House Republicans storm secret impeachment hearing; Schiff reportedly gets up and leaves with the witness

  
Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  4 weeks ago  •  541 comments

House Republicans storm secret impeachment hearing; Schiff reportedly gets up and leaves with the witness
“Let us in!!”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Decrying a lack of transparency in House Democrats’ impeachment process against President Donald Trump, House Republicans gathered in the basement of the Capitol Wednesday morning to demand entry into proceedings they’ve been barred from thus far. And they reportedly got in.

At a press conference outside the SCIF, dozens of Republican representatives announced that they would seek to gain entry to the secure room — in which the Democrats of the three committees behind the current impeachment push were conducting a deposition — by demanding to be let in as a group.
SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. It’s a secure room where classified intelligence and other secret information is discussed. Congress’ SCIF is where much of House Democrats’ investigation has so far taken place and where Republicans not on the investigating committees have not been allowed to enter.

“If behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election, we want to know what’s going on,” Rep. Matt Gaetz said while pointing to the SCIF entrance.

“And it’s only reasonable that we would have questions,” Gaetz added, noting that the impeachment probe has thus far “been marked by secret interviews, selective leaks, weird theatrical performances of transcripts that never happened, and lies about contacts with a whistleblower.” Gaetz’s last two examples were a specific reference to Schiff’s conduct in recent weeks, for which he recently dodged a censure effort brought by House Republicans.

“You should be outraged if  you’re an American at what’s happening here,” said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “You should be allowed to confront your accusers; this is being held behind closed doors for a reason — because they don’t want you to see what the witnesses are like.”

“This is a Soviet-style impeachment process,” Biggs added. “I don’t care whether you are the president of the United States or any other citizens of this country: You should be allowed to confront your witnesses.”
According to a senior GOP source who witnessed what happened next, the group went into the anteroom of the SCIF and chanted, “Let us in” outside the door guarded by Capitol Police. After that, the source says, the door opened, someone grabbed it, and a group of Republican members forced their way in.

After members attempted to sit in on the closed-door testimony that was occurring, “Chairman Schiff immediately left with the witness,” Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., told reporters while flanked by a handful of other House Republicans.

The secrecy of the three committees’ investigation has drawn an immense amount of criticism from GOP lawmakers since last week, when members were first turned away from impeachment proceedings. Schiff has defended the clandestine process by comparing it to a grand jury.


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 weeks ago

Unfreakingbelievable.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago
Unfreakingbelievable.  

from the seed..."House Republicans gathered in the basement..."  only to rise en masse like a dank stench from the depths in an effort to subvert the Constitutional process. If so sure the subject of the inquiry were as innocent as they claim, they should welcome the process to exonerate him. Ghouls...fear the walking dead.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    4 weeks ago

It makes me think some of them are pissed that they can't run to trump and tell him what is happening. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
It makes me think some of them are pissed that they can't run to trump and tell him what is happening. 

Oh but they could. Many of the GOP Congressmen that are members of the 3 Committees of jurisdiction are participating in the depositions. So Nunes, Ratcliff and others could run to Trump but if they did they could get nailed by the Ethics Committee. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.3  CB   replied to  Ender @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Oh for sure. Jim Jordan, is in stiff competition with that guy (standing centerframe in the pic behind him) for who can beat feet or phone it all in to Trump who is waiting with bated breath to abuse the public with countervailing and specious statements. I blame it on the votes in states that elected these folks and support this kind of sabotage of truth and decency in standard practices.

Just yesterday, Trump told congressional donalders to get with the program and defend him. . . and at sunrise today. . . oops, there it is!  A boatload of donalders standing down in the basement of the Capitol working to create a spectacle. On the otherhand, this speaks volumes about,  Republicans ON the investigating committees. . . . It implies there is some honor remaining among thieves!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.4  CB   replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Nunes! Ugh! I forgot all about that 'for real' jerk. Despite the Ethics Committee authority, Nunes is scheming - if not acting against proper order - already. I can't prove it - but, I know it is true. Fear of Chairman Schiff can only stop a lighting rod from catching a 'bolt' for so long! We are talking about donalder #1 here!!!

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
Oh but they could. Many of the GOP Congressmen that are members of the 3 Committees of jurisdiction are participating in the depositions. So Nunes, Ratcliff and others could run to Trump but if they did they could get nailed by the Ethics Committee. 

House Intelligence Committee has 9 republican members. Foreign Affairs committee has 21 republican members. The Oversite Committee as 18 Republican members. 

There is no shortage of republican members taking part in the hearings. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Kavika @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

Oversight is in there too, so add 16 more. 

So that's up to 46 Republicans slithering in and out of the depositions without saying a word. 

It must be REALLY bad...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Ethics Committee jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    4 weeks ago
Republicans slithering in and out of the depositions without saying a word. 

Probably the best use of the word, "slithering", I have ever seen. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.9  Kathleen  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    4 weeks ago

Out of curiosity, was this process for Trump the same as it was for Clinton when he was impeached? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.1.9    4 weeks ago

Clinton was investigated from Jan. 1994 - Sept. 1998. The 'summary' of Ken Starr's report was 453 pages. Starr also submitted a referral for Impeachment to the Judiciary Committee. The House voted a month later to START an Impeachment Inquiry that lasted less than a month. 

So NO, they are nothing alike. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.11  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

Something just doesn’t sound right to me about all this.  I am not satisfied with how this is all going about.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @1.1.11    4 weeks ago

Neither am I. I think that Congressional subpoenas should be honored. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.13  Dulay  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.8    4 weeks ago

Aw shucks Frost, thanks.  

 
 
 
Ender
1.2  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

Hilarious that he has the nerve to bring up "soviet style".

They are just pissed because they can't run to trump to tell him what is going on.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @1.2    4 weeks ago
Hilarious that he has the nerve to bring up "soviet style".

It's ironic and maddening

 
 
 
JBB
1.3  JBB  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

Shouldn't we probably be considering the conservative source and the conservative author and the almost exclusively conservative viewpoints provided by this one peculiar very slanted article? And, don't you think it might be prudent to consider all of that and ask a few questions? 

There are gop committee members authorized to be participating in these hearings. But, it seems that for the most part they have boycotted most of the proceedings, so far. This all sounds like a stunt staged by the goppers to distract from the very damning bits of information we are getting drip by drip in leaks. The word is that it is all really really really BAD...for Trump. I suppose we are all going to get the rest of the story pretty quickly now. The last few Democrats who were holdouts on impeachment are firebreathing pro-impeachment advocates now after hearing what they have about Trump & Co's illegal activities this time. Vegas odds are going up hourly now that Trump IS Toast...

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.3    4 weeks ago

giphy.webp?cid=790b76115ffb75d6707bbc32b

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.2  Dulay  replied to  JBB @1.3    4 weeks ago
 But, it seems that for the most part they have boycotted most of the proceedings, so far. 

I don't think they are, but they ARE laying low. None of them are hitting the mics at the end of the day. I think it's to gaslight Trump sycophants into believing that they're being blocked.

The irony is, if the transcripts are released, it will prove just how much they did participate, the questions they asked and the statements they made. I read somewhere that Nunes was obsessing over the Steele Dossier during the Sondland deposition. 

 
 
 
CB
1.3.3  CB   replied to  JBB @1.3    4 weeks ago

Couldn't happen to a stupider jerk. Trump tries to play 'hardball' and break good people.Without a care to the outcome of the Kurds, who supported us, this dumbass president heard their plight and looked at the spot they were in—and still threw them out into the proverbial street all because he needed the political 'clout' he imagined he could collect from pretending to end the conflict in Syria. What a loser. He does not even realize it yet - that our spoken convention: "These colors don't run ." Just got a quick kick in its butt! 

th?id=OIP.TASlx_VqRvLW6XpjztHXJgHaF2&w=2       These colors just th?id=OIP.hquvjUS2yvPzuufRPOTyhgAAAA&w=1 'booked'!

Of course, people are going to get fed up and push back. Donlad can't (and he won't be allowed to) punk us all!

 
 
 
WallyW
1.3.4  WallyW  replied to  JBB @1.3    4 weeks ago

Trump IS Toast...

Keep the baby, faith, keep believin' that shit jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.5  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @1.3.4    4 weeks ago
Trump IS Toast...

512

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.3.6  NV-Robin6  replied to  CB @1.3.3    4 weeks ago

I've  got to tell you, even though we are not on the same planet when it comes to realism, you are a good guy to whom I respect about recognition about what is really recognizing what is going on in today's world.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.7  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.5    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
JBB
1.3.8  JBB  replied to  WallyW @1.3.4    4 weeks ago

It has gotten way way way worse for Trump these last few days which is why the damn gop in Congress has been reduced to staging such ridiculous stunts. Of course the testimony has been secret, so far. We have gotten generalized reports though and it ain't good...For TRUMP! Many persons very close to The President of the United States of America are now coming forward in droves to give more and more damning testimony agaisnt The President of the United States putting themselves and their families into imminent danger from The President of the United States if The President of the United States is to be taken at his murderous word. Trump has been threatening the witnesses which is criminal abuse of power and impeachable in and of itself alone...

TRUMP IS TOAST!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.9  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.7    4 weeks ago

MSNBC Election Night State Calls 2016

I think most people are aware of the results of the 2016 election. Not sure why you think this is relevant. But since you went down that road, how about posting those midterm results? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.3.10  cobaltblue  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.9    4 weeks ago
But since you went down that road, how about posting those midterm results? 

I like how Trump handed us Congress. He's the worst thing to have happened to the republican party. He can't even keep his mouth shut in order to stop giving those of us who believe in the Constitution ammunition. How many times has he shot himself in his spurred foot? His supporters should write him and tell him to learn some self control. That's the best thing he could do at this point for his constituency. 

 
 
 
CB
1.3.11  CB   replied to  NV-Robin6 @1.3.6    4 weeks ago

Thank you. Thursday was a 'hell of a day' for me as I was off and on my system. I just saw this one around 11 PM Pacific Time. 'Preciate you!

FYI, I have been warned that I might be off-line as needed to diminish chance of wildfires starting Friday leading into the weekend. This is serious. All the same, I will respond accordingly what occurs.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.12  MrFrost  replied to  cobaltblue @1.3.10    4 weeks ago
He's the worst thing to have happened to the republican party.

Truth. And one of the best things to happen to the DNC. The right keeps bleating that trump won "x" number of counties, the entire nation is behind him, etc.. But....the midterms prove otherwise. In my opinion, the nutters are way too over confident coming into 2020. IF trump is allowed to run in 2020, I doubt it will be an easy win for trump as his supporters keep telling us. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.13  MrFrost  replied to  CB @1.3.11    4 weeks ago

FYI, I have been warned that I might be off-line as needed to diminish chance of wildfires starting Friday leading into the weekend. This is serious. All the same, I will respond accordingly what occurs.

Just stay safe CB. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.14  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.12    4 weeks ago
But....the midterms prove otherwise.

Midterms are not necessarily indicative of anything historically.  Also, the Democrats did take a lot of House seats and lost a few Senate seats.  Those house seats however, were mostly of Republicans that retired and as often happens when the 'incumbent' retires, the people quite often give the opposition a chance.  Why is anyones guess, but maybe they just want a change.  Those Democrat senate seats on the other hand were hard losses of incumbents losing to newbies.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.3.15  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.7    4 weeks ago

You just proved you are a republican.  Living in the past

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.3.16  NV-Robin6  replied to  CB @1.3.11    4 weeks ago

I'm sickened for my California neighbors! I'm from Northern Cali. Or at least familial wise, was born there, but raised in WA State since early childhood. It blows me away to see this. Damn you for not sweeping the forest floors! Jk.🤪

Wishing you all the best! Be safe. Get back to us when you can.  We will be here looking for you. :-)

I'm  Realtor in Western WA.  Much migration north now. Every single sale is highly competitive.  Many migrating out of AZ as well.

 
 
 
CB
1.3.17  CB   replied to  MrFrost @1.3.13    4 weeks ago

Thanks Mr. Frost! I have had a "series" of notifications, but no line outages yet. I hate to talk about it (don't want to jinx it). I do offer up prayers for those people who are actually dealing with these fires! So many troubles!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @1.3.11    4 weeks ago

I live in so cal (SFV) and while some of the fires are close to me, they aren't close enough for me to worry for now.  I am hoping that you and your friends  remain safe

 
 
 
CB
1.3.19  CB   replied to  NV-Robin6 @1.3.16    4 weeks ago

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! So far a lot more nervous looking out than power outages or fires for me! Sorry, it is taking me a bit to keep up with this fast-moving "article"! See what I did there at the end. LOL!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @1.3.19    4 weeks ago

It's all good my friend.

 
 
 
CB
1.3.21  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.18    4 weeks ago

I am wishing you wellness and good wishes too! So far so good! We are awaiting what is supposed to be the worst of the winds Saturday night into Sunday. Hopefully, we won't be knocked off the grid, in which case, all of this would have been an observation exercise for me. We are not yet participants! This qoes to the adage: Location. Location. Location.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.3.22  NV-Robin6  replied to  CB @1.3.19    4 weeks ago

Just do what what is absolutely necessary for your safety. Everything else is material. Life is not. I'm here wishing the best for y'all in the midst of this hell on earth. I can't even imagin My sister lived in Paradise. She was gone before, but wow, how devastating. To see a community she relished in gone overnight..!  Nova's Megafire coverage is pretty revealing as to the facts of how and why this happens. Thinking about you CB! 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.23  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.7    4 weeks ago

Were you sad that the candidate that you voted for lost Xx? 

 
 
 
CB
1.3.24  CB   replied to  NV-Robin6 @1.3.22    4 weeks ago

Still 'hanging in here' despite all the warnings we have been given. I don't know if/when. We still have electrical power (10:40 PST) and its loss may be the worse of it for us should it come.

Thanks for the well wishes. Really, thanks NV-Robin6 and all others! My prayers go out for all those who are going through immediate blackouts and who are being burnt out of home and hearth!

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

Yes, the Democrats are.

This is what happens with secret closed door questioning where the Democrats get to decide who to question, when, where, and all the questions that are asked.

