying to make it look like a text message whenever it wasn’t and taking it out of context is complete manipulation which they got caught Edited October 1, 2023 by John from Riverside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts