Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry [Archive] - Page 4

View Full Version : Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

~Rocktar~

10-13-2019, 03:55 PM

It has always been my belief that most media 'polls' are simply tools to influence the common undecided voter who would prefer to vote for the 'winner'.

That could well be true.

Tgo01

10-13-2019, 04:08 PM

Fox News pollster Braun Research misrepresented impeachment poll: analysis (https://nypost.com/2019/10/12/fox-news-pollster-braun-research-misrepresented-impeachment-poll-analysis/)

A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded.

This is what I said back when someone first linked that laughable poll.

Parkbandit

10-13-2019, 04:23 PM

I’m going to say McConnell “not using a lame tactic “ is defined by how partisan a person is. Coming from a true non-partisan voter, it was extremely lame.

There's nothing "non-partisan" about you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0

Methais

10-13-2019, 08:15 PM

It has always been my belief that most media 'polls' are simply tools to influence the common undecided voter who would prefer to vote for the 'winner'.

This is correct.

Tgo01

10-14-2019, 05:16 PM

Adam Schitt For Brains just banned Republicans from a closed hearing regarding this impeachment nonsense.

Even Democrats and those suffering from TDS can surely see now this is all bullshit yes?

Seran

10-14-2019, 05:25 PM

Adam Schitt For Brains just banned Republicans from a closed hearing regarding this impeachment nonsense.

Even Democrats and those suffering from TDS can surely see now this is all bullshit yes?

They removed a Republican from the hearing due to their not actually being on one of the investigating committees. Other Republicans who were on those committees attended. Though I can understand why you're trying to spin this as some huge conspiracy, but as always you're mislead or deliberately trying to mislead others.

Seran

10-14-2019, 05:26 PM

Not even FoxNews is spinning it as badly as you are. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-rep-matt-gaetz-kicked-out-of-impeachment-inquiry-hearing

Tgo01

10-14-2019, 05:35 PM

They removed a Republican from the hearing due to their not actually being on one of the investigating committees. Other Republicans who were on those committees attended. Though I can understand why you're trying to spin this as some huge conspiracy, but as always you're mislead or deliberately trying to mislead others.

Gonna go down fighting I see. This all seems perfectly normal to you to hold closed hearings on an impeachment process and there are talks of keeping the "whistleblower" anonymous too.

What does Schitt have to hide exactly? Why are you okay with Congress holding private meetings to remove a duly elected president of the US? Why are you okay with this? Just answer this one question. Ignore all other comments in this post and don't deflect, just answer this one simple question. Thanks.

Seran

10-14-2019, 05:55 PM

Gonna go down fighting I see. This all seems perfectly normal to you to hold closed hearings on an impeachment process and there are talks of keeping the "whistleblower" anonymous too.

What does Schitt have to hide exactly? Why are you okay with Congress holding private meetings to remove a duly elected president of the US? Why are you okay with this? Just answer this one question. Ignore all other comments in this post and don't deflect, just answer this one simple question. Thanks.

I absolutely would love all hearings to be not only public, but broadcast on a special channel available to /everyone/, but the laws regarding confidentiality and secrecy mean that can't happen. I'm sure you understand why. If you don't, I'm sorry that your political agenda interferes with logic.

Tgo01

10-14-2019, 06:04 PM

but the laws regarding confidentiality and secrecy mean that can't happen.

Which laws state impeachment inquiry meetings have to be confidential and secret? I'm dying to learn more.

Gelston

10-14-2019, 06:14 PM

Did you know it is the Executive branch that determines what is and isn't classified?

Seran

10-14-2019, 06:33 PM

Which laws state impeachment inquiry meetings have to be confidential and secret? I'm dying to learn more.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42106.pdf

Tgo01

10-14-2019, 06:37 PM

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42106.pdf

I just skimmed most of that but that all seems like Congress just explaining why they can hold secret meetings, not that they have to.

An impeachment should never be done in secret, it's crazy to even suggest otherwise.

Gelston

10-14-2019, 06:39 PM

I just skimmed most of that but that all seems like Congress just explaining why they can hold secret meetings, not that they have to.

An impeachment should never be done in secret, it's crazy to even suggest otherwise.

In general, the reason would be if classified information is being discussed. I don't have an issue if it is because of that. Of course, POTUS could declassify it and then they'd be holding a secret meeting for no fucking reason.

Tgo01

10-14-2019, 06:42 PM

In general, the reason would be if classified information is being discussed. I don't have an issue if it is because of that. Of course, POTUS could declassify it and then they'd be holding a secret meeting for no fucking reason.