It is unfreakingbelievable that the left that supports this shit now will scream murder when the Republicans turn the table on the next Democratic president. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.4.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago
the Republicans turn the table on the next Democratic president. 

...and if the next Democratic president behaves in the same manner in subverting the election process by goading foreign powers to besmirch a leading political adversary, it is within their responsibilities to do so. It is not a matter of turning the tables, it is a matter of protecting our Constitutional mandates. Why is this so hard?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago
This is what happens with secret closed door questioning

Ya, they're so secret that they are announced in press releases by the Intel Committee. 

where the Democrats get to decide who to question, when, where, and all the questions that are asked.

Actually, the Chairmen are calling all relevant witnesses, Trump is trying to keep some of them from appearing. 

BTFW, GOP members of the Committees can ask all the questions they want. Don't let them gaslight you. 

It is unfreakingbelievable that the left that supports this shit now will scream murder when the Republicans turn the table on the next Democratic president. 

I support the Congress following the Constitution and the House rules. Why don't you? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.4.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago
It is unfreakingbelievable that the left that supports this shit now will scream murder when the Republicans turn the table on the next Democratic president.

As a Democrat once said said, ...

Elections have consequences. And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.

He also encouraged people to punish their enemies and reward their friends.

Karma can be a b*tch.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.4  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago

Do you want the truth or not?! What is your game? Why confront us with this BS about the next democratic president being abused as if to imply that all presidents are now: TRUMP.

Well Donald Trump is a peculiar kind of ass. It is being revealed that one thing Trump is, is a man who has been in our faces since day one of coming down the escalator. He won't shut up! He won't cut us a break on the noise! He won't stop 'bludgeoning' himself with Twitter and his big fat mouth!

As the old saying goes and I paraphrase: 'It would be whole lot harder to know what a peculiar fool he is if he was quieter.'

He is not. Your insult machine has been doing his shtick 24/7 nonstop every since he took the inaugural oath!  The Oath! Which undoubtedly he has been lying on every since raising his right hand.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.5  CB   replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.3    4 weeks ago

So can payback. Trump is getting some of his just desserts. You should be offended at Trump's shadow government. What does Trump have to hide? After all he has upfront control over the lot of us - all we ask is that he follow the law! And old 'butt-russ' couldn't even do that. He had to pushing it until he got caught with a hand in the Ukraine's President 'drawers' by the long arm of the law!

You don't have a leader in Trump. You are offended at him for getting caught with his hands clutching an unsanctioned, improper, and impeachable offense! Don't hate the democrats, hate Donald. Oh by the way, he is not done with leading donalders around by the hook in their nose yet! Get out safely-if you can!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.4.6  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago
This is what happens with secret closed door questioning where the Democrats get to decide who to question, when, where, and all the questions that are asked.

There are republicans on the committee.  This was nothing but Trump's bully-boys grand-standing for the media. 

 
 
 
CB
1.4.7  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.4.6    4 weeks ago

This is just republican talking points filler from Ronin2. They come to work and they have to 'produce' for the donalders.

Secret closed door. . . .

Yeah boy. Sounds like its right out of Right-wing Talk 'Fog' Book chapter __ and verse ___ . Game-card played! And, countered!

BTW, republicans and conservatives - independents are watching your shenanigans and race to the bottoms!

 
 
 
Kavika
1.4.8  Kavika   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.4.6    4 weeks ago

The three committees involved in these proceeding has 9, 21 and 18 republican members...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.4.9  Jasper2529  replied to  CB @1.4.5    4 weeks ago
You don't have a leader in Trump. You are offended at him for getting caught with his hands clutching an unsanctioned, improper, and impeachable offense! Don't hate the democrats, hate Donald.

Hello, CB. You and I have always gotten along quite well, so I don't understand why you're yelling at me and accusing me of things that don't exist.

After all he has upfront control over the lot of us

Since my taxes pay for duly elected officials' salaries, housing, transportation, security, perks, etc., those officials don't "control" me. They are my employees.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.4.10  cobaltblue  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.9    4 weeks ago
those officials don't "control" me. They are my employees.

Omigawwwwwd!!!! Friggin' HILARIOUS!

 
 
 
WallyW
1.4.11  WallyW  replied to  CB @1.4.7    4 weeks ago
independents are watching your shenanigans and race to the bottoms!

You need to remember the independent voters are intently looking at the shameful shenanigans of the democrats....who are seemingly unable to lead 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.12  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @1.4.11    4 weeks ago

You need to remember the independent voters are intently looking at the shameful shenanigans of the democrats....who are seemingly unable to lead 

51% of independent voters support impeachment and removal. Keep dreaming. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.4.13  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @1.4.5    4 weeks ago
After all he has upfront control over the lot of us

What a bizarre statement for a citizen of a constitutional republic.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4.14  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @1.4.1    4 weeks ago

Wrong. This is a political hit job only. Presidents can now be impeached for whatever.

The Dems have been pulling this crap starting after he was declared the winner.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4.15  Ronin2  replied to  CB @1.4.4    4 weeks ago
Do you want the truth or not?!

The the Democrats version of the truth. Which is all they are willing to give.

What is your game?

My game now is to ensure no Democrat holds office anywhere at any level. For the first time ever I will vote for a straight Republican ticket. I am going to encourage my independent friends and fiscal conservatives to do the same. The lesser of two evils is better than Democrats being rewarded for this abuse of power.

Why confront us with this BS about the next democratic president being abusedas if to imply that all presidents are now:

Because the left is moronic enough to think Republicans will let this slide. Precedent has now been set. I said the same thing when the Republicans had endless investigations against Obama. Of course the Democrats had to one up them.

TRUMP.

No, Biden; and he even fucking bragged about doing it. But the left is more than willing to let it slide as he has the all important D behind his name. You still think this is about a criminal act. If it was Biden would have already been forced out of the race. This is about a political hit job only.

Well Donald Trump is a peculiar kind of ass. It is being revealed that one thing Trump is, is a man who has been in our faces since day one of coming down the escalator. He won't shut up! He won't cut us a break on the noise! He won't stop 'bludgeoning'himselfwith Twitter and his big fat mouth!

As the old saying goes and I paraphrase: 'It would be whole lot harder to know what a peculiar fool he is if he was quieter.'

He is not. Your insult machine has been doing his shtick 24/7 nonstop every since he took the inaugural oath!  The Oath! Which undoubtedly he has been lying on every since raising his right hand.

Don't like Trump; then don't vote for him. Simple as that. But you don't get to have him removed from office because he won an election; and has a very good chance of winning reelection. The Democrats must really be afraid that whoever rolls last out of their insane exploding clown car of candidates running ever further left, won't be able to win.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4.16  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @1.4.12    4 weeks ago

Then the Democrats should have no problem defeating Trump in a fair election. So why are they scared shitless?

As for polls. They were just so right last time around. Hillary in a landslide! How wrong they were.

 
 
 
JBB
1.4.17  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.16    4 weeks ago

Except that "the last time" was the 2018 midterm elections when the damn gop got exactly the monumental whooping the polls predicted...

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.18  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.16    4 weeks ago
Then the Democrats should have no problem defeating Trump in a fair election.

You mean an election where trump doesn't get help from a foreign country to win? I agree, should be pretty easy. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.19  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.16    4 weeks ago
As for polls. They were just so right last time around. Hillary in a landslide! How wrong they were.

Polls reflect the popular vote, not the electorate, (which is what elects presidents). And who won the popular vote? Hillary. Translation? The polls were spot on. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.4.20  cobaltblue  replied to  MrFrost @1.4.18    4 weeks ago
trump doesn't get help from a foreign country to win

That's what I don't understand. If the Traitor-In-Chief is so confident at his ability to win elections, why does he consistently need assistance from other countries? Isn't counting on the ignorance of his supporters enough? Doesn't he trust their stupidity? 

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.4.21  NV-Robin6  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago

Just like these guys? Here's some then and now hypocrisy for you wrong way righties. Specifically read and take note of Trey Gowdy's take on closed door hearings. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

Then and now: How Republicans downplay subpoenas when they target Trump

For years, Republicans criticized President Obama's handling of subpoenas. Now those Republicans are defending President Trump's handling of subpoenas. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
cb0d6fbb-7d0f-4e40-b590-31de99241512.png
By 
Oct. 22, 2019 at 10:36 a.m. PDT

One month into the House Democratic impeachment inquiry, President Trump’s Republican allies have defended his administration’s   refusal to cooperate   by   criticizing   the process and   downplaying   his calls for foreign investigations of a political rival.

And even as the Trump administration has   missed at least nine subpoena deadlines   for documents and depositions, his Republican allies are continuing a third defense floated at previous times during his presidency: Congressional subpoenas are   optional   if issued by Democrats. This is a   stark contrast   to how those same Republicans talked about or handled probes of the Obama and Clinton administrations.

The day before the House of Representatives   impeached   President Bill Clinton in December 1998, then-Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who became one of the 13 House impeachment managers in the Senate trial, said President Richard Nixon’s failure to comply with subpoenas subjected him to impeachment “because he took the power from Congress.”

“The day that William Jefferson Clinton failed to provide truthful testimony to the Congress of the United States is the day that he chose to determine the course of impeachment,” Graham said at the time. “He usurped our power, he abused his authority, he gave false information. That, to me Mr. Speaker, is the same as giving no information at all. Actually, I think it is worse.”

Asked last week about his previous remarks, Sen. Graham replied, “Nothing’s changed,” before retreating to his office.

In June 2012, then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for   refusing to cooperate   with the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of   Operation Fast and Furious.

“The notion that you could withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you’re the party in power or not in power is wrong,” Gowdy said at the time.

Speaking as a Fox News contributor seven years later, Gowdy sang a different tune.

“Congress as a coequal branch of government can ask for whatever they want to ask for,” Gowdy said in March of House Democratic investigations into Trump. “Now it doesn’t mean you have to show up, and it doesn’t mean you have to talk, and it doesn’t mean you have to produce documents.”

Days before independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr   subpoenaed   Clinton to testify before a grand jury in July 1998, then-New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani   told Charlie Rose   that the president must testify if subpoenaed. Starr ultimately withdrew the subpoena after Clinton agreed to testify   with conditions .

“The Watergate litigation resolved the fact that the president is not above the law, is not able to avoid subpoenas,” Giuliani said at the time.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @1.4.2    4 weeks ago

The republicans passed the rules regarding this and now unhappy that they are enforced?  Sucks to be them.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.23  CB   replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.9    4 weeks ago

Hi Jasper! It has been a long day getting back to you. I wrote this too:

You should be offended at Trump's shadow government. What does Trump have to hide? After all he has upfront control over the lot of us - all we ask is that he follow the law! And old 'butt-russ' couldn't even do that.

I take nothing back. Donald Trump works for the citizens of this country too. Except he does not. Rightly put, Trump doesn't work for you either. The man works for no-one. Cross Donald Trump and he will label, name-call, and swerve your political leaning too. Oh, and you should know by now:

You don't have a republican party any longer. The brand is a dead brand standing.

You're all Trump now. The new brand name is coming soon!

 
 
 
CB
1.4.24  CB   replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.9    4 weeks ago
Since my taxes pay for duly elected officials' salaries, housing, transportation, security, perks, etc., those officials don't "control" me. They are my employees.

Donald says he donates his salary (to somebody) or something or other. Ever wonder why? Because he does not want to give y'all the satisfaction of making the error you just made. Donald Trump is not working for you: your political party is jobbing for him. He has swerved y'all already. Don't you know.

Y'all just need to look closely at the 'contract' as it is playing out in real-time. Trump got y'all, doing the 'pedaling.' To that point. If y'all keep breaking the rules (bringing phones into secure spaces) or get caught on the record lying for Trump, sooner or later some republican/s is going to be REQUIRED to take a long hard one for the team. Donald is pressing republicans ever closer to the fire-watch out-it burns!

Donald ain't going down for y'all-not if he can help it. He will continue to wipe his mouth, nose, eyes, and head on as many of y'all as it takes. It's called, "Getting mileage."

 
 
 
CB
1.4.25  CB   replied to  WallyW @1.4.11    4 weeks ago

 Americans have inherent disdain for those who would 'lord' over us. You USED  to know this. What changed?

 
 
 
CB
1.4.26  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.13    4 weeks ago

There you go again. 96 Spin on!

 
 
 
CB
1.4.27  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.14    4 weeks ago

"The dems" can't impeach an innocent president, Ronin2. I thought you knew.

If it was possible, then y'all would have ruined Barack Obama's good name, so help you! But you couldn't, because some presidents simply are not guilty!

That said, Donald Trump big empty head clanging around Washington D.C and Twitter is his major malfunction.

Can you get Donald to shut up? Yes? No? There is your problem manifested right there in a nutshell.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.4.28  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @1.4.12    4 weeks ago

Keep believing in polls, that is what lost the 2016 election adn will again in 202 unless the Dems get a REAL candidate 

 
 
 
CB
1.4.29  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.15    4 weeks ago
Don't like Trump; then don't vote for him. Simple as that. But you don't get to have him removed from office because he won an election; and has a very good chance of winning reelection. The Democrats must really be afraid that whoever rolls last out of their insane exploding clown car of candidates running ever further left, won't be able to win.  

I have a suggestion for you. Don't just vote for Donald Trump in 2020—marry him. I'm serious. If he will have you, just do it!

You're a lost cause to anyone else. "We" could never made you as happy anyway. I simply don't see it in any of the stars -boo!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.30  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @1.4.28    4 weeks ago

Read my post again. You seem confused regarding what I said.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.31  MrFrost  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.3    4 weeks ago
As a Democrat once said said, ...
Elections have consequences. And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.

True, and had trump not completely handed the Dems the midterms on a silver platter, he may have gotten away with his criminal behavior. Trump's erratic, unhinged, ridiculous and childish behavior cost the Repubs the midterms and most likely the presidency and the senate in 2020. If the midterms were a moratorium on the trump white house? The repubs are in for a very bumpy ride over the next 24 months. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.4.32  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @1.4.26    4 weeks ago
Spin on!

Really.  To what part of "citizen of a constitutional republic" do object?

