It's Time to Write to your Congressman

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  one month ago  •  198 comments


It's Time to Write to your Congressman
Your Congressman should represent you.

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads

I sent an email to my congressman urging him to impeach Trump.  His response was impressive.

800

Please notice that he said he considers this "the most serious and important vote of my congressional career".

I urge every NewsTalker to contact their representatives to express their views about impeachment.

We all have the responsibility to vote and we should also communicate with our representatives to provide them with the feedback they need to represent us.  

800


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
al Jizzerror
1  author  al Jizzerror    one month ago

I wrote my Congressman a letter with a comprehensive list of what I think should be included in the articles of impeachment.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago

How much that came out of Grimms fairytales

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    one month ago

I didn't post the email I sent to my congressman.

Since you do NOT know the content of my email to my Congressman, your bullshit about fairytales is merely a lame attempt at an insult.

Obviously my Congressman didn't think my letter was a "fairytale".

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.1    one month ago
a lame attempt at an insult.

Actually it's a ridiculous attempt. But I expect nothing less and nothing more from FW. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.1    one month ago

Simple question you can answer it anytime you want

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.2    one month ago

Are you still looking for sympathy

 
 
 
cobaltblue
1.1.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.4    one month ago
Are you still looking for sympathy

You're not even good at attempting at being an irritant. Go back into your bullshit closet. It can use some tidying up. 

Your commentary is impotent. Some people are like picnic gnats. Merely annoying, nothing else. You've not even achieved gnat status. Keep trying, hon. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.5    one month ago

Yet there are you are trying so hard and achieving absolutely nothing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.6    one month ago

You're projecting. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.6    one month ago

Wow, oh fucking WOW !

What an articulate comeback !! 

It even makes sense, ( said no one, ever. .......)

I guess you suffer from "late Friday night syndrome" too.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 weeks ago
a comprehensive list of what I think should be included in the articles of impeachment.

So you sent him a list of things you THINK the President did wrong.  Did you include hurting your feelings?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    one month ago

I've written my Congressional representative and informed him that I want the US House of Representatives to actually follow the US Constitution in the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Following the US Constitution would mandate that the CONGRESS (as in the majority of the whole fucking congressional body) hold a vote to impeach the President and not have some geriatric Speaker of the House 'declare an impeachment inquiry' and hold SECRET closed door kangaroo court inquisitions.

So write your representatives and demand the same.   Let the sunshine in and the bullshit of closed door inquisitions rot.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago

Effen cowardly Dem bass turds are afraid to have an on the record formal vote to impeach. Lots of reps might lose their seats, perhaps? And what are they trying to pull with all the closed door secret BS?    WTF?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one month ago
Effen cowardly Dem bass turds are afraid to have an on the record formal vote to impeach.

So you think they should have "an on the record formal vote to impeach" before the impeachment inquiry (investigation).

That sounds legit.

If you use White House talking points you sound as fucking stupid as they do.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one month ago
And what are they trying to pull with all the closed door secret BS?    WTF?

HAHAHA!!! Omigawwwwwd ... you never cease to make me laugh! You do know how things are run, don't you? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.1    one month ago
Removed for context - s

That's why it's so fuckin' hilarious!!! I'm still laughin' my ass off. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one month ago
Effen cowardly Dem bass turds

Awwww. Looks like the reppies are starting to cry. Awwwwww. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.5  CB   replied to  WallyW @2.1    one month ago

Gnashing of teeth. Couldn't happen to a more deserving set of conservatives. Facts must and will win out!

Democrats and Independents write/call/chat/tweet/ your congressman and tell them for once and for all get this right! Do not be stampeded, browbeat, cajoled, or intimidated by the lying enablers who make long distorted faces in Washington in pursuit of saving this total and thoroughly bankrupted character-thing we call president!

Donald Trump is the enemy of conscientious Americans! Congress democrats be studious and go get your stuff back!

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.6  WallyW  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.1    one month ago

Did I say to have the vote before the sham "investigation"? Whenever and if it comes, the House vote won't matter. Senate won't vote to convict.  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

If the idiot assholes don't get a move on, the election will have passed them by. Whatever happens, the Dems have fucked up royally yet again  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @2.1.6    one month ago
Whatever happens, the Dems have fucked up royally yet again 

The President is the one who has "fucked up royally yet again".  The Donald is providing the evidence for impeachment.

Trump even publicly requested that China investigate the Democratic front runner in the up coming election.

The head of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, reminded candidates that asking for help from foreign governments is illegal.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.8  WallyW  replied to  CB @2.1.5    one month ago
Congress democrats be studious and go get your stuff back!

It doesn't look like they will be getting anything back. The voters will continue to reject them

They certainly will  lose Congressional seats, and the WH will once again elude them

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.3    one month ago
Removed for context - s

Fuck this stupid censorshit.

I'm out.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.10  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.1.6    one month ago
Whatever happens, the Dems have fucked up royally yet again

Well then good on you, Wally. We're a laughing stock globally, the Snowflake-In-Chief doesn't have an iota of impulse-control and he will continue to sink himself and throw "friends" under the bus, his secrets will be exposed and history will show him to be the most inept, dishonorable, racist sexist president in history. The only president in history who has admitted on multiple occasions he wants to "date" (read: screw) his daughter. The thin one. Not the one he considers fat (although he did wonder about the future size of her breasts while she was in a bassinet in front of that pig, Marla and Robin Leach). 

Good on you, Wally. Stick to your president. You are so pissed that an educated black man was in office for eight years, you are willing to lose credibility, probity, decency and honor. Good on you. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.11  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.10    one month ago

Speak for yourself.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.12  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.9    one month ago
I'm out.

I thought we were supposed to moderate our groups. Hell, I even waived FW's flags. 

Yeahhhh ... everyone should have a chance to say what they want. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.13  cobaltblue  replied to  MUVA @2.1.11    one month ago
Speak for yourself.

Uhhh ... yeah. Did I ever say, "MUVA and I say ... "

Of course I speak for myself. Are you kidding?? I'm looking around because I think I'm being punked. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.14  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.10    one month ago

I'm pissed it was Obama for 8 years biggest scam in the history country. I would have like to see Doug Wilder as the first black president he is one of my hero's after my dad.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.15  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.13    one month ago

If you think you are a laughing stock I can't argue  but I don't think you are.You maybe confused, misinformed but not a laughingstock.jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.16  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.12    one month ago

You a beacon of free speech in the darkness of news talkers. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.12    one month ago
I thought we were supposed to moderate our groups.

Mods are still to remove any CoC violations or skirts, as those comments appear on the front page.  Groups have some leeway, but they're not free-for-alls.  Heated Discussions is the place to go if you want a discussion with no moderation.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    one month ago
remove any CoC violations or skirts

remove skirts....

Giggity. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.19  cobaltblue  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    one month ago
Mods are still to remove any CoC violations or skirts, as those comments appear on the front page.  Groups have some leeway, but they're not free-for-alls. 

I understand, Sandy. However, there are far more egregious CoC violations on other articles that are not in BH, that are on articles that invite inciteful commentary. This is/was an article about writing your representative. Very simple. Contact your representative. Then there are people who feel very strongly about supporting their president, who decide to just appear and attempt to poke and get a rise; and we understand that. I feel what you've decided to do for the past couple of days is a responsibility you take seriously and I appreciate that. However, as you know, BH doesn't delete any commentary other than doxxing, using absolutely profanity (and that's iffy, but that's what our landlady has requested of us), and calling a comment as off-topic by author. 

We all know the who the 'nyah-nyahers' are and we appreciate having their comments stay so others can see their weak attempts at trolling (they're never quite successful) and how their behavior indicates how they feel about themselves.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.20  cobaltblue  replied to  MUVA @2.1.15    one month ago
ou are a laughing stock I can't argue

Well, I understand your misunderstanding the word "we." I meant as Americans. I understand Trump supporters are egocentrically driven, each man for himself, and fuck America. I get it. But you have to understand, patriots think of the country. But if you don't get it, that's fine. Carry on. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.19    one month ago

If you see violations, flag them.  If a mod agrees that they are violations, they will be removed.  We can't read all discussions, and violations that aren't flagged are likely to go unmoderated.  The comment I deleted was in violation and was flagged, which is why it was removed, BH's internal policy notwithstanding.  Sinners & Buttheads is still subject to the site-wide CoC and ToS, just as it was on Newsvine.

We try to leave off-topic, meta, and trolling flags for the group mods to make a call, as I did the other flags that were present along with Al's, but more serious violations such as personal insults or doxxing are subject to deletion by site mods, to enable quick removal.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.22  cobaltblue  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.21    one month ago
If you see violations, flag them.

Then we'll have to visit less often. I don't flag items unless they're doxxing, personal vile insults and off-topic if requested by author. And by not flagging them, I don't want to put you in a bad situation. I'd rather just visit once in blue moon. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.23  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.20    one month ago

What patriots? before I sat down at the computer I was talking to my neighbor he was a navy seal for 30 years he is actually famous in the seal and special ops community and a Trump supporter you mean that kind of patriot.Maybe you mean my brother west point grad 12 years Army first in his class to make Captain then served 22 years in the FBI including 7 years on the hostage rescue team.Maybe my dad 35 year Naval career including being the military attache in Tehran Iran and also time at airborne command post and strategic air command that type of patriot ?Maybe myself 10 year reserve  service 5 years active duty two deployments to Iraq VOLUNTEERED with time at seal team 18 ,STDV mobile,special boat mobile,ACU 2,and EOD mobile fort story joint expeditionary base is that the kind of patriot you are talking about. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.24  CB   replied to  WallyW @2.1.8    one month ago

In your Screen-shot-2013-03-07-at-9.56.53-PM.png production?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.12    one month ago

Al and CB, 

I read Sandy's explanation, and she is spot on. The groups are supposed to moderate themselves but as part of the agreement of being on the front page, they must abide by the CoC. if there is a blatant CoC violation, then it has to go, as part of the agreement of being an open group and that comment was one.

Not trying to step on anyone's toes or ruin anyone's fun, but all the open groups know, or should know this.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.26  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.18    one month ago
Giggity.

Hahahahhahahahaha!!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.27  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.1.14    one month ago

Oh well. There goes life again messing with stuff.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.19    4 weeks ago

How about those folks who are not necessarily Trump supporters but are conservative leaning Independents that come onto NT and get verbally attacked by certain progressive leftist liberals like a pack of starving hyenas for not sharing their views and get lumped all into the same category for convenience sake. Is that a fair thing to do? That has probably driven off a lot of decent prospective members. And for fairness sake, those on the right do the same thing. There are people posting that have lost any concept of civil discourse.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.29  MUVA  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    4 weeks ago

I agree with most of your I disagree that both sides attack with the same vigar.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.30  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MUVA @2.1.29    4 weeks ago

I never said they attack with the same vigor.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.31  MUVA  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.30    4 weeks ago

My bad some seem to hunt in packs like schoolyard bullies.I really find it funny how mad some people get over a simple statement. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.32  CB   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    4 weeks ago
progressive leftist liberals like a pack of starving hyenas for not sharing their views and get lumped all into the same category for convenience sake.  . . . .That has probably driven off a lot of decent prospective members.

Deal with it. I get my 'cheeks' chewed on one side and gnawed on the other. I deal with it. In the heat of the moment, discussions flaring, lies flowin' from wherever, misunderstandings, and whatever else is going on, no one is trying to feel you or me out delicately. 

Just deal. Come on it. Hang. Oh, don't ever let them see you sweat. And, lose the labels that can go a long way in keeping you from being misunderstood! 

Cheers!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.33  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
So you think they should have "an on the record formal vote to impeach" before the impeachment inquiry (investigation).

The has been an "inquiry" going since he was elected and there is nothing to impeach him on.  And it come up with a big zero.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.35  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    4 weeks ago
views and get lumped all into the same category for convenience sake.

Ed, the same is true of the right. The word, "liberal", now applies to anyone that doesn't toe the line for trump. Go over to fox news and read the comments, every other comment is, "Liberals......"... 

So that's a two way street. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.36  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.35    4 weeks ago

Please read the entire post, specifically the second to last sentance thank you.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.37  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  MUVA @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
You a beacon of free speech

Yes she is.

Thank you for noticing.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago
I've written my Congressional representative and informed him that I want the US House of Representatives to actually follow the US Constitution in the impeachment of Donald Trump.

I'm glad to hear that.

Butt you also said:

Following the US Constitution would mandate that the CONGRESS (as in the majority of the whole fucking congressional body) hold a vote to impeach the President and not have some geriatric Speaker of the House 'declare an impeachment inquiry' and hold SECRET closed door kangaroo court inquisitions.

I suggest you actually read the fucking constitution.  That bullshit isn't in it.

The Constitution doesn't require a vote to start the impeachment process

BY LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/12/19 03:00 PM EDT
The   extraordinary letter   from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker   Nancy Pelosi outlines President Trump ’s numerous complaints about the impeachment process. At least as to the argument that the current inquiry is invalid because there has been no formal vote by the House of Representatives, there should be little doubt that Cipollone is wrong. No such vote is necessary because the Constitution dictates no fixed process for impeachment investigations or trials.
If the House has the sole discretion to adopt articles of impeachment, it follows that it has the discretion to determine how to launch and conduct any preceding inquiry and investigation. This conclusion finds support in another textual mandate in the constitution: that each House “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Notably, there is no impeachment exception to this provision.

That impeachment inquiries and investigations are left to the House’s discretion makes sense. The House is the most democratically representative department of the federal government, and the framers reasonably could have concluded that no impeachment investigation would occur unless a majority of the House membership approved. Given the potential political obstacles to assembling a majority of the House to act on any matter, much less an issue as fraught as impeachment, the framers likely understood that the power to investigate and, potentially, adopt articles of impeachment would be used cautiously.

Lawrence Friedman teaches constitutional law at New England Law | Boston and is the author, most recently, of the second edition of “Modern Constitutional Law.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/465402-the-constitution-doesnt-require-a-vote-to-start-the-impeachment-process

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.1  WallyW  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2    one month ago
The Constitution doesn't require a vote to start the impeachment process

Nor is there any legal requirement for Trump and his team to respond to subpoenas requesting documents or submitting to secret interviews behind closed doors.....with no legal representation

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Nor is there any legal requirement for Trump and his team to respond to subpoenas requesting documents or submitting to secret interviews behind closed doors.....with no legal representation

If I were innocent of all charges, if I thought the charges were what I considered a witchhunt, I would have any documents requested of me bound, indexed and presented with a "after you find nothing, you owe me an apology" disclaimer. That's what anyone would do if they were innocent. 

If it's fake news, provide information to show that. He screams 'fake news' knowing his supporters will not demand that he show he's innocent and request that he get back to the business of running this country. Notice I said running this country, not sabotaging it. 

Anyone supporting Trump's treasonous behavior is just as guilty as he is. The price you've personally paid to support the Liar-In-Chief is amazing. Sad. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago

Nor is there any legal requirement for Trump and his team to respond to subpoenas requesting documents or submitting to secret interviews behind closed doors.....with no legal representation

Um, actually they are, it's a felony. Ask Susan McDougal. She did 22 months in prison for ignoring a subpoena. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.4  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.2    one month ago

Your lawyer would disagree.Anyone trying to railroad a president and wants him to prove his innocence is a un American. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.2    one month ago
If I were innocent of all charges,

I have said before in other articles, there must be something that Trump is very sacred to death of that he is doing all he can to block anything, everything and everyone he can from giving out any information he can. 

If he is truly so innocent, then why is he obviously running so freakin scared? All he has to do is give them the information they want that will prove his innocence and it would all be over with. But, instead he is making himself look more guilty by his own actions and his own mouth. 

If one has nothing to hide, why try to hide it? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.6  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @2.2.5    one month ago
If one has nothing to hide, why try to hide it?

Thank you! Exactly. It's absurd and Trump thrives at making fools out of his supporters. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    one month ago
Anyone trying to railroad a president and wants him to prove his innocence is a un American.

Wait. What? Railroad him to prove his innocence? Whaaaaaat????!?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.8  cobaltblue  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.3    one month ago
Ask Susan McDougal. She did 22 months in prison for ignoring a subpoena. 

Damn you for your succinct and thorough facts! Don't confuse the lad.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.9  MUVA  replied to  Raven Wing @2.2.5    one month ago

In this country you are innocent till proven guilty and have a right to mount a vigorous defense.Adam shitt is a disgrace I would do the same thing Trump is doing if someone like Schitt was railroading me.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.2.10  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.6    one month ago
It's absurd and Trump thrives at making fools out of his supporters. 

Not only fools, but, in many cases, scapegoats and fall guys who end up getting the shaft so Trump can save his own skin. He'd do the same to his own family members if it came down to it. Except for Invanka....can't let her get too far away from his reach.  /s

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.11  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.7    one month ago

You said he should just turn over whatever they ask him for I would tell Schitt to fuck off.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.12  cobaltblue  replied to  MUVA @2.2.11    one month ago
You said he should just turn over whatever they ask him for I would tell Schitt to fuck off.

Of course you would. I wouldn't expect anything different from you. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.13  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.3    one month ago
 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.14  cobaltblue  replied to  MUVA @2.2.13    one month ago
That is funny nothing happen to this guy.

I see you're annoyed by that. It's nice to you're tit for tat. If Obama would have done in office what Trump has done, would you have thought it was okay. If President Obama had ignored a subpoena and refused to release documents, would that have been a 'meh' in your life? Be honest. 

White House officials also slammed House Republicans for the unprecedented contempt vote. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said GOP congressional leaders “pushed for political theater rather than legitimate congressional oversight. Over the past fourteen months, the Justice Department accommodated congressional investigators, producing 7,600 pages of documents, and testifying at eleven congressional hearings… But unfortunately, a politically-motivated agenda prevailed and instead of engaging with the President in efforts to create jobs and grow the economy, today we saw the House of Representatives perform a transparently political stunt.

Cite

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.15  MUVA  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.14    one month ago

He did far worse than the bullshit they are trying to hang on Trump using the IRS on his political rivals spying on reporters starting a investigation into Trump's campaign with a document supplied by Clinton.

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-134204299.html

 
 
 
CB
2.2.16  CB   replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago

And yet is it some REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who cry about the size of government. Now, for this loser named Trump, y'all want all the rules written down and common courtesy and mutual respect for institutions dropped? What a flip-flop!

"Big Washington" will only get bigger if government institutions have to make a relevant dealings literal and legally tidy.

Tell me something, when Donald Trump enters . . . do you see a person wearing shirt and pants or a hollowed entity?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.17  CB   replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago

That is the operative word: legal. In an impeachment hearing, there is no court appointed judge or date for a hearing in any Hall of Justice. Is there?

Do you want to try again to weasel out of why the people who helped elect Donald Trump can not question Donald Trump to their satisfaction?

Incidentally, does Donald Trump wear pants and a shirt, or does he float into the West Wing?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.18  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    one month ago

Wow! You should 'listen' to yourself! Now it's unAmerican to ask a president to honor the position he holds and not to assume 'god-like' status in it?

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence :

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

How low some conservatives have sunk in order to raise themselves up above everybody else!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.19  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.2.9    one month ago
In this country you are innocent till proven guilty and have a right to mount a vigorous defense.Adam shitt is a disgrace I would do the same thing Trump is doing if someone like Schitt was railroading me.

In this country the vast majority of indictments are handed down by Grand Juries who investigate, meeting behind closed doors, in secret, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence and witnesses. The House acts as a Grand Jury in an Impeachment. 

Please pass those facts on to the rest of your fellow travelers since I'm starting to get tired of having to repeat it to each of you individually. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.20  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.3    4 weeks ago

Uh....no.jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

Susan wasn't the subject of phony trumped charges by a bunch of left wing idiots clamoring for impeachment

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.21  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
Nor is there any legal requirement for Trump and his team to respond to subpoenas requesting documents or submitting to secret interviews behind closed doors.....with no legal representation

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

U.S. Code § 190l.Private claims pending before Congress; taking of testimony

U.S. Code § 190m.Subpoena for taking testimony; compensation of officers and witnesses; return of depositions

U.S. Code § 192.Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

U.S. Code § 194.Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
2.2.22  CB   replied to  WallyW @2.2.20    4 weeks ago
There you go again 320 .
 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.23  MrFrost  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.8    4 weeks ago

Damn you for your succinct and thorough facts! Don't confuse the lad.

I'm....a monster... LOL 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.24  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.2.20    4 weeks ago

Susan wasn't the subject of phony trumped charges by a bunch of left wing idiots clamoring for impeachment

You completely missed the point. She refused a subpeona and went to prison for it. No one gives a fuck why she refused it, the point is that refusing one is a FELONY. 

 
 
 
CB
2.2.25  CB   replied to  MrFrost @2.2.23    4 weeks ago

I love your Halloween 'face.'  Split Personality is going to be jealous! I put my Halloween face on tomorrow (15th)!

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
2.2.26  Colour Me Free  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.3    4 weeks ago
She did 22 months in prison for ignoring a subpoena. 

Susan McDougal was to serve 18 months for contempt, she refused to answer 3 questions before the grand jury during the Whitewater investigation, the additional 4 months was for fraud.

Hope life is treating you well MrFrost

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.27  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
Nor is there any legal requirement for Trump and his team to respond to subpoenas requesting documents or submitting to secret interviews behind closed doors.....with no legal representation

These are the Articles of Impeachment that Congress passed to prosecute Nixon.  A flaw in the copy&paste function caused all nine of the points to be labelled "1.".

Article 1

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct 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 violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

    1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

    1. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

    1. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

    1. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

    1. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

    1. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

    1. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

    1. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

  1. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

 
 
 
CB
2.3  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago

You do realize that Trump is in the same age group as Nancy Pelosi. So what's in a name? As to the rest of your comment. The hell you say. I will contact Nancy Pelosi's offices with every form of communication I can and tell her to tell this lying, indulgent, pervert, of a President to go to hell!

Donald Trump tore what was left of his ass with me this week, when he stood in front of a rally (with young children in the frame), and he cursed former President Obama's ass and a former Vice-President's mouth. Moreover, he dared to attack someone's child. This is no different than him attacking a 'gold-star' family indulgently in 2016. It is "unforgivable."

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.3.1  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @2.3    4 weeks ago

Frankly while crude, President Trump's comment about Biden and Obama was dead on.  Neither of them deserve any respect

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.3.2  Raven Wing  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.1    4 weeks ago
Frankly while crude, President Trump's comment about Biden and Obama was dead on.  Neither of them deserve any respect

Frankly, the same can be said of you. Or.. any one else.

Unless you personally know the person, it is not your call to make. And before you deem yourself eligible to make that judgement call on someone else, take a longgg look in the mirror, as there is no one on earth who is perfect, no matter how highly they may think of themselves.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.3  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Then, this is a case of judging Trump and you by your own rules.

Donald Trump tore what was left of his ass with me this week, when he stood in front of a rally (with young children in the frame), and he cursed former President Obama's ass and a former Vice-President's mouth. Moreover, he dared to attack someone's child. This is no different than him attacking a 'gold-star' family indulgently in 2016. It is "unforgivable."

Since you won't stand for what is good, decent, wholesome, and conducive to good order and discipline. You too are judged accordingly! I will not respect you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Frankly while crude, President Trump's comment about Biden and Obama was dead on.  Neither of them deserve any respect

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  livefreeordie @2.3.1    3 weeks ago
Frankly while crude, President Trump's comment about Biden and Obama was dead on.  Neither of them deserve any respect

Trump has earned contempt and should be charged with contempt of Congress (for starters).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.3.3    3 weeks ago
I will not respect you.

Let's disrespect comments, not individual NewsTalkers.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.4  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago
hold a vote to impeach the President and not have some geriatric Speaker of the House 'declare an impeachment inquiry' and hold SECRET closed door kangaroo court inquisitions.

There is nothing in the US constitution that says a vote must be held in an impeachment. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.1  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @2.4    one month ago

So are you saying Nancy gets to decide?

 
 
 
CB
2.4.2  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.1    one month ago

The Speaker of the House looks at the facts and the state of play and decides what is reasonable. At least that is how it should go. Of course, some conservatives will pervert 'good order and discipline' at the earliest chance possible. That is, when given the chance, they will make stuff up and stick to it like white on rice.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.3  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.1    one month ago

If your issue is with the length of time it will take, I suggest that you jump on Trump's twitter account and tell him to STOP OBSTRUCTING the investigation. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.4  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.3    4 weeks ago

No I'm asking if nancy gets to decide.

 
 
 
JBB
2.4.5  JBB  replied to  MUVA @2.4.4    4 weeks ago

The US Constitution says Congress decides. Speaker Pelosi is playing by the rules. The only  vote that really counts is the one they will take whether or not to impeach Trump. Once the hearings are done Congress will vote. Are you in a big hurry?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.6  MUVA  replied to  JBB @2.4.5    4 weeks ago

So congress decides not nancy why not hold the vote then? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.7  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @2.4.5    4 weeks ago
The US Constitution says Congress decides. Speaker Pelosi is playing by the rules. The only  vote that really counts is the one they will take whether or not to impeach Trump. Once the hearings are done Congress will vote. Are you in a big hurry?

Maybe if the left actually knew what they were talking about, we could get something accomplished.

House of Representatives: Impeachment [ edit ]

"House Manager" redirects here. For theater operations, see House management .

Impeachment proceedings may be requested by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee . The impeachment process may be requested by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor , the President, or state or territorial legislature , grand jury , or by petition . An impeachment proceeding formally begins with a resolution adopted by the full House of Representatives, which typically includes a referral to a House committee.

The type of impeachment resolution determines the committee to which it is referred. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary . A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules , and then to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Articles of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A  simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article for the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives . These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution or district attorney in a standard criminal trial.

Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 
 
 
JBB
2.4.8  JBB  replied to  MUVA @2.4.6    4 weeks ago

If you want to run Congress then you need to get yourself elected to Congress, work your way to the top and then get a gop majority to elect you Speaker of the House. Until then what you personally want is immaterial. Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide and you are impotent at this point to stop her. Congress is charged with oversight of the Presidency. That is the law according to our Constitution. 

 
 
 
JBB
2.4.9  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.7    4 weeks ago

See comment 2.4.8...

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.10  MUVA  replied to  JBB @2.4.8    4 weeks ago

Talk about impotence have you stopped Trump?By the way it does say the speaker decides it says congress decides. 

 
 
 
JBB
2.4.11  JBB  replied to  MUVA @2.4.10    4 weeks ago

The Speaker of US House of Representatives runs Congress. Not you, not me and not The King of Vulgaria...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.12  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.4    4 weeks ago
No I'm asking if nancy gets to decide.

Why ask a DQ jockey MUVA? 

I suggest that if you're going to participate in future seed on this topic, you do some research of your own, stop making uninformed proclamations and expecting others to educate you. 

BTFW, the answer to your question is YES. Speaker Pelosi controls the floor of the House. PERIOD full stop. Just like Ryan and Boehner did. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.13  MUVA  replied to  JBB @2.4.11    4 weeks ago

Have you stopped Trump has he been impeached who is impotent?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.14  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.12    4 weeks ago

I understand fully it is some on this site that believe she makes the decision all by herself.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.15  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.10    4 weeks ago
Talk about impotence have you stopped Trump?

BUTT Trump insisted in a speech during the campaign that it would be impossible for a president to govern if under investigation:

TRUMP: "We need a government that can work and work well from day one for the American people. That will be impossible with Hillary Clinton, the prime suspect in a massive, far-reaching criminal investigation. Her current scandals and controversies will continue throughout her presidency and will make it virtually impossible for her to govern or lead our country."

Trump's website claimed:

It is very likely that FBI Director Comey, and the great special agents of the FBI , will be able to collect more than enough evidence to garner indictments against Hillary Clinton and her inner circle – despite her efforts to disparage and discredit them. If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting President under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial.
It would grind government to a halt.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-warned-endless-investigations-clinton-instead-focus-him-n772736

Isn't ironic, don't you think? 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.16  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.12    4 weeks ago

I would suggest in the future you understand the difference a question and a proclamation then you would look like you don't understand the difference.  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.17  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.15    4 weeks ago

No.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.18  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.14    4 weeks ago
I understand fully

I doubt it. 

it is some on this site that believe she makes the decision all by herself.

Perhaps then, instead of baiting, you could inform.

Just a thought.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.19  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.16    4 weeks ago

I suggest you acknowledge that you've made more than one comment in this seed. 

 
 
 
CB
2.4.20  CB   replied to  JBB @2.4.5    4 weeks ago

Yes, their next 'front' requires faces in the placeholders on their strategies and tactics board. JBB, please join me, us, in calling Nancy Pelosi's offices straightway and alert her to 'watch and study' these frenemies at the gate. The republican "boogie bear" needs flesh to thread and maul. They can't slander, lie, or spin about a'glossamer' foe.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.21  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.19    4 weeks ago

Then you will knowledge you are reaching and have been bested. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.22  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.18    4 weeks ago

What bait?

 
 
 
CB
2.4.23  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.6    4 weeks ago

Why hold a vote? What's in it for conservatives and you?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.24  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.23    4 weeks ago

Why not?Why hold closed door meetings why not make it transparent.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.25  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.22    4 weeks ago

You asked a question when you said you knew the answer. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.26  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.21    4 weeks ago
Then you will knowledge you are reaching and have been bested. 

Oh a progression to delusional proclamations. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.27  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.25    4 weeks ago

No I asked a question to see what the reply would be the same reason anyone ask a question that is how a question works.Check and mate.

 
 
 
CB
2.4.28  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.24    4 weeks ago

I repeat: Why hold a vote? What's in it for conservatives and you? Answer my questions. Afterwards, I will attempt to answer yours to some degree of satisfaction. (Smile.)

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.29  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.28    4 weeks ago

To make it a more transparent process show the testimony also. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.30  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.24    4 weeks ago
Why not? Why hold closed door meetings why not make it transparent.

I see you've chosen to ignore my suggestion that you do some research of your own. 

The House acts as a Grand Jury for Impeachment purposes, though they set their own rules and need not follow strict judicial standards. 

To ENCOURAGE you to do your own research, I suggest that you go read up on the Grand Jury investigation process. During your review, please concentrate on the FACT that Grand Juries are held behind closed door in secret. Therefore, what the Congress is doing now is NOT unique to the Congress.

You may also want to touch base on the Deposition process too. Again concentrating on the fact that it is done behind closed doors and secret. Therefore, what the Congress is doing now is NOT unique to the Congress. 

Those are BOTH part of the 'normal judicial system' that are NOT transparent yet meet the 'due process' standard' and are used for every criminal indictment in this country. 

Trump wants 'special treatment' NOT due process. 

BTFW, I find it ironic that Trump is refusing to allow testimony by claiming Executive Privilege out of one side of his mouth and demanding OPEN testimony from others out of the other side. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.31  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.27    4 weeks ago
No I asked a question to see what the reply would be the same reason anyone ask a question that is how a question works.Check and mate.

No, questions are asked to garner information you don't know, not 'to see  what the reply would be'. That's baiting. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.4.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.4.30    4 weeks ago
your review, please concentrate on the FACT that Grand Juries are held behind closed door in secret. Therefore, what the Congress is doing now is NOT unique to the Congress.

Impeachment is a political process. Not a criminal one. Comparing it to a grand jury is idiotic.

I suggest you take my advice  and open an eighth grade textbook to learn the rudiments of what exactly impeachment is. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.33  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.30    4 weeks ago

They can still do the investigation in the light of day right?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.34  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.32    4 weeks ago

He knows all except the difference between a question and a proclamation.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.35  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.30    4 weeks ago

Do you know why they hold grand jury's in private?  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.36  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.35    4 weeks ago

Why yes, MUVA, YES I do. 

 
 
 
 
CB
2.4.38  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.29    4 weeks ago

Okay, and: What's in it for conservatives and you?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.39  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.36    4 weeks ago

Why give me your superior educated reason then.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.40  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.38    4 weeks ago

I answered it is for transparency so it doesn't look this cluster fuck Nancy is in charge of now. 

 
 
 
CB
2.4.41  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.40    4 weeks ago

Nancy is not in charge of any cluster fuck. That is one man and his associates opinion. I resist the insinuation. And what about "fairness sake" agree that the White House should open up for transparency sake and let everyone come in and speak straightforwardly. What are we after here, obfuscation and lies or facts and truth-telling?

Well, since you provided all you have available, I will attempt to answer your question:

Why hold closed door meetings why not make it transparent.

Closed door meetings are held for one reason specifically:

1. Classified information is being shared between questioner and committee. Incidentally, the committee members are populated from all sides of Congress.

2. In the case of whistle-blowers, republican congressional members have not demonstrated good faith intentions, and are endangering the transparency process, by holding a 'sword of Damocles over the head of any whistle-blower willing to appear "naked and exposed" before the House of Representatives. It is a disastrous situation for our leaders who made the policy for whistleblower testimony to backtrack and not defend the same.

3. In terms of the whole house voting, the process has not seen its way satisfactorily out of committee. It is the committee chairs and the Speaker's decision-making which will accomplish a future vote on impeachment in the general assembly of the House.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.42  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.32    4 weeks ago
Impeachment is a political process.

No shit. 

Not a criminal one.

Never said it was. 

Comparing it to a grand jury is idiotic.
I suggest you take my advice  and open an eighth grade textbook to learn the rudiments of what exactly impeachment is. 

Really Sean? Don't they have basically the same process and procedure? So WHY is it idiotic to compare them? 

What's ironic is that a Grand Jury may have more power over Trump than Congress since Trump may be forced to honor a Grand Jury subpoena. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.43  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.37    4 weeks ago

Am I supposed to give a shit about the opinion of the Editorial Board of Rupert Murdoch's WSJ? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.44  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.39    4 weeks ago
Why give me your superior educated reason then.

As I said MUVA, I encourage you to do your own research.

Although you're comment is snark, I will kindly accommodate you and provide you with a layman's source. It does however require you to READ. 

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.45  Dulay  replied to  CB @2.4.41    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.46  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.34    4 weeks ago

Yes I do. That comment was an unfounded proclamation. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.48  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.41    4 weeks ago

What classified information the only reason to have grand jury in secret is to protect the accused just incase they are innocent.That went out the window when Schiff started leaking there is no reason to have closed door process unless you are trying  to create a narrative. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.49  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.42    4 weeks ago

If they had the same process we wouldn't know they were  even investigating Trump but instead we have a political hit job.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.50  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.44    4 weeks ago

In your words not a cut a paste so you didn't know and looked it up.

 
 
 
CB
2.4.51  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.48    4 weeks ago

Well, if you know all this, what can I help you with today? Classified information, I shall not bother to explain, to a fellow veteran.

One more thing: Why might in heaven would you suppose or reason Donald Trump wants to know who and question any one of the whistle-blowers for? Could it be so that at a Trump next rally he can damn them all to the pits of inner earth? Use that megaphone mouth of his in unflattering fashion yet again. Eh?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.52  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.51    4 weeks ago

I going to say this so you anyone else reading this can understand where I'm coming from I have forgotten more about classified information than you know and have been part classified briefing while deployed and still don't talk about everything I was briefed on while in Iraq.

 
 
 
CB
2.4.53  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.52    4 weeks ago

And you say this to signify what? Please divulge.

As I stated in my comment, "I shall not bother to explain, to a fellow veteran." - you don't need to get brusque with me. FYI I had a top security clearance myself. So, I guess that means I got to read classified information also. Though, I don't see how I shall prove it to you and nor do I care to.

We, are not the subject matter here.

Have I answered this line of questioning. Can I, we, return to regular discussion?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.54  MUVA  replied to  CB @2.4.53    4 weeks ago

Maybe you shouldn't be so flip or belittling in your comments if you can't take the retort.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.55  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.49    4 weeks ago
If they had the same process we wouldn't know they were  even investigating Trump but instead we have a political hit job.

We know that there is an investigation because of the way Trump tried to keep the 'crime' from being reported. In fact THAT is what precipitated the investigation. 

Just like any other 'crime' the public may know that it occurred and that a Grand Jury has been formed, but just like what it happening in the House, the Grand Jury investigation is behind closed doors. 

Oh and BTFW MUVA, I said the process was 'basically the same'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.56  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.48    4 weeks ago
That went out the window when Schiff started leaking

What has Schiff leaked? Be specific. Post a link. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.57  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.55    4 weeks ago

Ok its a draw

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.58  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.50    4 weeks ago
In your words not a cut a paste so you didn't know and looked it up.

Where the fuck did you garner the authority to dictate how I reply to your comment MUVA? 

BTW, wasn't the link I provided elementary enough? 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.4.59  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.4.58    4 weeks ago

See you do have a sense of humor our relationship has turned the corner.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.60  Tacos!  replied to  MUVA @2.4.6    4 weeks ago
why not hold the vote then?

They want to time this in such a way as to sabotage Trump's reelection campaign as much as possible. If they had a candidate they actually thought would beat him, they wouldn't be bothering with all this.

 
 
 
CB
2.4.61  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.4.54    4 weeks ago

Don't deflect. You don't bother me, 'Brother.' Not. In. The. Least.

The point is you do not have to try to cover for that asinine foolish so-called, "leader" who stood at a microphone and talked about Obama's ass and Biden's mouth; all the while there were youths in the arena - in the camera frame behind him. Playing the dozens is immature, and punching below the belt at other people children is too. Trump is a low-life. And, you have seen enough material evidence to be able to say so yourself. So, don't try to corner me - over him. It won't happen.

Are we done with this line of questioning, or do you have anything further of importance to share? I am all "In."

 
 
 
CB
2.4.62  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.4.60    4 weeks ago

And still, no thoughts or emphasis placed on the admirable lying president who is obfuscating his words, swearing officials to secrecy, intimidating senators and representatives, and making grand attempts at declaring how all of these people which come before are kissing his ass. Absolutely amazing!

Shall we render a test:

Tacos! Being as reasonable as you can: How many times do you think President Donald Trump has been caught in a lie? (Choose One, please.)

  1. None.
  2. One.
  3. Two.
  4. Several.
  5. Fifty.
  6. Seventy-five.
  7. One hundred.
  8. Over one hundred.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.63  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.4.48    4 weeks ago

Still waiting for you to tell me what Schiff leaked. Tic Toc.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.64  Tacos!  replied to  CB @2.4.62    4 weeks ago
no thoughts or emphasis placed on the admirable lying president

Because that wasn't the topic.

 
 
 
CB
2.4.65  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.4.64    4 weeks ago
They want to time this in such a way as to sabotage Trump's reelection campaign as much as possible. If they had a candidate they actually thought would beat him, they wouldn't be bothering with all this.

How is Trump not the subject of your @2.4.60?

Please consider the comment and question @2.4.62.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.66  Tacos!  replied to  CB @2.4.65    4 weeks ago
How is Trump not the subject of your @2.4.60?

It's pretty simple. I was responding to the question @2.4.6, which read:

So congress decides not nancy why not hold the vote then? 

The question was about the timing of the vote, not Trump or Trump's honesty record. I believe the timing of all of this is about the 2020 election.

Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump since before he was sworn in. Some people were talking about it even before he was nominated! They were always going to do this no matter what Trump did.

If they really wanted to do it and thought they could pull it off, they could have done it at any time after January 20, 2017. They already know the Senate isn't going to convict, so they aren't actually trying to remove him from office.

If they had done this last year or the year before, it would have failed and that would have been their last move with way too much of his first term remaining. After that, a second attempt at impeachment would have been politically impossible.

Realistically, they get one shot at this, so they have to make it count. They want the scandal of this to be fresh enough in the minds of voters that they vote Democrat next November. That strategy is behind everything that is happening now, whether we are talking about the process or the timing.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.4.67  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @2.4.24    4 weeks ago
Why hold closed door meetings why not make it transparent.

512

 
 
 
CB
2.4.68  CB   replied to  MrFrost @2.4.67    4 weeks ago

MrFrost! You go to the head of the class today!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.4.69  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @2.4.30    3 weeks ago
The House acts as a Grand Jury for Impeachment purposes, though they set their own rules and need not follow strict judicial standards. 

To ENCOURAGE you to do your own research, I suggest that you go read up on the Grand Jury investigation process. During your review, please concentrate on the FACT that Grand Juries are held behind closed door in secret. Therefore, what the Congress is doing now is NOT unique to the Congress.

You may also want to touch base on the Deposition process too. Again concentrating on the fact that it is done behind closed doors and secret. Therefore, what the Congress is doing now is NOT unique to the Congress.

Congratulations!

Thanx for providing a comprehensive explanation of why witnesses are often heard behind closed doors.

Hearing testimony behind closed doors helps prevent prospective witnesses from getting their "stories straight".  Any witness that lies to Congress should be prosecuted (like Michael Cohen).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.4.70  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.4.41    3 weeks ago
Closed door meetings are held for one reason specifically:

1. Classified information is being shared between questioner and committee. Incidentally, the committee members are populated from all sides of Congress.

2. In the case of whistle-blowers, republican congressional members have not demonstrated good faith intentions, and are endangering the transparency process, by holding a 'sword of Damocles over the head of any whistle-blower willing to appear "naked and exposed" before the House of Representatives. It is a disastrous situation for our leaders who made the policy for whistleblower testimony to backtrack and not defend the same.

Well said!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.4.71  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @2.4.53    3 weeks ago
FYI I had a top security clearance myself. So, I guess that means I got to read classified information also.

I also had a Top Secret clearance.  I handled all of classified information for VF-102 on the USS Independence.  I did NOT however read much of it.  I unpacked the classified mail pouch (in a safe) and routed it to the proper individuals.

I almost puked when The Donald revealed the positions of two Navy submarines.

Some 'Silent Service' vets cringe at Trump's sub disclosure

By: Jennifer McDermott, The Associated Press

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Some veterans of the Navy's "Silent Service" are cringing at news that President Donald Trump disclosed the whereabouts of two submarines that are part of an undersea force that prides itself on stealth.

While Trump did not give up the subs' precise location, his telling the president of the Philippines of the submarines' presence in a private conversation startled many in a community that has long abided by the adage "Loose lips sink ships."

"The only thing that saves our lives is people not knowing where we are," said T. Michael Bircumshaw, a retired Navy master chief and former commander of the United States Submarine Veterans, Inc. He said telling anyone anything about where U.S. submarines are is "pure, unadulterated, criminal stupidity."

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/05/25/some-silent-service-vets-cringe-at-trump-s-sub-disclosure/

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.5  Tacos!  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago
Following the US Constitution would mandate that the CONGRESS (as in the majority of the whole fucking congressional body) hold a vote to impeach the President and not have some geriatric Speaker of the House 'declare an impeachment inquiry' and hold SECRET closed door kangaroo court inquisitions.

Really, the Constitution kind of leaves it up to the House as to how they want to manage the impeachment process. Each of the three previous efforts to impeach a president have had unique procedures. The main thing is it goes to the Senate for trial based on a simple majority vote in the House. What precedes that vote is up to the House. Although I agree that closed door hearings don't look very good.

 
 
 
CB
2.5.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.5    one month ago

At this point, putting lipstick on a pig still leaves bad breath and a snout to deal with.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.6  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago
Following the US Constitution would mandate that the CONGRESS (as in the majority of the whole fucking congressional body) hold a vote to impeach the President and not have some geriatric Speaker of the House 'declare an impeachment inquiry' and hold SECRET closed door kangaroo court inquisitions.

That's an utterly clueless statement. 

So write your representatives and demand the same.  

My Rep. knows damn well that I know the Constitution and his responsibilities better than that. 

Let the sunshine in and the bullshit of closed door inquisitions rot.

Sunshine requires facts XD. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.6    4 weeks ago
Sunshine requires facts XD. 

Which are anathema to the rabid Trump Haters of America.

Of course you're not referring to the "facts" as presented by the Adam Schiff personal reading of his rendition of the phone call transcript, correct?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.6.2  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.6.1    4 weeks ago
Which are anathema to the rabid Trump Haters of America.

Well gee XD, the rendition of the 'facts' in your comment merely proves that rabid Trump Sycophants of America wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass. 

Of course you're not referring to the "facts" as presented by the Adam Schiff personal reading of his rendition of the phone call transcript, correct?

No, I'm referring to the utterly clueless statement you made in your prior post. 

BTFW, not to pick nits BUTT you might want to actually LISTEN to what Schiff said rather than what someone else's 'rendition' of what he said.

Here's a FACT: Schiff NEVER posited his 'rendition' as fact. 

 
 
 
CB
2.6.3  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.6.1    4 weeks ago

MUELLER REPORT.
APPENDIX C INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The President provided written responses through his personal counsel to questions submitted to him by the Special Counsel 's Office.
We first explain the process that led to the submission of written questions and then attach the President ' s responses. Beginning in Dec ember 2017,
this Office sought for more than a year to interview the President on topics relevant to both

Russian-election interference and obstruction-of-justice . We advised counsel that the President was a " subject" of the
investigation under the definition of the Justice Manual -" a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's
investigation." Justice Manual § 9-11.151 (2018). We also advised counsel that"[a]n interview with the President is vital to our investigation"
and that this Office had " carefull y considered the constitutional and other arguments raised by . .. counsel , and they d[id]
not provide us with reason to forgo seeking an interview."
1 We additionally stated that "it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place" and offered
"numerous accommodations to aid the President's preparation and avoid surprise."
2 After extensive discussions with the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel's objective of securing the President's
testimony, thes e accommodations included the submissions of written questions to the Presid ent on certain Russia-related topics.
3 We received the President's written responses in late November 2018.
4 In December 2018,we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects.
5 We noted, among other things , that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he "does not 're call' or 'remember' or
have an 'independent recollection"' of information called for by the questions.
6 Other answers were "incomplete or imprecise."
7 The written responses , we informed counsel,"demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format , as we have had no opportunity
to ask followup questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client's recollection or clarify the
extent or nature of his lack of recollection."
8 We again requested an in-person interview , limited to certain topics, advising the President's counsel that "[t]his is the President's
opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered."
9 The President declined.
SOURCE : https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html [PAGES 417 - 418

 


Enough of the stupid, incessant, selected discussion coming from some pathetic Trump supporters. If you intend to use your brains as placeholders for an obfuscating president and a dirty as hell Attorney General let the facts fall all around your neck and shoulders and have their way.

We will not let your dedication to a 'theater of the absurd' leave us away from the world of facts, figures, and plain truth.

Donald Trump is a deceitful mind and straightforwardly speaking it appears so do his ardent supporters. If you will not let fact persuade you, then facts will break you!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3  cobaltblue    one month ago

For those of you who choose to exercise your freedom of expression with your representative, here is a link that can direct you to your representative's office address, telephone number and websites that go directly to each representative's "contact me" app. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @3    one month ago

Thanx.

I'm glad you made a useful contribution to this article.

I didn't post this to make the Trumpsters cry, that's just a little side benefit. 

800

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    one month ago

256

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The same snowflakes that cried when Hillaryious Hillary lost have been crying for impeachment since then. Democrats have the votes, so they say, then do it and turn it over to the senate. 

How long you think its going to take for Nancy and company to shit or get off the pot?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    one month ago

Only in the piece of shit Democratic controlled House. That is if they can manufacture enough manure behind the scenes to convince their weak kneed members in contested states where they may not win reelection to put party before country.

Trump will never be impeached in the Senate. The Dems can cry all they want.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.3  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.1    one month ago

Don't wait around. Go 'handle your business' somewheres else.

Democrats and Independents (Justin Amash and Georgio Sablan- Independents) call your congress people. Tell them the republicans and conservatives desperately need them to rush - so do not. Take their time and do what they have to do with wisdom and a right attitude.

Ignore the riff-raff!

 
 
 
CB
3.1.4  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.2    one month ago
Trump will never be impeached in the Senate.

And Trump just got to lying about a former vice president kissing a former president's butt. How quaint is the weak-kneed members of the Republican Senate who blindly 'swore' to protect a villainous, delusional, liar, with a messiah-complex, who tells them as needed where to grovel, because he gave them judges?

Independent voters, republicans have betrayed the Rule of Law! They mock it openly and defy it at their leisure. What other evidence do you need to decide  their fate in the Senate in 2020? Remove the 'blood' infected cancer which is republicanism in the senate!

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.2    one month ago
Only in the piece of shit Democratic controlled House. That is if they can manufacture enough manure behind the scenes to convince their weak kneed members in contested states where they may not win reelection to put party before country.

Partisan nonsense, somehow I expected something better from you.

Trump will never be impeached in the Senate.

probably not, just like Clinton.  It's all about the legacy.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.6  CB   replied to  Split Personality @3.1.5    one month ago

The democrats must undertake their duties and responsibilities seriously and efficiently. If the Republicans can not bring themselves to fall out of whatever this is they hold for the "Disinformation-in-Chief let political hot coals tumble down on their heads collectively. Congress must once again stand for the good or else it will further fall for the corruption.

Donald Trump is not fit to lead such a great people as this nation is - we must not be perceived as wearing the 'Trump' brand!

Peace, SP!

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.7  WallyW  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Peyton Manning would tell them...

Hurry, Hurry! 