They could hold two different hearings, one where all of the non classified information is discussed and one where it is discussed.

What are they going to do, impeachment Trump in secret then hand it off to the Senate who would also presumably hold a secret trial?

Gelston

10-14-2019, 06:43 PM

They could hold two different hearings, one where all of the non classified information is discussed and one where it is discussed.

What are they going to do, impeachment Trump in secret then hand it off to the Senate who would also presumably hold a secret trial?

They've done that with things in the past, but it may just be that it wouldn't make any fucking sense because nothing could be discussed in a non-classified setting.

And like I said, no, they aren't going to do shit. They don't even have the balls to hold a committee vote.

Seran

10-14-2019, 07:05 PM

I just skimmed most of that but that all seems like Congress just explaining why they can hold secret meetings, not that they have to.

An impeachment should never be done in secret, it's crazy to even suggest otherwise.

The House may not have to, but they did for reasons you, me and Sean Hannity aren't privileged to.

ClydeR

10-15-2019, 08:10 AM

https://i.imgur.com/YGO48Yj.png
https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/1184045842984030208

You know what is interesting about this statement from Giuliani? It's that Giuliani assumes reports about Bolton's criticism are true. Bolton has not testified or spoken publicly about what he knows about Ukraine. Leaks from closed door testimony yesterday by a former government employee claim that the former employee said that Bolton said -- that's triple third hand information illegally leaked – that Bolton was disturbed by demands that Ukraine investigate Biden. Why would Giuliani assume this third hand information is true, when we all know that is totally fake news because Trump never tied military aid to Ukraine's investigation of Biden? Something doesn't add up.

Former national security adviser John Bolton was so disturbed by the efforts to get the Ukrainians to investigate President Donald Trump’s political opponents that he called it a “drug deal,” former White House official Fiona Hill reportedly told Congress on Monday.

Hill, the former top Europe expert in Trump’s White House, testified that Bolton told her he wanted no part of the effort that involved acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, a person in the room for Hill’s testimony told NBC News. Bolton also was said to have referred to Rudy Giuliani as a "hand grenade."

Hill testified that Bolton, who was fired by Trump in September, told her to report the situation to the top lawyer at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, according to the person in the room for Monday’s closed-door hearing.

Giuliani responded to the reported comments early Tuesday. "I always liked and respected John," he said. "I’m very disappointed that his bitterness drives him to attack a friend falsely and in a very personal way. It’s really ironic that John Bolton is calling anyone else a hand grenade. When John is described by many as an atomic bomb."

More... (https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Bolton-Giuliani-Ukrainian-Efforts-Drug-Deal-Hill-Testimony-Congress-563110911.html)

Methais

10-15-2019, 08:52 AM

retardedness

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQa05lvXmj2YkEsc3W-dFD05Hp8EIRTo_ypTNRPfhEj2_pDzVHm

Back

10-15-2019, 10:24 AM

My money is on Bolton being the whistleblower.

This is looking more and more like you're right on the money.

~Rocktar~

10-15-2019, 07:49 PM

Yeah, he is the butthurt whiny bitch type. Whistleblower just being another name for disgruntled former employee in this case.

Alfster

10-15-2019, 10:19 PM

Yeah, he is the butthurt whiny bitch type. Whistleblower just being another name for disgruntled former employee in this case.

Yah except they're accused of breaking the law. So disgruntled with something I'm sure you're unfamiliar with... Ethics

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 12:25 AM

Yah except they're accused of breaking the law. So disgruntled with something I'm sure you're unfamiliar with... Ethics

You're using Bolton and ethics in the same context?

This is the same guy this past spring that Bernie Sanders was accusing of lying to get us into a conflict with Iran. Hell, Democrats partially blamed Bolton for Iraq.

This is why you guys can't be taken seriously, you waffle on your position based off what Trump does. Take the Southern border for instance, Democrats went from crisis at the border, no crisis at the border, to crisis at the border and back to made up crisis at the border all within a matter of 6 months.

Fucking muppets.

Seran

10-16-2019, 12:33 AM

You're using Bolton and ethics in the same context?

Wait, was he unethical before or after he was appointed by Trump? Does being fired by the President change you from a well-qualified, respected candidate to a total loser and liar?

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 01:18 AM

Wait, was he unethical before or after he was appointed by Trump? Does being fired by the President change you from a well-qualified, respected candidate to a total loser and liar?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I have always thought Bolton was a war monger, I know for sure you will never see my support for Trumps decision to hire Bolton. That being said, I thought it was an excellent decision by Trump to get rid of Bolton.