Are you somehow not a citizen of such a place?  Or are you one of those "not my president" idiots? 

Regardless, how exactly does he have "upfront control" over you?  Does he require you only wear approved Trump brand clothing?  Does he dictate what you eat?  Where you live?  Does he tell you how to set the thermostat in your house?  Does he tell you what kind of car you're allowed to buy?  

Do tell.  How...specifically...does this hysterical claim manifest itself in real life?

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.33  MrFrost  replied to  cobaltblue @1.4.20    4 weeks ago
why does he consistently need assistance from other countries?

Two reasons, (well, one really but....)

1) He knows he cannot win without help. The 2016 election boiled down to what...80k votes in three states? For all the screaming about the "yuge" win, it was actually damn close. 

2) Ego. Trump is CONSTANTLY bragging about himself, how great he is, etc.. He has a MASSIVE ego. If he loses the election, his poor little ego will be crushed, so to ensure that will not happen, he is willing to cheat to win. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.4.34  Don Overton  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    4 weeks ago

If their  closed why are over 40 republicans capable of walking right on in

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.4.35  Don Overton  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4.3    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
CB
1.4.36  CB   replied to  cobaltblue @1.4.20    4 weeks ago

And how does asking other nations to investigate political opponents square with a stated isolationist doctrine encompassingTrump? No! This guy is a crook! One that wants what he wants and is willing to try and take it from others!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.37  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.4.34    4 weeks ago
If their  closed why are over 40 republicans capable of walking right on in

Um, because Republicans are smart enough to know how to open a door?

 
 
 
CB
1.4.38  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.32    4 weeks ago

Jack, I am not sorry that I do not have anymore time to waste on you right now. This is what I got for ya:

Jibber Jabber ruins everything

The video title is instructive.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.4.39  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @1.4.38    4 weeks ago

I'll take that as your concession of the point.

A sad, bitter concession, but very much a concession.

For my part, I am sorry you live in such a state of mind that you don't recognize how little control any president has over your daily life.  It must be quite a challenge.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.40  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.39    4 weeks ago

Sure. Take it anyway you can process it.

"Jibber Jabber."

 
 
 
bugsy
1.4.41  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.37    4 weeks ago
because Republicans are smart enough to know how to open a door?

Liberals would stand outside banging on an unlocked door demanding someone let them in.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4.42  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @1.4.2    4 weeks ago

A closed hearing is not the same as a secret hearing.  If we know about it, it is not a secret.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.4.43  NV-Robin6  replied to  Dulay @1.4.2    4 weeks ago

Cuz they're running scared like chickens with their heads cut off. With good reason; Twitlertwat's going down and they know it! Justice is prevailing!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.4.44  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  r.t..b... @1.4.1    4 weeks ago
.and if the next Democratic president behaves in the same manner in subverting the election process

by using the power of government to go after political rivals?     obama's admin has already done that.   and failed spectacularly.  but even I will admit... it was a fun clown show to watch :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.4.45  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @1.4.36    4 weeks ago
And how does asking other nations to investigate political opponents square

obamas admin used foreign intelligence (aka 5 eyes) to fabricate and then legitimize bs evidence against trump

so, maybe ask obama?

 
 
 
CB
1.4.46  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.4.44    4 weeks ago

Tonight, as I was driving around looking for an 'old-school' transistor radio, I was in a surprise position to hear AM band radio at night. It was starling to hear the AM morning and afternoon Christian shows are turned over to jocks and anchors who blatantly using terms like "leftist" and 'socialism' for every other word at evening time. Being that this was a conservative AM radio I was soon thinking to myself that this is a 'root cause' of what is being dealt with here on social media! These conservative anchors were talking (and selling) freedom as a commodity (a book, a conference, a donation); all designed to have one group of people go up against another group of people. How the,. . .heaven. . .in a land expressly known for its freedoms did we all allow ourselves to get so tangled up in alienation and "other-isms"?  We're some of the smartest and most sophisticated people ever to be born on Earth! But here we are arguing and tearing ourselves down in 24/7 broadcast increments. We are 'warring' over matters that use to give us joy, or at least were not worth 'dying' on a hill over.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.47  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.4.45    4 weeks ago

Does Donald Trump appear to support isolationist policies to you, MEB?  Yes or No. Is this a specific portion of what you appreciate about Donald Trump as leader?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.4.48  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @1.4.46    4 weeks ago
that this is a 'root cause'

that is not the cause.

it is the symptom/result of the lunatic left's antics.

but ya know what the good news is?

512

 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.5  WallyW  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

Gotta agree. Shithead Schiff's secret inquisition is a shameful sham

 
 
 
PJ
1.6  PJ  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

This is America under the leadership of Trump.  Lawmakers breaking the law.  Traitors to the Constitution. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.6.1  WallyW  replied to  PJ @1.6    4 weeks ago

 Lawmakers breaking the law.  Traitors to the Constitution. 

Your description is of the democrats is spot on.

 
 
 
PJ
1.6.2  PJ  replied to  WallyW @1.6.1    4 weeks ago

I'm so embarrassed for you. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.3  Tessylo  replied to  PJ @1.6.2    4 weeks ago
'I'm so embarrassed for you.'

Somebody needs to be!

 
 
 
PJ
1.6.4  PJ  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.3    4 weeks ago

That's the kinda girl I am......thoughtful and generous to those less fortunate.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.6.5  cobaltblue  replied to  PJ @1.6.2    4 weeks ago
I'm so embarrassed for you.

Me too, but it makes me laugh soooooo hard! Omigawd, I cannot even stifle it. I laugh out loud. Sad, isn't it? In a funny, funny, really funny way. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.6.6  PJ  replied to  cobaltblue @1.6.5    4 weeks ago
Sad, isn't it? In a funny, funny, really funny way

More than they realize.  lol

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.6.7  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @1.6.1    4 weeks ago
Lawmakers breaking the law.  Traitors to the Constitution.  Your description is of the democrats is spot on.

See??? That's soooo fuckin' hilarious!!! 

*** This president doesn’t appear to know or care much about the   Constitution,   especially the limits it puts on his power.

“I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want,” he said last year, referring to the part of the founding document that establishes the executive branch. But that’s not what Article II does at all.

Article II is the president’s job description. Like any job description, it spells out what he should do — and, by implication, what he shouldn’t.

* * * *

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution. Instead, he’s attacking it — by inflating and abusing his powers, ignoring laws he swore to protect and demanding unconstitutional reprisals against anyone who opposes him.

No matter what the president imagines Article II to contain, he doesn’t have the right, “absolute” or otherwise, to distort U.S. national security policy to damage a political rival or stonewall legitimate inquiries from Congress. He needs to take an hour of executive time and read the Constitution.

Cite

Wally, I know your perception is that Trump makes demmies cry so you love him. But truth be told, he has called his supporters idiots from the get-go. He's counted on low intellect of those supporters that he has left. He's banked on it. 

It’s probably the   biggest   demographic   story   of [the past] election: Hillary Clinton has made big gains with well-educated whites, particularly women. And Donald J. Trump has continued recent Republican gains in winning over less educated whites, particularly men. As Nate Cohn wrote in an article last month,   education has replaced the culture wars   as the defining electoral divide.

Cite

Don't make sound bites and think because you say them, it makes it true. Sometimes it's better for his supporters to stop deflecting, stop spinning, stop making it apparent to all those around them that they lack impulse control. Some, not all, should think before they post. Frankly, I enjoy your shit. But it does make me feel bad for you sometimes. Sorta. Maybe. Nah, it doesn't. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.6.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  cobaltblue @1.6.7    4 weeks ago
He needs to take an hour of executive time and read the Constitution.

He just needs someone to read it to him....then spend the next 30 days drilling into his head exactly what it means.

It will take more than an hour for him to read the Constitution...it doesn't come with cartoons

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.6.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.3    4 weeks ago

That is one job this American refuses to do.

 
 
 
CB
1.6.10  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.6.8    4 weeks ago

Friend TG, let's not patronize Donald Trump. One does not aspire to lead the world without understanding where you can be brought low at in an instance by rule of law-unless you are a stone-cold fool or impotent incompetent.

Donald Trump thinks he knows enough constitution to skillfully manipulate it, Friend TG!

It is those vague points in the Constitution he is most interested in. It is where Trump lawyers can play. It is the powers inherent in the Constitution where only fools would dare seek to (ab)use that Donald dares to tread along on. Donald is showing us all everyday what his lifelong skill-set is: A single-minded manipulation of a certain type of people. Be assured, all of these people "jobbin" and supporting Trump fully understand they have subordinated themselves under his authority. And, they have done so voluntarily.

Let's be aware, there are people in this country who want exactly what Donald Trump is doing to a 'T.' They serve him willingly and deliberately.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.6.11  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @1.6.1    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.7  Heartland American  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

I’m so proud of them all!  Well done.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.7.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Heartland American @1.7    4 weeks ago
I’m so proud of them all!  Well done.

I know!!  Isn't it great?!?  My nipples have been extra perky all day!  And don't tell anyone, but I've been so excited that I've had sex with 5 complete strangers...for free!!!  

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.7.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.7.1    4 weeks ago
My nipples have been extra perky all day! 

Picture or it didn't happen.

 
 
 
PJ
1.7.3  PJ  replied to  Heartland American @1.7    4 weeks ago

I laughed so hard when I heard several republicans that stormed (shuffled) into the (unlocked) chamber were already supposed to be in there because they were members of the committees conducting the depositions.  How utterly pathetic and sad.  Then I kinda got aggravated because I realized they were playing parade when they should have been earning the salary they draw from the taxpayers.  

 
 
 
JBB
1.7.4  JBB  replied to  Heartland American @1.7    4 weeks ago

What those damn goppers did yesterday was to break federal law and on camera. Proud? You should be ashamed. Are you going to volunteer to pay their fines? To do time for those rogue goppers who were obstructing justice? Then, Go For It. I will never understand why the damn gop thinks they are above the law...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.7.5  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @1.7.2    4 weeks ago
Picture or it didn't happen.

(*)(*)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.7.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.7.5    4 weeks ago

Those are belle's nipples. Give them back!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.7.7  cobaltblue  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.7.6    4 weeks ago
belle's nipples

Belle's nips!!! Awwwww ... I miss belle. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.7.8  PJ  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.7.5    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.7.9  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  cobaltblue @1.7.7    4 weeks ago
Belle's nips!!! Awwwww ... I miss belle.

Yeah, me too.  We had so much fun back then.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.7.10  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.7.6    4 weeks ago
Those are belle's nipples. Give them back!

No worries, they're just loaners.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.7.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @1.7.4    4 weeks ago

The first they need to take down is the idiot who tried to take a recording device into the hearing, which is against the law.  If they don't like the way the hearing is going, they should have not passed the rules regarding how it is conducted.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
1.7.12  NV-Robin6  replied to  PJ @1.7.8    4 weeks ago

Got to love a Sister!  I had to read her response outloud to hubby. Love you Sister Mary! We both cracked up! Great day for cracking up! Especially Hillary's line at Elijah's services, against corruption from the prophet Elijah, who stood up against King Ahab and Queen Jezebel! I'm still laughing. Love or hate Hillary, she at least had a clue! Its really such a shame, she would have been a great President. Totally fucking robbed!

Elijah Cummings, RIP, you led the way! We will not forsake our democracy like you taught us! Trust in your thoughtful leadership and Thank You Sir! Salute!!

 
 
 
sixpick
1.8  sixpick  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

The Republicans trampled over dozens of people as you can see in the video below barging into the Secret Room where the Honorable Adam Schiff was continuing to do the Democrats work of gathering evidence or making it up to enable him to save the Democrats from the inevitable disaster they are in for.

Now here is the funniest video segment of the day from the Crazy Cartoon Network, here's Fredo!!!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.8.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sixpick @1.8    4 weeks ago

Six!  A stop-short?  Say it isn't so!  

 
 
 
CB
1.8.2  CB   replied to  sixpick @1.8    4 weeks ago

I could not even finish listening to this interview. I turned the volume down and walked away. Sometimes I do not know what to make of Chris' openness to trying to balance BS, and I certainly did not know what to make of this congressman. So I stepped out on it. Somebody was using somebody to get a message out and I could not discern which man (in this case) it was. Chris:Congressman.

 
 
 
CB
1.8.3  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.8.1    4 weeks ago

Hi Sister! I am confused and maybe you can help me understand: What is Sixpick's position on this interview?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.8.4  Dulay  replied to  CB @1.8.3    4 weeks ago

The fact that he truncated the video tells you how he feels about the WHOLE video. Go watch the second half of the interview. It makes Bill Johnson look like a partisan hack.  

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    4 weeks ago

If one is NOT on the committee, one is NOT entitled to sit in the hearing.  They took a page from their POS master and don't think the RULES apply to them.  Gaetz is a slimy used car salesmen.  I'm an American and I know how the court system works, I guess certain republicans need a crash course in law ethics and/or if any of them are attorneys they need to brush up on their CLE ethics credits.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @2    4 weeks ago

When they had the hearings on Clinton, the opposite party did not try to crash the hearings because they knew the rules of who attends and who doesn't.  They should all be brought up on charges by the Bar Association for misconduct, those who are lawyers that is.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1    4 weeks ago
When they had the hearings on Clinton

Maybe because the impeachment hearings were voted on by the full house and held out in the open?

Or are you confusing the impeachment hearings with the previous grand jury investigation which led to the impeachment?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1    4 weeks ago

these are all administrative violations, not crimes. It could certainly affect their security clearance(s) temporarily or permanently, however.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.3  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

If one is NOT on the COMMITTEE then one is NOT allowed in and especially with their cellphones which is a big no no...or are republicans all of a sudden above the law.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
Maybe because the impeachment hearings were voted on by the full house and held out in the open?

There is nothing in the constitution requiring a vote. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Frankly, all of this shit confuses me.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

Any excuse for the Democrats in the House right?

It is not like they are conducting a kangaroo court investigation or anything./S

The fact the left is excusing this is inexcusable. 

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.7  lady in black  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

There ARE republicans in these meetings because they are on the committee.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

The impeachment trial with witness testimony will be held publicly in the senate. 