Times-a-wastin'

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    4 weeks ago

Only in your wet dreams.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

8 years if she keeps doing nothing

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  CB @3.1.6    4 weeks ago

The voters disagreed in 2016 and will again in 2020 if the Dems cannot even agree to impeach after almost 3 years.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.11  CB   replied to  dennis smith @3.1.10    4 weeks ago

I will ask you as I did Muva: What's "in it" for you and conservatism?

Impeachment is a grave and serious endeavor it should not be rushed into to excite or titillate anybody's "jollies."  

Just "hurry up and wait" already.

In the meantime: Tell Donald to "free the hostages" in his administration! When he frees them, if they love him, by hook or crook, they will come back to him!

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.12  Ronin2  replied to  CB @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

Amash has unleashed his own shit storm among his constituents. The majority that supported him will not next time around.

Now he is a media darling, and darling for the left. Of course they couldn't stand him before he came out in favor of impeachment.

Amash should be careful of who he lays with; he might get fleas, or much, much, worse.

We should all write the congress and tell them to let their investigation see light of day. No close door questioning, where only the Democrats can ask the questions; and the Republicans are only allowed to observe.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.13  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

I expected better from the Democrats in Congress. I don't know why.

Maybe you want to explain why the Democrats are holding secret closed door questionings, where Democrats get to ask all of the questions; and the Republicans can only observe. What, are they afraid their BS narrative will fall to pieces in light of day.

probably not, just like Clinton.  It's all about the legacy.

No probably about it. He will not be impeached in the Senate. They will never get enough votes. The Republicans will not even need to have a meeting on the White House lawn to show support; like the Dems had for Clinton.

If you think this is over once Trump is out of office; you are wrong. The Democrats have lowered the standards of what it takes to impeach. It will now be along political lines for any reason at all. Evidence of wrong doing won't make a shred of difference. Republicans will hold the next Democratic president to the exact same standards.

I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him or Hillary last time around.

I haven't voted for an Establishment candidate since I voted for Bill Clinton second term. I don't do the lesser of two evils BS. The Democrats and their minions have forced me to change that. I will never reward their blatant abuse of governmental power. I will not vote for any Democrats next time around. Dog catcher is too important a position for them to hold.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.14  CB   replied to  CB @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

HELLO FELLOW AMERICANS! IT'S CALL YOUR CONGRESS PERSON DAY!  YIPPEE!!!

Hi, make it happen. Call. Leave a message! Tell your congress person to be solemn, deliberate, and smart about impeachment inquiry/activities. Do not let the republicans decide any action or activity in their interest. It never goes well. Speaking of which, I am dialing and emailing at the same time right n—.

NOTE: In some cases, this will be an observable holiday, but do leave a message or call first thing Tuesday!

 
 
 
CB
3.1.15  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
who he lays with; he might get fleas, . . . .

You don't say! Beelzebub, he just dismissed. 'Loyalty' pledge be damned. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.13    4 weeks ago
The Republicans will not even need to have a meeting on the White House lawn to show support; like the Dems had for Clinton.

Oh please Ronin, they all do it.

This in May 4, 2017 in the Rose Garden,  the premature celebration of the death of "ObamaCare".

512

 
 
 
CB
3.1.17  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

Do you mean "tried" in the Senate? Or, "Convicted" in the Senate?

So go ahead, "F" the government and money and time. What's our largess for if not to blow it out of government committee butts on tic for tac hearings and faux, counterproductive impeachment procedures. Having a proper impeachment is not the same thing as having a 'stunt' impeachment. And Ronin, one or a host of any group do not get to decide what is a legitimate proceeding in this country. If this country can't be reasonable with it people, if its leaders can not transcend third world attitudes and actions then we ought to shutter the doors on all of Washington and go home to our states and declare personal independence and secession.

You say you don't like Trump. In that case, in accordance with his track record: Trump won't like you. (He likes people who fit nicely under him and his ideas.)

As to the rest of that whatever you wrote. If you don't vote for a democrat, you will have little choice except to vote for a republican and republicans up and down the ballot in your community. Can you figure it out and suspend the double-talk?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  CB @3.1.14    3 weeks ago
Speaking of which, I am dialing and emailing at the same time right n—.

Thanx for that!

Maybe this article can convince a few NewsTalkers to email their representatives.

 
 
 
CB
3.2  CB   replied to  cobaltblue @3    one month ago

Good show cobaltblue!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.2.1  cobaltblue  replied to  CB @3.2    one month ago
Good show cobaltblue!

Back atcha', cb. 

 
 
 
PJ
4  PJ    one month ago

Thanks for this reminder.  Some Americans think the only time to let our representatives know our position on issues is when we vote. 

This is the most important time in my lifetime so far to make my representatives know how I feel.  Trump, his Administration and supporters have attacked our country from within and we must drive their backward ways out.  Their ignorance is dangerous.  They are the true enemy of our republic. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @4    one month ago

384

 
 
 
CB
4.1.1  CB   replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1    one month ago

Oh, America grow up! — Joan Rivers.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  PJ @4    3 weeks ago
This is the most important time in my lifetime so far to make my representatives know how I feel.

Thanx.

I hope this article helps motivate people to contact their representatives.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    one month ago

Every major part of this is a foregone conclusion. Writing your representative just seems like playing pretend.

 
 
 
CB
5.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

I laughing in my mouth.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago
"I urge every NewsTalker to contact their representatives to express their views about impeachment."

Okay, okay, I'll write to Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about it.  LOL

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1  Split Personality  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    one month ago

I'm  sure that your actual representative is named Zhang Wei or Zhang Lei.

and they probably regret Trump more than most Americans, LOL

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Split Personality @6.1    one month ago

I have nothing to do with politics in China. I am not a Communist or a Chinese citizen with a Chinese representative but I am a foreigner here and must renew my residency visa every three years.  However, I am a Canadian citizen and have been supporting the Ontario and Canadian Progressive Conservative Parties for the last 40 years, so I don't need your suggestion, but thanks for the thought.

 
 
 
lady in black
7  lady in black    4 weeks ago

72974390_1185704158296996_66230554569631

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1  Ronin2  replied to  lady in black @7    4 weeks ago

Better than screaming at the sky in a show of worthless defiance at Trump on the anniversary of his election. Unfortunately many are still screaming even now.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.1  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @7.1    4 weeks ago

You know, . . . for a non-fan of Trump. . . you have some curious thoughts and defense mechanisms dailed up and on full display across the NT spectrum!

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    4 weeks ago
No dear,

That's disrespectful to the member. 

she only controls the House...which appears to be out of control.

How is the House out of control Wally? 

I checked in on the Minority in the House Intelligence Committee and it doesn't look like they've got anything to say. The Majority however is posting almost every day, including the subpoena's the Committee is filing. 

As for the whole House, their calendar is quite full. All the Committees are meeting and/or holding hearings. Looks pretty controlled to me.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 weeks ago

My congressman is a Neo-con Asswipe. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
10  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"Please notice that he said he considers this "the most serious and important vote of my congressional career".

That's the most "Important" vote of his "Entire" career ?

Really ? jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

If that's the case....so much for this country ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

"Lemmings" eat that kinda "Most Important" shit up these days though !

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Thrawn 31
Dean Moriarty
al Jizzerror
Ed-NavDoc
Freefaller
Dulay
TOM PA
Sean Treacy
Gordy327
loki12

Paula Bartholomew


53 visitors