The only confusion here lies with those in the untenable position to defend the proclaimed 'stable genius'.

Proceedings---what ever.  As this continues Russia is making their moves and the US has begun its defensive crouch of withdrawal.  In the Trump Era will, "Crouching Withdrawal With Honor" be the next Trumpian patriotic meme? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
Maybe because the impeachment hearings were voted on by the full house and held out in the open?

When there ARE Impeachment HEARINGS, they will be voted on.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

Excuse me?

did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

The comment you are referring to, was about the conduct of the uninvited non committee members and their violations of the SCIF rules  which may ( should )affect their security clearances now and in the future.

The invited committee members of both parties were there to depose a potential witness.

Get over you faux outrage and belief that no Republicans are on Schiff's committees or that they were not present.

It simply is not true.

The fact that you cling to your umbrage in the face of facts is pretty ridiculous.

And as I noted elsewhere, these shitty government practices started centuries ago in England and have been gleefully practiced by ALL parties since the First Continental Congress in 1774.

Have a nice day.

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.11  Kavika   replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

There are 9 republicans on Schiff's committees and 13 democrats.

 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

Thanks Kav,

Don't cha know everything is so unfair....jrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.13  cobaltblue  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
Get over you faux outrage and belief that no Republicans are on Schiff's committees or that they were not present.

Great comment. What don't they understand? Didn't this include Gohmert? Not even Texas repubs like Gohmert. 

Gohmert, meanwhile, reportedly engaged other Democrats in a shouting match over what he described as an injustice.

The committees’ work screeched to a halt as Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper was whisked away. Gohmert and others hunkered down in the secure facility instead, leaving the rest of the Capitol to light up with reactions, ranging from outrage to bemusement.

Asked about the sit-in, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, paused for some time before saying, “This place just gets more like a circus every day,   according to   The Wall Street Journal . [Emphasis mine.]

It appeared the standoff could linger for hours, particularly after the GOP protesters ordered in lunch. But duty eventually called in the form of an early evening vote series in the House. By 4 p.m. Eastern, all that remained of the sit-in were a few half-eaten boxes of pizza.

And they attempted to take cell phones into the proceedings [a huge no-no] that was attended by both democrats and republicans . Republicans are panicking aren't they? 

Cite

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.14  lady in black  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.13    4 weeks ago

Obviously they are panicking if they are reduced to pulling childish stunts like this...Gaetz the douche canoe is like that kid who everyone dislikes and tries to join the club but keeps getting denied.  He's a lowlife putz

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.15  PJ  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

They should all have their security clearances pulled. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.16  Heartland American  replied to  PJ @2.1.15    4 weeks ago

I’m sure the President will get right on that....

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.17  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1    4 weeks ago

What rules are you talking about?

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.18  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @2.1.14    4 weeks ago
pulling childish stunts like this

Dems do stuff like this all the time.

The Republicans learned such tactics from them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
'And they attempted to take cell phones into the proceedings [a huge no-no] that was attended by both democrats and republicans . Republicans are panicking aren't they?'

They're losing their shit big time.

What do they have to hide?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.20  cobaltblue  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
Don't cha know everything is so unfair.

I don't get it ... the hearings on Benghazi were held behind closed doors. Why is everyone on the right behaving as if this was an egregious incident? There were republicans in the room! 

In the summer of 2015, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was still chasing conspiracy theories, holding a series of closed-door hearings with officials and witnesses. As part of the investigatory process, other members of Congress who were interested in learning more were excluded – and when former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) tried to crash a deposition, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)   blocked him . On this, Gowdy, who chaired the Benghazi panel, was correct. Not only did he take steps to   prevent a political circus  – nearly every witness was interviewed behind closed doors – but   House rules   only permit members to participate in depositions if they serve on the relevant committees. These are not spectator events . [emphasis mine.]

Oh, for fuck's sake. And they say the democrats are hysterical. All we are asking, as Americans not democrats, is accountability. But Trumplethinskin can't keep his mouth shut. HE'S behaving hysterically and counting on the absolute ignorance of his supporters. And his panic and hysteria is trickling down to those who know he's a crook. They're fine with the Traitor-In-Chief being a crook, but to see him melt down in public has them a bit ... 'unsettled.' 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.21  cobaltblue  replied to  PJ @2.1.15    4 weeks ago
security clearances pulled. 

I unequivocally agree.

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.22  PJ  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.16    4 weeks ago
I’m sure the President will get right on that

His should be the first clearance pulled.  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.20    4 weeks ago

You know, I learned a lot from your cited paragraph. But how much you wanna bet that some of our fellow NT'ers won't bother to read that paragraph? They could learn so much and then sit the fuck down and color

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.24  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @2.1.18    4 weeks ago

Blah, blah, blah, that 's all I hear

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.25  Split Personality  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.13    4 weeks ago

On the news last night, other Reps who were there as committee members, both Dems and GoP, said that the use of cell phones was deliberate ( eventually someone among the protesters decided to start collecting them ) and that several of the hearing crashers asked to be arrested.

While Schiff and others reportedly conferred with the Sargent at Arms, no one had the political will to round up enough police to remove or arrest the protesters.  Whoever was on TV last night would not even commit to administrative punishments such as removal of security clearances or censures.

We have come to a pretty low place when the R's won't adhere to the rules that R's like Gowdy put in place ( and enforced)

while the adults in the room, both R's & D's won't punish them.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.26  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @2.1.17    4 weeks ago

The House rules. Go read them and concentrate on the authorities of the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.27  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.1.18    4 weeks ago
Dems do stuff like this all the time.

Please send links that prove dems do this all the time. You saying it doesn't make it so, Wally. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.20    4 weeks ago

CB, it is all they have. 

There is an old saying.

If you don't have the facts on your side argue the law. If you don't have the facts OR the law on your side, ........ you are Donald Trump. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.29  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.1.26    4 weeks ago
The House rules. Go read them and concentrate on the authorities of the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee.  

What was that about "House Rules"?  Like THESE house rules?

8. PROCEDURES FOR TAKING TESTIMONY OR RECEIVING EVIDENCE
(a) Notice. Adequate notice shall be given to all witnesses appearing before the Committee.
(b) Oath or Affirmation. The Chair may require testimony of witnesses to be given under oath or affirmation.
(c) Administration of Oath or Affirmation. Upon the determination that a witness shall testify under oath or affirmation, any
member or counsel of the Committee designated by the Chair may
administer the oath or affirmation.
(d) Questioning of Witnesses.
(1) Consistent with House Rule XI and House Resolution 6
of the 116th Congress, questioning of witnesses before the
Committee shall be conducted by members or appropriate designated Committee staff.
(2) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are each authorized to designate appropriate Committee Staff to conduct
such questioning.
(e) Counsel for the Witness.
(1) Generally. Witnesses before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, subject to the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Counsel Clearances Required. In the event that a meeting
of the Committee has been closed because the subject to be discussed deals with classified information, counsel accompanying
a witness before the Committee must possess the requisite security clearance and provide proof of such clearance to the
Committee at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at which the
counsel intends to be present. 

I seem to remember those giving testimony have not been permitted counsel.

Source:  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116HPRT36537/pdf/CPRT-116HPRT36537.pdf

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.30  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.29    4 weeks ago
I seem to remember those giving testimony have not been permitted counsel.

You DO? Who wasn't allowed Counsel XD? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.31  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.29    4 weeks ago

Ya, that's what I thought...

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.32  cobaltblue  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.29    4 weeks ago
I seem to remember those giving testimony have not been permitted counsel.

Counsel is not necessary to those giving testimony. It's up to each deponent to hire counsel if they feel one is necessary. Your quoted material says nothing about counsel being mandatory because it's not. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.33  Kathleen  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

I had asked a question above if they did the same for Clinton as they are doing for Trump.

If they are not, then why?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.34  Dulay  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.20    4 weeks ago
I don't get it

IOKIYAR

Go to 4:48

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.35  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  WallyW @2.1.17    4 weeks ago

On how to conduct this.  Try to keep up.  The R's are the ones who passed them and now all shocked and shaken that they are being enforced.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
2.1.36  NV-Robin6  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

Why is it ok crying kangaroo courts when it's your side on defense? Benghazi? Do I need to post you Trey Gowdy's final statement? How about Hillary's emails all bring exonerated from DOJ recently?

When are you going to get a clue, do the crime, you'll do the time and The Donald is NOT exempt!

Republicans are the ones who set the rules for private depo's, so they weren't a public circus and now you cry foul? WTF?! Impeachment process is in the Constitution! Why do you think you get to cherry pick the ultimate law of the land?!

 
 
 
JBB
2.2  JBB  replied to  lady in black @2    4 weeks ago

Who believes that Matt "The Rat" Gaetz will not rat out all the brave patriots lining up to spill the beans on Trump & Co? They had to put the original whistleblower into The Witness Protection Program to protect them from Trump's murderous rages. Donald The Mad they will call him. Or, maybe Donald The Terrible. Nah, Don The Loser!

 
 
 
CB
2.3  CB   replied to  lady in black @2    4 weeks ago
I guess certain republicans need a crash course in law ethics and/or if any of them are attorneys they need to brush up on their CLE ethics credits.

Must Watch: What is the Rule of Law? New ABA Video

American Bar Association: Customer service: 1 (800) 285-2221

NT! Call - make your voices heard! Ask them to check their own! Some of our congressional lawyers are honest to goodness 'flea bags.'

Oh and don't forget to compliment the good lawyers and lawyering going on too!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.3.1  cobaltblue  replied to  CB @2.3    4 weeks ago
Must Watch: What is the Rule of Law?

Oooh! A video! That's better than a book with pictures. 

 
 
 
CB
2.3.2  CB   replied to  cobaltblue @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

I know, Right? Fleabag lawyers are destroying their profession's collective reputation in the age of Trump, one case at a time.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    4 weeks ago
Schiff has defended the clandestine process by comparing it to a grand jury.

Well then if these are the equivalent of Grand Juries, why then are some Democrats "leaking" selected bits of information?   Grand juries are secret for a reason, unless of course you happen to be a Democrat and you get a pass.

And then they wonder why they're labeled as hypocrites.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago
why then are some Democrats "leaking" selected bits of information?

Proof that it is the Democrats doing the leaking?  Or did you forget that Republicans are also involved?

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.1  katrix  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    4 weeks ago

If it's information detrimental to Trump, it's considered "leaking" - otherwise, it's transparency.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  katrix @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

If it's information detrimental to Trump, it's considered "leaking" - otherwise, it's transparency.

ab8c229496701a3c93896c03d0a251dc00d0428b

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Whomever it is they are even leaking footage now. 

512

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

Oh look there are Repubs on the committee. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Oh look there are Repubs on the committee. 

512

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Yes, except one is missing.  There are seven of them on the panel.  Must be Jordon who stepped out to load up on donuts and pizza.  What a thoughtful guy, right?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
Oh look there are Repubs on the committee. 

Finally photographic proof!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.6    4 weeks ago

Hope he brought back enough for everybody

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago
why then are some Democrats "leaking" selected bits of information?

I'm not sure 'leaking' is the right word to use, but I think I heard yesterday that after testimony ends for the day, the chairman of the committee informs the members what they can discuss and what they can't discuss with the media.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago
why then are some Democrats "leaking" selected bits of information?

So you want transparency, then complain about leaks? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.3    4 weeks ago
o you want transparency, then complain about leaks? 

You might want to think about that before you embarrass yourself any further. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.2  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.1    4 weeks ago

That maybe the most ridiculous post I have seen leaking is now transparency hey is he leaking everything.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.3.3  Ronin2  replied to  MUVA @3.3.2    4 weeks ago

So long as the Democrats are controlling what is leaked, they consider that transparent.

Just like them getting to ask all the questions, locking out Republicans, and deciding those that get questioned.

Anything that doesn't match their narrative gets buried, or discarded.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago
Well then if these are the equivalent of Grand Juries, why then are some Democrats "leaking" selected bits of information?

What 'bits' have been 'leaked'? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
CB
3.5  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago

What is getting out to the public are the public statements read at the start of the proceeding! Not the testimonies. Am I wrong?

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6  Kathleen  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago

Exactly, they should not be leaking anything.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.1  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6    4 weeks ago
Exactly, they should not be leaking anything.

I asked XD to post specifically what had been leaked. No reply.

The reason for that is that NOTHING has been leaked. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.2  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.1    4 weeks ago

How come we know all about this testimony then?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.6.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.2    4 weeks ago

Because only the Dems are talking. I find that rather strange and telling don't you? Have you seen or read or heard ANYONE on the conservative side quoted saying ANYTHING? Yeah, me neither. Just Dems. They spew shiny objects that the never Trumpers eat up like kids devour Reese's Cups on Halloween.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.5  Kathleen  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.6.4    4 weeks ago

No, that’s why it stank.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.6  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.5    4 weeks ago
How come we know all about this testimony then?

The TRUTHFUL answer to your question is that the witnesses released their opening statements. It was their choice to do so. Volker also provided text messages that were released by the Committee Chairman after being vetted for classified information. 

All of those documents are available online if you want to read them and make an informed opinion. 

As for the GOP members not going to the microphone like the Democrats are, it's because they can't defend Trump on the SUBSTANCE of the evidence. They can only whine about 'the process' that they pretend is unique. It isn't. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.7  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.6.4    4 weeks ago
Have you seen or read or heard ANYONE on the conservative side quoted saying ANYTHING?

I have. Ratcliff said on Fox that he found Taylor to be 'forthcoming'. But you're right, they don't have the balls to go to the mic after the depositions. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.8  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.6    4 weeks ago

I am sure you would ‘whine’ about the process too if it was not done fairly.  I don’t know who is worse, Trump or the vicious way the Democrats have been going after him....

That is my final statement on this subject.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.6.9  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.2    4 weeks ago
How come we know all about this testimony then?

Opening statements authored by those being questioned have been released to the media because their statements are not considered 'classified'. 

Here is Ambassador Bill Taylor's statement .  If you haven't read it, you should.   

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.6.10  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dulay @3.6.6    4 weeks ago

Dulay...forgive my heinous manners.  I posted my comment before I saw yours.  I'll be glad to delete if you wish. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.11  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.10    4 weeks ago

More perspective can't be wrong. Thanks for the link.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.12  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.8    4 weeks ago
I am sure you would ‘whine’ about the process too if it was not done fairly.  

Yet as all who have taken the time to educate themselves about the issue, it IS being done fairly. 

I don’t know who is worse, Trump or the vicious way the Democrats have been going after him....

If you think this is vicious, wait till the witnesses testify in a public hearing. You ain't seen nothing yet. 

That is my final statement on this subject.

You're welcome to my cogent and truthful answers to your questions Kathleen. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.14  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.1    4 weeks ago

First of all I asked XD that question, not you. I ‘allowed’ you to talk to me. I know you would be nasty about it in the end. That is way I do not like conversing with you.  It turns out that you have a shitty flip attitude.  So welcome to my ignore list.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.6.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.8    4 weeks ago

Have you read ANY of Trump's tweets.  Talk about vicious.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.16  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.14    4 weeks ago
First of all I asked XD that question, not you.

Actually, you didn't ask XD ANY question. 

I ‘allowed’ you to talk to me.

There's a way to keep members for talking to each other? Do tell. 

I know you would be nasty about it in the end. That is way I do not like conversing with you.  It turns out that you have a shitty flip attitude.  So welcome to my ignore list.

WTF are you babbling about Kathleen? I kindly, cogently and truthfully answered the question YOU asked ME @ 3.6.2. Now you're whining about me being 'nasty' and 'shitty' to you. 

Do me a fucking favor, don't ask me anymore questions. It's not worth my time with those who are unappreciative of knowledge and facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.17  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.6.15    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.18  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.16    4 weeks ago

Calling someone uneducated and not informed with their opinions is not a nice way of communicating with people. It makes you sound arrogant. As for asking you anymore questions, you sure don’t have to worry about that.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.19  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.18    4 weeks ago
Calling someone uneducated and not informed with their opinions is not a nice way of communicating with people.

Where did I say anyone was uneducated or not informed Kathleen. You're reading personal shit into my comments that doesn't exist. You tend to do that all too often. 

It makes you sound arrogant.

That makes you sound jealous.

The difference is that I invest the time it takes to educate MYSELF.

I know more about this issue than you and you're not alone in that. Get over it. 

As for asking you anymore questions, you sure don’t have to worry about that.

Good. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.20  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.19    4 weeks ago

You definitely did. It’s a shame you can’t admit that. I am not jealous of anyone that is arrogant.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.21  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.20    4 weeks ago
You definitely did.

Where? Prove it. 

It’s a shame you can’t admit that. 

It's shameful that you can't prove it. 

I am not jealous of anyone that is arrogant.

My claim that that I know more than you and many here about this issue isn't exaggerating my abilites [arrogance] Kathleen. I've proven it on multiple seeds and multiple threads on this issue for weeks now.

Stating that fact isn't arrogance, it's just a fact. If you'd care to challenge my knowledge, please proceed. You better bring a lunch. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.22  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.21    4 weeks ago

See.... you sound so arrogant.. 😆

No thanks, time for my sleep.

You did make me laugh though.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.23  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.22    4 weeks ago
See.... you sound so arrogant..

arrogance:

having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

My sense of my abilities aren't exaggerated Kathleen. 

I'm far and away more informed than you are. 

Get over it or better yet, invest the TIME to get informed. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.24  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.23    4 weeks ago

Yes... I know what it means. 

I hope you ‘learned’ something.

Good Night.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.25  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.24    4 weeks ago
I hope you ‘learned’ something.

Since your comments have no point to make and nothing to teach, NO. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.26  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.6.25    4 weeks ago

In all honesty, there is only one person on this site that is very knowledgeable and I value his opinion on some matters. The nice thing is ‘how’ he presents it.  It’s the kind of thing that only a few can do right.  Some have it, some don’t.

Now, good night.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.6.27  dennis smith  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.20    4 weeks ago

IMO you are spot on about Dulay.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.6.28  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.6.12    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.29  Kathleen  replied to  dennis smith @3.6.27    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.6.30  cobaltblue  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.22    4 weeks ago
you sound so arrogant

I hate to interrupt, but Kathleen ... Dulay is right. I think at times it appears you really do want to understand processes and how things work, but once you receive facts, you're never quite satisfied. I cannot discern if you're intending to sound obtuse as a sort of sarcasm or if you're just not understanding what's put in front of you. Dulay's been quite kind. I have a tendency to immediately believe that people are not as ... well ... dumb as they appear and it's just a ruse to annoy those of us who want real dialogue so I scroll right past. I don't direct any comments toward you because I cannot tell what exactly you're trying to achieve. 

Duly is not arrogant, never has been, and I don't think ever will be. Dulay's truly intelligent without seeming to be superior. Dulay's ego is intact, Dulay's moral compass points due north, and more importantly, Dulay's patient. And particularly patient with you.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.31  Kathleen  replied to  cobaltblue @3.6.30    4 weeks ago

We all have our own opinions and I will respect that. Mine happens to be different. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.32  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.31    4 weeks ago

Don’t worry personal attacks replace a argument with some its believe what I say or else the so called facts are made up BS from The NY Times and CNN.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.6.33  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.9    4 weeks ago

Here is Ambassador Bill Taylor's statement .  If you haven't read it, you should.   

I read it and this part really sticks out...

In a regular NSC secure video-conference call on July 18, I heard a staff person from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) say that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call — the person was off-screen — said that she was from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice. I and others sat in astonishment — the Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of U.S. support. All that the OMB staff person said was that the directive had come from the President to the Chief of Staff to OMB. In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened. The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy.
 
 
 
MrFrost
3.6.34  MrFrost  replied to  cobaltblue @3.6.30    4 weeks ago

Duly is not arrogant, never has been, and I don't think ever will be. Dulay's truly intelligent without seeming to be superior. Dulay's ego is intact, Dulay's moral compass points due north, and more importantly, Dulay's patient. And particularly patient with you.

Well said! Dulay has always posted fairly and never posts lies or spin. Sgt. Friday would be proud. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.6.35  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.6.32    4 weeks ago

She is the one making the personal attacks, not Dulay.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.36  Kathleen  replied to  MUVA @3.6.32    4 weeks ago

Well, not abbreviations, but when you use all caps on certain words, that sounds like yelling or just plain in your face. Personally, I don’t like doing that. I will do ‘this’ instead.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.37  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.6.32    4 weeks ago
Do worry personal attacks replace a argument with some its believe what I say or else the so called facts are made up BS from The NY Times and CNN.

Would you like to pit your knowledge of this issue against mine?

You can start by refuting ANYTHING I said in 3.6.6 and 3.6.7.

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.6.38  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.36    4 weeks ago

Please stand by for a regularly unscheduled break.  

If y'all can still be peeved after watching this, then I don't know what's what.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.39  Dulay  replied to  MrFrost @3.6.33    4 weeks ago
I read it and this part really sticks out...

There is so much in that statement that's truly disgusting to read.

It's been reported that Taylor turned all of his notes and texts to the State Dept. and if Trump and his sycophants really want 'transparency', they would immediately release those documents to the Committees. 

Instead, Trump and his sycophants have demeaned and lied about Taylor and tried to dismiss his truthful statement as part of the 'deep state' they pretend is out to get him. 

If you read the part you quoted with this part:

So during my meeting with Secretary Pompeo on May 28, I made clear to him and the others present that if U. S. policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and I could not stay. He assured me that the policy of strong support for Ukraine would continue and that he would support me in defending that policy.

It sure as hell doesn't look to me like Pompeo had or has Taylor's back. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.40  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.38    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.41  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.6.36    4 weeks ago
Well, not abbreviations, but when you use all caps on certain words, that sounds like yelling or just plain in your face. Personally, I don’t like doing that. I will do ‘this’ instead.

We all have our own opinions and I will respect that. Mine happens to be different. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.42  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.6.37    4 weeks ago

Your knowledge please.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.43  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @3.6.34    4 weeks ago

That is the second most ridiculous post I have seen this week.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.44  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.6.42    4 weeks ago

As I said:

You can start by refuting ANYTHING I said in 3.6.6 and 3.6.7.

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.45  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.6.44    4 weeks ago

No I don’t refute BS I just point it out Look BS.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.6.46  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.38    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Thanks!!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.47  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.6.45    4 weeks ago
No I don’t refute BS I just point it out Look BS.

Then what's your fucking point MUVA?

You comment is the equivalent of saying 'nu uh'. 

I made this statement: 

The TRUTHFUL answer to your question is that the witnesses released their opening statements. It was their choice to do so. Volker also provided text messages that were released by the Committee Chairman after being vetted for classified information.  All of those documents are available online if you want to read them and make an informed opinion. 

I contend that ALL of the above is FACTUAL.

I know that it's factual because I invested the TIME to review the facts. 

ANYONE who wants to talk cogently about this issue or with an ounce of intellectual curiosity about it, would ALREADY have read ALL or most of it. 

So by all means MUVA, proceed with your fatuous 'nu uh' comments. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.48  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.6.47    4 weeks ago

I don’t believe one word you post it is all leftist garbage  that is my point.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.6.49  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @3.6.48    4 weeks ago
I don’t believe one word you post it is all leftist garbage  that is my point.

I've been as patient as possible.  Please find another article to vent your  frustrations.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.50  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.49    4 weeks ago
I don’t believe one word you post it is all leftist garbage  that is my point. I've been as patient as possible.  Please find another article to vent your  frustrations. 

But Sister, he's not venting frustration, he's exemplifying the gaslighting I have been talking about all week.

Some really should take the following to heart:

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
 
 
 
MrFrost
3.6.51  MrFrost  replied to  Dulay @3.6.39    4 weeks ago
It sure as hell doesn't look to me like Pompeo had or has Taylor's back. 

Of course not, there is no honor left in the trump WH, it's down to what trump wanted, "loyalty to trump above everything else". Anytime anyone, no matter what party they are in, says anything negative, (factual, I mean), about trump....just attack them, talk trash, make up childish names and throw a fit. 

Here's the thing *I* don't understand. In this case, the impeachment inquiry, how many people testifying that trump indeed broke the law and there was a quid pro quo need to testify before trumps base finally says, "wow, maybe trump actually broke the law"? My guess? They will continue to blindly support trump and keep right on marching saying, "everyone else is wrong, trump is right". I would love to say I made this up, but i'm not, I saw a few people on fox news "chat" say, "Trump has never lied since he took office". 

Sad state of affairs in our country. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.6.52  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.6.43    4 weeks ago

That is the second most ridiculous post I have seen this week.

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
3.6.53  MUVA  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.49    4 weeks ago

No don’t think so I will post where and when I like.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.54  Dulay  replied to  MrFrost @3.6.51    4 weeks ago
Here's the thing *I* don't understand. In this case, the impeachment inquiry, how many people testifying that trump indeed broke the law and there was a quid pro quo need to testify before trumps base finally says, "wow, maybe trump actually broke the law"? My guess? They will continue to blindly support trump and keep right on marching saying, "everyone else is wrong, trump is right". I would love to say I made this up, but i'm not, I saw a few people on fox news "chat" say, "Trump has never lied since he took office". 

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether Trump broke the 'law' or not. The 'ask' was an abuse of power and that is impeachable. 

Now should the fact that Trump's actions qualify and both extortion and bribery be included as Articles of Impeachment? IMHO yes. 

Here are a couple of articles that spell that out:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uclalr35&div=31&id=&page=

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean

But the bottom line is, there need not be a 'crime' for impeachment so some of Trump's sycophants may peel off once they admit to themselves that he DID abuse the power of the Presidency.

I actually think that some of them already admit that to themselves. How long it will take them to say it out loud is hard to say. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.6.55  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @3.6.53    4 weeks ago
No don’t think so I will post where and when I like.

Stop commenting here.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @3.6.54    4 weeks ago
Ironically, it doesn't matter whether Trump broke the 'law' or not.

I think the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" says otherwise.

The 'ask' was an abuse of power and that is impeachable.

It may or may not have been an abuse of power.  The Constitution is very clear about reasons for impeachment, and "abuse of power" is not among them.  Neither is "excessive tweeting" or "being a big meanie".

Now should the fact that Trump's actions qualify and both extortion and bribery be included as Articles of Impeachment? IMHO yes. 

Bribery is a reason to remove the POTUS.  If they can establish his actions as bribery, they might have a leg to stand on.  If they can establish that his actions are criminal, they might have a leg to stand on.

But the bottom line is, there need not be a 'crime' for impeachment

The Constitution clearly states that there does.  You are aware that bribery is a crime, yes?

so some of Trump's sycophants may peel off once they admit to themselves that he DID abuse the power of the Presidency.

"Abuse of power" is a very subjective term.  Almost every president is accused of "abuse of power" by their political opponents.  Regardless, until that abuse reaches the level of "high crime or misdemeanor", all the talk is much ado about very little.

 
 
 
charger 383
3.6.57  charger 383  replied to  MUVA @3.6.53    4 weeks ago

MUVA, Seeder has complained you are disrupting, but has not flagged your comments. Please do not make me throw penalty flags,  thanks Charger    

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.58  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.56    4 weeks ago
I think the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" says otherwise.

You'd be wrong. Go read Federalist 65. 

It may or may not have been an abuse of power.  The Constitution is very clear about reasons for impeachment, and "abuse of power" is not among them.  Neither is "excessive tweeting" or "being a big meanie".

So you're claiming that when the House found Nixon guilty of the 2nd Article of Impeachment they were wrong?

Bribery is a reason to remove the POTUS.  If they can establish his actions as bribery, they might have a leg to stand on.  If they can establish that his actions are criminal, they might have a leg to stand on.

They already have abuse of power and THAT is a leg to stand on. 

The Constitution clearly states that there does.

No it does NOT. 

 You are aware that bribery is a crime, yes?

Why yes, YES I am. 

"Abuse of power" is a very subjective term.  

Yes, it's like porn, you know it when you see it. 

Almost every president is accused of "abuse of power" by their political opponents.  

Yet not every POTUS is formally Impeached. I think every POTUS since Nixon has had Articles of Impeachment filed against him yet they didn't start an Impeachment Inquiry. 

Regardless, until that abuse reaches the level of "high crime or misdemeanor", all the talk is much ado about very little.

From Federalist 65:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

BTW, the debate on that Article of the Constitution is available online too. Good read...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.59  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @3.6.58    4 weeks ago
You'd be wrong. Go read Federalist 65.

Do you really fail to understand the difference between the supreme law of the United States and the Federalist Papers?  

So you're claiming that when the House found Nixon guilty of the 2nd Article of Impeachment they were wrong?

The 2nd Article accuses Nixon of specific crimes.  It even uses the word "unlawful".  

They already have abuse of power and THAT is a leg to stand on. 

They will need actual, specific crimes.  

No it does NOT.

I suggest you are letting your personal feelings toward President Trump override your grasp of the English language.  Although I'm not sure why.  If he's that terrible, surely they'll find a crime he's committed.  

Yes, it's like porn, you know it when you see it. 

I suspect you see it under every rock and twig as far as Trump is concerned.

Yet not every POTUS is formally Impeached.

Trump, for example......

From Federalist 65:

Which is not actual law.  

Again....if Trump is as terrible as you claim, the list of his actual crimes should be as long as my arm (I'm 6'4", and have very long arms.)  So you should not need to pretend non-crimes are impeachable.  

Personally, I'd rather have Pence any day anyway.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.60  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.59    4 weeks ago
Do you really fail to understand the difference between the supreme law of the United States and the Federalist Papers?  

Do YOU really fail to understand that the Federalist papers and the debates of the Constitutional Convention have been cited by the SCOTUS as the basis for the meaning of Articles of the Constitution? 

The 2nd Article accuses Nixon of specific crimes.  It even uses the word "unlawful".  

Nope, it sited no 'crimes'. The word 'unlawful' doesn't equate to 'CRIMINAL'. 

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

It goes on to cite Nixon's multiple violations of his oath of office. They aren't CRIMES, nor are they indictable. They are POLITICAL violations of the Constitution because his violation of his OATH. 

Here's the kicker:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Other than the misuse of the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Trump has ticked off all of those violations. We can ADD the State Department. 

They will need actual, specific crimes.  

So prove it Jack. Post supporting evidence that Articles of Impeachment MUST include crimes. I won't be holding my breath. 

I suggest you are letting your personal feelings toward President Trump override your grasp of the English language.  Although I'm not sure why.  If he's that terrible, surely they'll find a crime he's committed.  

I suggest you are letting your personal feelings toward Trump override your minimal  grasp of the LAW. 

I suspect you see it under every rock and twig as far as Trump is concerned.

No, that's the thing about Trump, he abuse the power of his office right out in the open. 

Which is not actual law.  

I have already addressed that irrelevance. 

Again....if Trump is as terrible as you claim, the list of his actual crimes should be as long as my arm (I'm 6'4", and have very long arms.)  So you should not need to pretend non-crimes are impeachable.  

Oh there are that and more. Yet because of the short attention spans and ignorance of all too many here in America, they will concentrate on the most recent egregious violations to impeach him. 

Personally, I'd rather have Pence any day anyway.

Pence is in it hip deep. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.61  Kathleen  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.38    4 weeks ago

No, not this time.

 
 
 
CB
3.6.62  CB   replied to  Kathleen @3.6.2    4 weeks ago

What you and "we" know is what is coming from the public opening statements of the witnesses. BTW, and I want you to think about it before you answer

There are republicans on the committees, are those committee republicans complaining about the public sharing of these opening statements, yes or no?

The clamor you hear is from republicans who do not want anything they view as negative shared in public, even when it is cleared for public consumption.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.6.63  Kathleen  replied to  CB @3.6.62    4 weeks ago

CB, I am done with this. 

 
 
 
CB
3.6.64  CB   replied to  Kathleen @3.6.2    4 weeks ago

CLARIFICATION: We do not know ALL about the testimony of the witnesses. That is factually untrue. The media is reporting only what has been released in pages of individual witness opening statements. After which, the Questioning and Answering starts and is currently not available to us or the media.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.65  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.59    4 weeks ago

This one's for you Jack:

 
 
 
CB
3.6.66  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.6.4    4 weeks ago

Conservatives don't have anything 'spin-worthy' to share. Is that a may be? Donald Trump and his "never Trumpers' mantra. I got news for that ugly acting fool, if he thinks people owe him something (especially their devotion), he is out of his f-ing mind! That's all!

There is an old saying that goes (paraphrase): 'He who would have friends should show him or herself friendly.'

Donald Trump is one of the least friendly person on planet earth today! His words and actions as president are tantamount to the mugshot of a warthog!

 
 
 
CB
3.6.67  CB   replied to  Kathleen @3.6.8    4 weeks ago

Trump is worse as he is the self-starting storm that is pouring down on his own flank!

 
 
 
CB
3.6.68  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.6.9    4 weeks ago

"Read it!"

 
 
 
CB
3.6.69  CB   replied to  MrFrost @3.6.51    4 weeks ago

It is even worse than we think. Psst. Some of them will follow Trump into insurrection. Of course, Trump will be jailed! These are dangerous times.

original

Horror-ween!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.6.71  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @3.6.60    4 weeks ago
It goes on to cite Nixon's multiple violations of his oath of office. They aren't CRIMES, nor are they indictable. They are POLITICAL violations of the Constitution because his violation of his OATH.

Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice, which is a crime and is indictable.  He was also charged with authorizing a burglary, which is a crime and is indictable.  He was also charged with contempt of Congress for refusing subpoenas, which is also a crime and indictable.  

Now, Trump may very well have committed a crime.  Or he may not. Observation of his 40+ years in the public eye certainly makes objective people suspect the former case is more likely than the latter.  If he has, he should be charged.  

Oh there are that and more.

Well then do explain articles of impeachment are not already up for a vote.

Yet because of the short attention spans and ignorance of all too many here in America, they will concentrate on the most recent egregious violations to impeach him.

Or maybe because "being the world's biggest asshole" is not actually an impeachable situation. 

I have already addressed that irrelevance. 

I'm sure you think you have.  Please let us know when someone is convicted of a violation of the Federalist Papers.

Pence is in it hip deep. 

Riiiiiight.  Of course he is.  Mr. Clean is somehow an arch villain.   That would have to get 50% more sane just to get back to "overboard".

But...the cool thing is...we have a process for this.  It's underway.  The process accounts for both the potential of a criminal president as well as the potential for a political witchhunt.  I am perfectly happy to let the process play out.  Why aren't you?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.6.72  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @3.6.71    4 weeks ago
Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice

You're deflecting Jack. We are talking about the 2nd Article of Impeachment remember. Try to stay on topic. 

Well then do explain articles of impeachment are not already up for a vote.

We were talking about crimes, not articles of impeachment. But you know that. I don't take the 'strawman' bait Jack. 

Or maybe because "being the world's biggest asshole" is not actually an impeachable situation. 

Nope, abuse of power will do. 

I'm sure you think you have.  Please let us know when someone is convicted of a violation of the Federalist Papers.

Quite a few sentences have been upheld based in part by citations of a Federalist paper Jack. 

Riiiiiight.  Of course he is.  Mr. Clean is somehow an arch villain.   That would have to get 50% more sane just to get back to "overboard".

Mr. Clean was one of Trump's bag men. 

But...the cool thing is...we have a process for this.  It's underway.  The process accounts for both the potential of a criminal president as well as the potential for a political witchhunt.  I am perfectly happy to let the process play out.  Why aren't you?

Oh I AM Jack. Butt unlike you, I actually know what the process is and support it. You want to pretend that the process now being followed is unconstititional and baseless. 

Now, where is your supporting evidence that Articles of Impeachment MUST include crimes? 

Oh and how did you like that Lindsey Graham video? 

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
3.6.73  NV-Robin6  replied to  Dulay @3.6.50    4 weeks ago

No shit! *high 5's on all you said! Facts are facts!

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.7  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago

Probably because republicans lie so much

 
 
 
Ender
4  Ender    4 weeks ago

What they are doing is legal. The piece of shit Gaetz is just grandstanding. He is trying to cloudy the waters and be a trump torchbearer.

The base eats it up like it is gospel.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @4    4 weeks ago
The piece of shit Gaetz is just grandstanding.

Yep. He just wants to solidify trumps base for votes. Well, that and he is an idiot. 

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.1  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 weeks ago
Yep. He just wants to solidify trumps base for votes.
What''s wrong with that?
 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @4    4 weeks ago

So you will be all for it when the Republicans do it to the next Democratic president?

Glad to hear it, because it will happen.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2    4 weeks ago
So you will be all for it when the Republicans do it to the next Democratic president?

If they do something illegal? Sure, I will. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.2  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Really. That they think trump is an angel and the Dems have zero reason for any of this is lunacy.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.3  pat wilson  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2    4 weeks ago

Chances that the Dems put up a clown like trump are zilch. And the gop better think long and hard about any future candidates they have.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

Really. That they think trump is an angel and the Dems have zero reason for any of this is lunacy.

I think the only cons left that think this is all made up are the same cons that wrapped themselves in tin foil to avoid getting cancer from those windmills. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

No, not illegal. For whatever, just like the Democrats are doing. Manufactured charges are as good as any.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2.6  WallyW  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.3    4 weeks ago
And the gop better think long and hard about any future candidates they have.
They certainly don't have to be worried about the crop of Dems morons. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.3    4 weeks ago
clown like trump

Particularly ironic because of what John Cronyn [a republican] said:

Asked about the sit-in, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, paused for some time before saying, “This place just gets more like a circus every day,”  according to   The Wall Street Journal .

Elect a clown, expect a circus. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

No, not illegal. For whatever, just like the Democrats are doing. Manufactured charges are as good as any.

You are aware that trump violated our constitution, right? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.9  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
They certainly don't have to be worried about the crop of Dems morons.

You are aware that electronic devices are not allowed in the room that the idiots barged into with their cell phones, right? That's what is called a security risk. Those republicans are fucking morons. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.2.10  cobaltblue  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.9    4 weeks ago
Those republicans are fucking morons.

Anything that include Gohmert is moronic. There's a meme of him that says "Gohmert ... he's like Forrest Gump without the intelligence and charm."

Gohmert admits as a kid, he would have wanted to go into the girl's restroom to "get educated." Get educated watching little girls pee and poop? Are you serious? What did he think goes on in little girl's bathrooms?

When it comes to this current legislation where — in most of the world, in most of the religions, the major religions, you have men and you have women, and there are some abnormalities but for heaven’s sake, I was as good a kid as you can have growing up, I never drank alcohol till I was legal, never to, still, use an illegal drug, but in the seventh grade if the law had been that all I had to do was say, ‘I’m a girl,’ and I got to go into the girls’ restroom, I don’t know if I could’ve withstood the temptation just to get educated back in those days. [Emphasis mine.]

Radio interview of Gohmert, April 7, 2016

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.11  Kavika   replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.10    4 weeks ago

Gohmert couldn't manage a one-car funeral.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kavika @4.2.11    4 weeks ago
Gohmert couldn't manage a one-car funeral.

Gohmert couldn't count to 21 without getting naked...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

I believe they are both aware but choose to stay ignorant

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.12    4 weeks ago

I had to think about that one for a minute....

 
 
 
CB
4.2.15  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @4.2    4 weeks ago

It will be stupid if it does and is uncalled for. The thing for any democratic party president to remember is to serve honorably. Of course, some conservatives and republicans "do as I say and not as I do" will attempt all manners of 'eruptions' and stinking thinking—oh it's true, that is what you do.

The public needs to take time out from its collectively busy lives and go through congressional elected officials with a fine tooth comb, dragging all misfits and malformed miscreants in office out of its hair!

I am down with that! Accountability to hold hearings of substance and not stupid stuff and trivialities, I say!  Once again, I blame the red state voters who are sending and keeping "donalders" in elected office for the overwhelming majority of aggravation and vexation in Washington, D.C.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.16  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

Please. It is clear to me you do not know what a "manufactured charge" looks like. Here let me offer you this:

th?id=OIP.kUYa4hlBOiE31LzorCFa0QHaE7&w=3   Do you know what this is?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.10    4 weeks ago

Didn't Mike Fuckabee say something similarly creepy about teenage girls in showers?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @4.2.15    4 weeks ago

Don't expect any results from the Ethics Committee.  If they would do their jobs, half the clowns, D and R, would be gone.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.19  dennis smith  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.7    4 weeks ago

Dems were elected to the majority in the house and we now have the clown car 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.20  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.17    4 weeks ago

Didn't Mike Fuckabee say something similarly creepy about teenage girls in showers?

Probably. He did run to Josh Duggar's side when it was discovered that Josh was molesting his little sisters. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.20    4 weeks ago

It was during the transgender bathroom/restroom/locker room fiascoes that Fuckabee stuck his ignorant nose in.  He said in high school he wished he could have said he felt like a woman so he could shower with the girls.

I'm sure he'd prefer to shower with boys, little boys.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @4    4 weeks ago
Gaetz is just grandstanding.

Certainly.

He is trying to cloudy the waters and be a trump torchbearer.

No...he is trying to garner attention and get re-elected.

The base eats it up like it is gospel.

Hence the attention-getting behavior.  It's not unlike liberal representatives who protest or pretty much any representative who appears in a televised congressional hearing.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5  Split Personality    4 weeks ago

Bringing a cell phone into a SCIF, is a huge security violation, but often accidental.

Texting from the same area is just plain willful stupidity

punishable by having current security clearances revoked and future clearances blocked.

Say goodbye to being on those committees let alone ever chairing one.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @5    4 weeks ago

True, but the guy was intentionally holding it up and trying to record.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6  Trout Giggles    4 weeks ago
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a member of the Oversight panel, told reporters that there were approximately 20 GOP members in the room who refused to leave, and said that they came into the secure room yelling that they be allowed inside. Some of these members brought their cellphones, which are not permitted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/laura-cooper-pentagon-official-overseeing-ukraine-testifies-impeachment-inquiry-n1070586?fbclid=IwAR2g4LM-9GptkbO0d_v1hz0ZUV-N1MXP6qni1-Inqk8Yb455ej2U_MRT9Fw

That takes some big brass balls, boys

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    4 weeks ago
That takes some big brass balls, boys

Been peeking in my windows again? ;)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    4 weeks ago

Yeah...I think it's time you got new carpet

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.1.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    4 weeks ago
Been peeking in my windows again?

We've been thinking about having stadium seating installed.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    4 weeks ago

Fuck the Democrats. At this point I don't care if the Republicans shut down Congress. 

No more closed door secret Democrat only questioning allowed.

Either it is out in the open; or it doesn't happen.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 weeks ago
No more closed door secret Democrat only questioning allowed.

There are republicans in the meeting. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.2.2  lady in black  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 weeks ago

There ARE republicans in these meetings, these gate crashers are NOT on the committee so they are NOT allowed in or are they special and the rules don't apply to them

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  lady in black @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

Everybody keeps telling that but I think they are skipping over those words:

"there are republicans in these meetings"

Or.....decorum prevents me from saying it

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.2.4  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 weeks ago
No more closed door secret Democrat only questioning allowe

No offense, but how many times does it need repeating?  THERE ARE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE AND PRESENT DURING THE PROCESS.  This is their opportunity to ask questions, as well. 

Pardon my yelling, but for crying the hell out loud!

 
 
 
lady in black
6.2.5  lady in black  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.3    4 weeks ago

Selective hearing and reading.....if I don't read it or hear it, it can't be true

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

Sister, let me. I'm known for my very loud voice

THERE ARE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE AND PRESENT DURING THE PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know if that will work but I gave it my best shot

 
 
 
CB
6.2.7  CB   replied to  lady in black @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

I tell you something else too. Congressman Schiff, who should know what Congressman Nunes is all about, should keep a short-chain on that thang. Nunes is no good. As soon as he sees a pretext to visit the White House or someone from the White House—hell, even Sean Hannity will do, he will trade information entrusted to this committee to Donald J. Trump. 

Congressman Nunes is looking for a openingBET! It would not surprise me in the least if he pulls another WH lawn interview as soon as, well tomorrow.

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.8  Kavika   replied to  CB @6.2.7    4 weeks ago

i-have-been-given-no-evidence-of-a-fire-

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.10  bbl-1  replied to  Kavika @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

Nunes is on the case?  He got the clapp again?

 
 
 
PJ
6.2.11  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.3    4 weeks ago

They haven't acknowledged facts for over 3 years so why would they start now. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.12  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 weeks ago
How much are you getting paid by some Trump funded PAC to push false narratives Ronin?
There are republicans on the investigative committees!
The republicans are being permitted to ask questions....!
Be very careful what you wish for.  After these preliminary hearings are done to determine if impeachment proceedings are warranted, impeachment will be voted on, and the hearing WILL become public.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.13  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

Hold it in public; or not all.

Good enough for you?

All the Dems are doing is trying to set the narrative with leaks.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.14  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.12    4 weeks ago

Same goes for you. Or do you think the Republicans won't be trying to tie each and every last witness to an antiTrump hate fest conducted by the Democrats?

"Do you hate the President. Do you think the President is incompetent. Do you wish to see the President removed from office. Were you coached, or did you have contact with any Democrats before your testimony" Will all be leading questions.

Frankly I can't stand Trump.

I have stated repeatedly that I voted and campaigned for Gary Johnson. I haven't voted for an Establishment candidate since Bill Clinton second term.  I stopped doing the lesser of two evils BS after believing him. He committed perjury and obstructed. I will never forgive him for that; or myself for voting for him.

I will be voting straight Republican ticket for the first time ever. Democrats don't deserve power at any level. I will not reward them for their abuse of power.  

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2.15  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.12    4 weeks ago
Pelosi is delaying a public vote as long as possible to protect vulnerable House members

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.16  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

I can't help you.  If you think republicans deserve to be in full charge....AGAIN...... your conspiracy theory world is something that can't be penetrated by facts.  And you've already proven that to be true in spades.  

You continue to carry Trump's water no matter facts are you are presented though you say you can't stand him.  I say bull.  You've been in lock step on every Trump point.  You sound very similar to ever other paid GOP shill that I've run across the last ten years.  That isn't a very flattering endorsement 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.17  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @6.2.15    4 weeks ago

She'll have this to the Senate by the end of November for trial.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.18  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.13    4 weeks ago
Hold it in public; or not all.

NO. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.13    4 weeks ago
"No more closed door secret Democrat only questioning allowed."

"There are republicans in the meeting."

"Hold it in public; or not all. Good enough for you?"

Thank goodness that goalpost was on wheels...

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.2.20  Kathleen  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

There may have been republicans in there, but were there any republicans representing Trumps side of the story?

 
 
 
CB
6.2.21  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 weeks ago

original There you go (yet) again. . . .  The rules of Congress won't permit you to take your sb7.jpg and play with them by yourself!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

The rules their party passed.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.2.23  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kathleen @6.2.20    4 weeks ago
There may have been republicans in there, but were there any republicans representing Trumps side of the story?

Plenty of people have had the opportunity to tell Trump's side of the story, but they were ordered to defy any and all subpoenas...by Trump. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2.23    4 weeks ago

What's ironic is that Trump tweets dozens of times a day, has an entire press office, has the bully pulpit, has Lindsey Graham carrying his water in the Senate and dozens of idiots doing the same in the House and they're STILL whining about Trump's 'side of the story' not being heard. 

 
 
 
CB
6.2.25  CB   replied to  Kavika @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

Gotta love it! The guy that can't go away. . . .  Trump's 'other ball.' Nunes is no good. He is looking for an opening to go tell. Just the kind of 'rat' Trump likes a lot!

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.26  dennis smith  replied to  WallyW @6.2.15    4 weeks ago

Pelosi is just another career politician who puts party over country

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.27  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.26    4 weeks ago

Pelosi is just another career politician who puts party over country

McConnell is just another career politician who puts party over country. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.28  Raven Wing  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.27    4 weeks ago
McConnell is just another career politician who puts party over country. 

And his own interests and personal gain above both party and country. 

 
 
 
CB
6.2.29  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

Yeah, this reverse pysche thing you repeatedly and assumingly think you are doing well is a failure. Anyone who would ever vote for Donald Trump after watching this fiasco-ed and loud-mouthed presidency full of stunts and meaningless intrigue is either sadistic or would accuse truth of being a lie even though it sitting on his or her face!

If that is not clear enough: let me be plainer. I, we, see you Russian bot! Yours is very similar to the counter-narrative that was executing "black ops" during the 2016 presidential cycle in support of Jill Stein (a third-party choice) and spreading disinformation and unworkable alternatives to voters.

I will make it my 'honor to check your BS where and when it shows up in my surroundings.

 
 
 
CB
6.2.30  CB   replied to  CB @6.2.29    4 weeks ago
Frankly I can't stand Trump.

. . . .

I will be voting straight Republican ticket for the first time ever

A dichotomy. You can't stand Trump and by extension those who are allowing 'rump to 'stand on Fifth Avenue and shooting someone' but, you are ready and eager to vote a straight Republican ticket, "maiden voyage" even, for the whole shebang of them?

In the words of Bill Maher, 'I can't prove you are 2016 Russian troll-farm agent, but I know its true!'

 
 
 
CB
6.2.31  CB   replied to  Kathleen @6.2.20    4 weeks ago

Excuse me, Kathleen. Now you are questioning republican loyalty to Donald Trump's point of view of us? Kindly as I can put it, I think Donald Trump is one of the worse human being I have ever heard of in public office—maybe even in life. Why would or should I care that his cadre of lies, obfuscations, and displays of obstruction be given any more time?

 
 
 
katrix
7  katrix    4 weeks ago
“This is a Soviet-style impeachment process,” Biggs added. “I don’t care whether you are the president of the United States or any other citizens of this country: You should be allowed to confront your witnesses.”

A trial, if there is one, would be conducted by the Senate.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Sad to see Democrats resort to Star Chamber tactics  and avoiding transparency at all costs.  A legitimate impeachment process, such as the Nixon and Clinton inquiries,  followed a bipartisan process that was agreed to by all sides.  

Remember, Democracy dies in the darkness, and the Democrats are trying to overturn an election in secret. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    4 weeks ago
Sad to see Democrats resort to Star Chamber tactics  and avoiding transparency at all costs.  A legitimate impeachment process, such as the Nixon and Clinton inquiries,  followed a bipartisan process that was agreed to by all sides.  

And how many of trumps staff has his orangeness ordered to not reply to legal subpoenas? 10? 15? But Dems aren't being transparent? Save your outrage. When was the last time you saw an investigation done completely out in the open? Never. 

When the house is done with the investigation, the findings get shared with the senate. Then there is a hearing. Were the republicans investigating clinton completely done in the open? No. 

Trump cost the GOP the midterms, that's the way it goes. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @8.1    4 weeks ago

And how many of trumps staff has his orangeness ordered to not reply to legal subpoenas? 10? 15

Trump has never refused to comply with a legal subpoena. Which Court order has he refused? 

But Dems aren't being transparent?

Um.. yeah. Secret hearings and withholding facts from the public are pretty much the definition of a lack of transparency. 

When was the last time you saw an investigation done completely out in the open? Never.

It's all taking place behind closed doors. The Clinton impeachment inquiry took place in a bipartisan, public matter.  Trying to overturn an election should be done in public, not in secret. But Democrats are the party of totalitarians, so I can see why overturning elections in secret appeals to them. 

 Were the republicans investigating clinton completely done in the open

The Republicans and Democrats agreed on procedures that maximized transparency and fairness for Clinton and Nixon. Democrats refused to follow that precedent so they can hide evidence from the public. 

Sad.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.2  katrix  replied to  MrFrost @8.1    4 weeks ago
And how many of trumps staff has his orangeness ordered to not reply to legal subpoenas? 10? 15? But Dems aren't being transparent? Save your outrage

So very true. The Trump admin is the least transparent administration ever.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.3  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
Democrats refused to follow that precedent so they can hide evidence from the public. 

Trump's refused to follow just about every precedent there is, especially those related to conflicts of interest and transparency. But you want to bitch about the Dems when they don't follow precedent? And the Constitution states that the House can conduct the impeachment inquiry however they want.

As MrFrost said, save your outrage.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.4  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

That’s transparency in the leftist world you need only to look at history if Democrats  ever get fully in control of the country real Americans are fucked.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
Trump has never refused to comply with a legal subpoena. Which Court order has he refused? 

Are you serious? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-blocking-congress/

Trying to overturn an election should be done in public, not in secret.

Well, there went your credibility. A legally certified election cannot BE overturned. You need to get off the right wing nut job radio. No one is trying to overturn the 2016 election. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.6  MUVA  replied to  katrix @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

However they want really with the help of lemmings you are correct.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

Sad that you think impeachments overturn elections.

Clinton skated, as did Johnson. The Senate would not convict either.

Nixon resigned, he was not impeached (as likely as it would have been, had he resisted).

 
 
 
lady in black
8.1.8  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

What part of if they are not on the committee don't they get that they have no business being in the room or are they above the rules and laws.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @8.1.2    4 weeks ago

After Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. That is just pure TDDS talking.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.9    4 weeks ago
After Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. That is just pure TDDS talking.

Doesn't that mean you have RDS BDS CDS and ODS? 

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.11  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.9    4 weeks ago

Really? How So? Please enlighten us. I want to know now. I think you are just bluffing...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.7    4 weeks ago
ad that you think impeachments overturn elections.

Sad that you don't understand a successful  impeachment  a President overturn an  election.

did you not know that? Sad, indeed. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @8.1.3    4 weeks ago
used to follow just about every precedent there i

It's funny how you have to justify your actions by referencing a President  you want to impeach. 

Pretty much says it all. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.5    4 weeks ago

re you serious? 

Are you serious? Do you not understand the President has the right to challenge the legality of a subpoena. Did you not know that? Again, as the party of totalitarianism, I can see why democrats ignore due process and the separation of powers. 

A legally certified election cannot BE 

Sure it can. Donald Trump was elected President. A successful impeachment overturns the results of an election and removes the legally elected President  from office before he completes the term he was elected for. Do you really not know that? 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.15  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
Trump has never refused to comply with a legal subpoena. Which Court order has he refused?

How about this:  I'll research and provide his compliance record if you research and provide his non-compliance record.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.16  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.7    4 weeks ago
Sad that you think impeachments overturn elections

And there we have it.  Thank you!!!!  Feel free to repeat it as often as possible.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.1.15    4 weeks ago

ump has never refused to comply with a legal subpoena. Which Court order has he refused?

I'd just like someone, anyone, to point out any subpoena he's been ordered to comply with and hasn't. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.12    4 weeks ago

Nothing to say about Nixon, sad.

Who would have replaced Clinton?  Was Gore not elected to step into the Presidency "just in case"?

Had Johnson been convicted by the Senate, the ( twice elected) Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax

would have been sworn in as the 18th President because Johnson never appointed a Vice President due to the

enmity of both parties during Reconstruction after Lincoln was "impeached" by a bullet.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.19  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.17    4 weeks ago
I'd just like someone, anyone, to point out any subpoena he's been ordered to comply with and hasn't.

Still waiting on those financial records.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.18    4 weeks ago
othing to say about Nixon, sad.

Say what about Nixon? What point do you imagine you made?

Did you not know Bill Clinton was elected to serve as President for 4 years? 

By all means, go back and look at how Democrats claimed Republicans were trying to overturn the 1996 election by impeaching Clinton.  Look it up!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.1.19    4 weeks ago
l waiting on those financial records.  

What court has ordered him to produce records and what deadline has he missed? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.20    4 weeks ago

Are you a Constitutionalist Sean?

Do you not believe in it?

Impeachment is enshrouded in it. 

Seems like the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing, did they not?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.22    4 weeks ago

Do you think this is some sort of gotcha?

Of course impeachment is Constitutional. IT also overturns the result of an election. Both things are true.

Understand I'm not a liberal who thinks the Constitution conforms to my personal preferences, in that any policy I don't like must be "unconstitutional".

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.25  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.24    4 weeks ago
Of course impeachment is Constitutional. IT also overturns the result of an election. Both things are true.

Well then stop your constant bitching about it, seems you cannot have both at the same time.

however we elected both Trump & Pence on the same ticket.

So as long as Pence becomes the 46th POTUS I see no argument about overturning an election.

It's all part of the processssssssssss.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.25    4 weeks ago
top your constant bitching about it, seems you cannot have both at the same time.

That's idiotic. Seriously.  It doesn't even make sense. 

 as Pence becomes the 46th POTUS I see no argument about overturning an election.

Of course you don't. That's the Dailykos Democratic talking point in 2019. In 1998, Democrats claimed it was. 

Trump was elected to serve 4 years. Impeachment overturns the vote and truncates his term of office. That's undeniable.  But don't worry about being accurate, just bleat your shiny new 2019 talking points. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.14    4 weeks ago
Do you not understand the President has the right to challenge the legality of a subpoena.

He can challenge it, but he cannot refuse it. Ask Susan McDougal how that works. Trump is not above the law no matter how much you want him to be. He is in the EXECUTIVE branch, not the JUDICIAL branch. Did you forget that we have 3 co-equal branches of government? Besides, you said he hasn't refused any subpoenas and hasn't ordered his staff to refuse them. You got proven wrong.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.24    4 weeks ago
IT also overturns the result of an election.

No, it really doesn't. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.26    4 weeks ago
Impeachment overturns the vote and truncates his term of office.

No, Pence would be sworn in. And if Pence goes down with Donny? President Pelosi. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.27    4 weeks ago
He can challenge it, but he cannot refuse it

You are speaking gibberish. Literally.

Ask Susan McDougal how that works

McDougal went to jail because she ignored  a court order to testify. There is no order court order compelling Trump to do anything.  See the difference?

ump is not above the law no matter how much you want him to be

Now you are making things up.  Asserting your rights in Court doesn't make "you above the law." The Courts have to determine what the law requires, first.   Have you no respect for due process?

id you forget that we have 3 co-equal branches of government? 

No. you don't seem to understand what's happening. This is between Congress and the President. Each is claiming  the other is overstepping it's rights. The Court will determine who is right. Until then, Trump doesn't have to do anything. 

esides, you said he hasn't refused any subpoenas and hasn't ordered h

No, I didn't. Try again. 

ou got proven wrong.

If you think that, you have no idea what's going on. Based on what you've written, that seems likely. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.29    4 weeks ago

Do you not understand what the word "truncates" means? Or "he."

It boggles the mind that anyone would claim the impeachment and remove of Trump wouldn't truncate his Presidential term.  I can't believe this needs to be explained. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
8.1.32  bbl-1  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.9    4 weeks ago

Are you imply that Trump has or has had an STD?

 
 
 
CB
8.1.33  CB   replied to  katrix @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

These donalders are gnashing their teeth at the wrong people. Donald swerved Donald with all this stonewalling, insults, and steamrolling over rules of law!

 
 
 
CB
8.1.34  CB   replied to  MUVA @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

Humph. Apparently, somebody does not know what real Americans look like. For the record, the citizens of this country, inclusive of you, too, are real Americans!

 
 
 
CB
8.1.35  CB   replied to  MrFrost @8.1.5    4 weeks ago
You need to get off the right wing _ _  radio.

Yes! Please do remember that those commenters on all radio and television if they are not volunteering time to the networks - they have been given positions for which regular on-air appearances are paid. And the more lucrative. . . . So what am I saying? I am saying that in one form or another those analysts, experts, and show anchors you listen to and watch are "jobbin.'

Jobbers will tell you the truth or they will share spin, either way you will be told something—everyday—everytime on talk/commentary/opinion shows. One by one, each one gets a crack to 'open' up our heads out here and see something. We have to be very careful who. . . .

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.1.36  Ronin2  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.9    4 weeks ago

I hope you are kidding?

Reagan and Bush Sr had Iran/Contra; or is the left now denying all of the investigations into that? Are you saying that there was no cover up.

https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/iran-contra-affair

Reagan himself was never charged, and, in 1992,   George H. W. Bush , Reagan’s vice president who was elected president in 1988, preemptively pardoned Weinberger.

McFarlane was charged with four counts of withholding information from Congress, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to two years’ probation and $20,000 in fines.

North was charged with 12 counts relating to conspiracy and making false statements. Although he was convicted in his initial trial, the case was dismissed on appeal, due to a technicality, and North has since worked as a conservative author, critic, television host and head of the NRA.

Poindexter was initially indicted on seven felonies and ultimately tried on five. He was found guilty on four of the charges and sentenced to two years in prison, although his convictions were later vacated.

In addition, four CIA officers and five government contractors were also prosecuted; although all were found guilty of charges ranging from conspiracy to perjury to fraud, only one—private contractor Thomas Clines—ultimately served time in prison.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction. You can't get any more clear than that. Sorry, I will not provide a link for this one, as it is too obvious.

Bush Jr was the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Or do want to pretend Bush wasn't investigated up the ying yang for that; even after Congress authorized the use of military force. Also the outing of a secret service agent. Both were covered up by the administration.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/valerie-plame-cia-agent-outed-iraq-war-running/story?id=62935987

Obama. Take your pick Fast and Furious- where he granted both Holder, and Holder's wife, executive privilege. Benghazi, IRS, Black Panther voter intimidation. If there was an investigation Obama obstructed using Executive Privilege, and forcing Congress to repeatedly take him to court to get evidence.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/judge-rejects-obamas-executive-privilege-claim-over-fast-and-furious-records-217970

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-fight-over-fast-and-furious-documents-221741

Four years after asserting executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to a controversial federal gun trafficking investigation, President Barack Obama relented Friday, turning over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records that led to unusual House votes holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012.

In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama's executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House's response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama's privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration's drive to keep the records secret.

Both sides had until midnight Friday to file an appeal. Instead, the Obama administration turned over a set of documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"In light of the passage of time and other considerations, such as the Department's interest in moving past this litigation and building upon our cooperative working relationship with the Committee and other Congressional committees, the Department has decided that it is not in the Executive Branch's interest to continue litigating this issue at this time," Justice Deparment legislative liaison Peter Kadzik wrote in a letter Friday to House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

https://outline.com/NrTd6F

Having   written extensively about Obama-era corruption , I felt it was necessary to remind everyone that not only was the Obama administration plagued by multiple scandals but that obstructing investigations was standard operating procedure. For Democrats, Trump calling the Mueller an investigation a witch hunt is an impeachable offense, but Obama refusing to cooperate with investigations was much ado about nothing.

Despite many abuses of power during the Obama years, not once did Attorney General Eric Holder or Attorney General Loretta Lynch ever appoint a special counsel to investigate them. Instead, they’d occasionally launch their own investigations, which   always   exonerated them, or, when the Republican-controlled House launched their own investigations, the Obama administration refused to cooperate and obstructed their investigations.

In August 2014,   47 of 73 inspectors general wrote an open letter to Congress informing them that the Obama administration of obstructing investigations   by not giving them full access to the information they need to investigate properly. Such a letter was unprecedented, and the systemic corruption and obstruction the inspectors general would have been considered an impeachable defense for almost any other president. Emboldened by the lack of outrage (thanks to lack of media attention to the scandal) emboldened the Obama administration to impose new restrictions on the investigative powers of inspectors general. Imagine President Trump trying to get away with that today?

Obstruction of justice was integral to the entire operation of the Obama administration. Whenever a scandal erupted, the kneejerk reaction by Obama and his cronies was to cover-up and obstruct. Below are the top five examples of investigations obstructed by the Obama administration.

But Trump is so much worse than all of the other Presidents?/S 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.37  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.26    4 weeks ago
Trump was elected to serve 4 years. Impeachment overturns the vote and truncates his term of office. That's undeniable.  But don't worry about being accurate, just bleat your shiny new 2019 talking points. 

Trump was elected to serve 4 years honestly and legally within the limits of power of the office of the Presidency.

Many people feel that Trump has abused his power many times in different ways and are exercising their Constitutional right to explore impeachment.

Is your whole premise is that he can only be impeached after his term has been served?  That's ridiculous.

But don't worry about being accurate Sean, it's not as if the FF did not include impeachment in the Constitution for a situation like this

Oh wait, they did.

You just can't admit that the two thing exist together and that impeachment over rules elections.  Too bad.

You need new non partisan talking points too.

This pit bull routine has gotten old and stale.

It boggles the mind how many times it has been explained to you and you just

bleat semantic games.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.37    4 weeks ago

Let me make this as simple as possible for you. The voters elected Trump to serve 4 years. Impeachment and removal prevents that from happening.  It's that simple.

Everything else you offered is irrelevant blather.

Acknowledging the perfectly obvious fact that impeachment and removal overturns the result of the election (Trump won a 4 year term) has nothing to do with the constitutionality of impeachment. Why you think it does is beyond me.  Nor does acknowledging the plain fact that  impeachment overturns an election bear any relationship with the correctness of any particular impeachment.   

Try and grasp  this, impeachment and removal of a President  is constitutional and can be an appropriate remedy, but it still overturns an election. 

Again, I know Democrats prioritize messaging over reality..  When a Democrat is threatened with impeachment,it's "overturning an election" because that fits the overall narrative they want their supporters to parrot. When it's a Republican President threatened, they spit in the face of reality rather than knowledge an obvious reality, for fear that the  obvious reality helps their enemies. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.39  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.38    4 weeks ago
Let me make this as simple as possible for you. The voters elected Trump to serve 4 years. Impeachment and removal prevents that from happening.  It's that simple.

Then you do not believe in impeachment

Got it

Rinse, blather, rinse.

Try and grasp  this, impeachment and removal of a President  is constitutional and can be an appropriate remedy, but it still overturns an election. 

You cannot hold both positions at the same time Sean.

Butt since you appear to be arguing with yourself and somehow blaming all non-Republicans,

please, have the last word on this partisan nonsense.

jrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.39    4 weeks ago
n you do not believe in impeachment

Man, you have lost all contact with linear thought.  No wonder you don't even try and defend that nonsense with an argument,.

annot hold both positions at the same time Sean.

Of course, I, like any reality based person capable of nuanced thought can. That's why the  founders made the bar to remove an elected President so high, because it overturns an election. 

Butt since you appear to be arguing with yourself

No, I'm  stopping you from gaslighting the forum with your assault on the English language, logic and common sense. 

somehow blaming all non-Republican

No, I'm just laughing at your obvious hypocrisy. The idea that Democrats would be making this absurd argument if a Democrat were being impeached is laughable, as history demonstrates. Just try and claim it with a straight face. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.1.15    4 weeks ago
I'll research and provide his compliance record if you research and provide his non-compliance record.

Sure...take the easy job....

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.42  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.38    4 weeks ago
Acknowledging the perfectly obvious fact that impeachment and removal overturns the result of the election

If that were true, Hillary would become President when Donald is impeached. Instead, Pence would be President just as the constitution mandates if the President is impeached, also a constitutional structure that has nothing to do with "overturning" an election but everything to do with removing Presidents who abuse their power or commit crimes while in office. If it were simply overturning the results of an election, like voiding the winner in a race, the runner up is awarded 1st place and is considered the winner. That obviously is not what impeachment would lead to, thus it is very clearly not overturning an election. Besides, what I believe you're trying to imply is that it's overturning the will of the people, but that's utter nonsense since the people overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. But even so, Hillary will never be President. She is done and there is no chance she will ever be President since she's not only tainted by a massive amount of disinformation and lies that millions of half wits and morons still believe in just like they still believe Obama was born in Kenya despite all evidence, but Hillary is also saddled with the fact she lost the electoral college votes to arguably the most despicable human being on the planet.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.43  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.12    4 weeks ago
Sad that you don't understand a successful  impeachment  a President overturn an  election.

Sad that you think it does. It doesn't.

It removes him from office and denies him the right to hold future office. PERIOD full stop. It doesn't 'invalidate, reverse or overturn' anything. If it did, Pence would be going out the door right with Trump. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.14    4 weeks ago
Sure it can. Donald Trump was elected President. A successful impeachment overturns the results of an election and removes the legally elected President  from office before he completes the term he was elected for. Do you really not know that? 

GREAT! So we get a twofer' and Trump AND Pence go.

BTW, please consider practicing your copy and paste 'skills'. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.39    4 weeks ago

Sean is completely spinning his wheels. It is what Trump defenders have been reduced to. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.42    4 weeks ago
everything to do with removing Presidents who abuse their power or commit crimes while in office.

Which actually remains to be determined.

but Hillary is also saddled with the fact she lost the electoral college votes to arguably the most despicable human being on the planet.

To be fair, she gives him a run for the money in that contest.

 
 
 
CB
8.1.47  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.14    4 weeks ago

Unbelievable. What the hell is going on here? We clearly have too much freedom in this country. Where is the draft when you need it? /s

 
 
 
CB
8.1.48  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.26    4 weeks ago

So who is your actual complain with the founders or NT? I just want to know what we are dealing with here for real!

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.46    4 weeks ago
Which actually remains to be determined.

Hence the need for deposing witnesses. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.50  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.49    4 weeks ago
Hence the need for deposing witnesses.

I don't actually have a problem with that.  I didn't have a problem with Bob Mueller investigating, either, BTW.  

I think the nature of impeachment proceedings is much less conducive to objectivity than Meuller's work was, so the outcome is likely to be more contentious no matter how it works out.

So we'll see what happens.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.51  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.30    4 weeks ago
Until then, Trump doesn't have to do anything. 

I hope he doesn't, then he can rack up a charge of Obstruction Of Justice, (which is an impeachable offense). 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.52  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.31    4 weeks ago
remove of Trump wouldn't truncate his Presidential term.

His PERSONALLY, yes. But it doesn't mean we wander aimlessly without a POTUS. As has been stated, Pence would be sworn in. We do actually have rules regarding the removal of a POTUS. Overturning the election would mean that Hillary would take over, which is not possible since Clinton is not even a government employee. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.53  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.41    4 weeks ago