I never voted for Bush, or Trump, or the Clinton's. And again I will repeat, since 1988 I have only voted Republican twice, Perot and Ron Paul. 2016 is the first Presidential election that I didn't vote. All of this in mind, I still am absolutely disgusted with what the Democrats have become and with what they are currently doing. I will be voting Trump in 2020, hell or high water.

Seran

10-16-2019, 01:58 AM

Tgo01

10-16-2019, 03:32 AM

So you're proud that you voted for candidates so far off the fringe of the Republican party that they don't even receive recognition? Do you sleep better at night knowing that by throwing your vote away you helped every winning candidate from Bill Clinton to Trump? Is 20 years of sticking your head in the sand give you some sort of moral superiority?

You're one of those "throwing your vote away" types huh.

Seran

10-16-2019, 10:38 AM

Seizer

10-16-2019, 10:45 AM

So you're proud that you voted for candidates so far off the fringe of the Republican party that they don't even receive recognition? Do you sleep better at night knowing that by throwing your vote away you helped every winning candidate from Bill Clinton to Trump? Is 20 years of sticking your head in the sand give you some sort of moral superiority?

I always loved when people told me I was throwing away my vote. Thanks for proving your arrogance.

Hey Seran, “Fuck you.”

https://bit.ly/2nUu9XE

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 10:47 AM

Yes I am. Everytime I've audited a Poli-Sci class which extolled the virtues of a ranked choice voting systems, it's some rapid left or right winger who has no idea how foolish it is to mislead inexperienced minds. Ideally, the people we vote for will get into office, but in reality our country is a plurocracy in idea only. Voting for fringe candidates usually only results in the person you oppose politically getting elected.

I have a clear conscience knowing my vote never went to a candidate that has helped "lead" our country to where we are now. I don't just give my vote away to who the money masters have chosen.

P.S. You took poli-sci. :ROFL:

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 10:53 AM

I always loved when people told me I was throwing away my vote. Thanks for proving your arrogance.

Hey Seran, “Fuck you.”

https://bit.ly/2nUu9XE

Seran is the little twat that lifted his head up to see how the rest of the class was voting in elementary school.

Gelston

10-16-2019, 11:18 AM

Yes I am. Everytime I've audited a Poli-Sci class which extolled the virtues of a ranked choice voting systems, it's some rapid left or right winger who has no idea how foolish it is to mislead inexperienced minds. Ideally, the people we vote for will get into office, but in reality our country is a plurocracy in idea only. Voting for fringe candidates usually only results in the person you oppose politically getting elected.

Why the hell are you randomly auditing Political Science classes? What a massive waste of time.

Seran

10-16-2019, 11:55 AM

I have a clear conscience knowing my vote never went to a candidate that has helped "lead" our country to where we are now. I don't just give my vote away to who the money masters have chosen.

P.S. You took poli-sci. :ROFL:

I'm with you in that I'd have given an arm to see Ron Paul in his heyday get the Presidency, but realistically he never stood a chance to even see primary nomination. People don't understand the difference between a primary vote for their candidate and the importance of voting the ballot during the general election. Would I prefer Tulsi Gabbard over Warren or Biden, yes, but I wouldn't write her in during the general to stamp my foot at the process.

Seran

10-16-2019, 12:00 PM

Why the hell are you randomly auditing Political Science classes? What a massive waste of time.

Pure masochism? No, because it's necessary and no one wants to see the next Jim Jones born out of some community college

Alfster

10-16-2019, 12:13 PM

You're using Bolton and ethics in the same context?

This is the same guy this past spring that Bernie Sanders was accusing of lying to get us into a conflict with Iran. Hell, Democrats partially blamed Bolton for Iraq.

This is why you guys can't be taken seriously, you waffle on your position based off what Trump does. Take the Southern border for instance, Democrats went from crisis at the border, no crisis at the border, to crisis at the border and back to made up crisis at the border all within a matter of 6 months.

Fucking muppets.

Yah. Bolton appears to have had a hard line against what Guiliani was up to, and stood his ground. I can respect that. He's likely not the actual whistleblower but they appeared to have gotten their information from him. More will come out soon.

Why does what Sanders accuse him of imply that I believe the same?

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 12:16 PM

I'm with you in that I'd have given an arm to see Ron Paul in his heyday get the Presidency, but realistically he never stood a chance to even see primary nomination. People don't understand the difference between a primary vote for their candidate and the importance of voting the ballot during the general election. Would I prefer Tulsi Gabbard over Warren or Biden, yes, but I wouldn't write her in during the general to stamp my foot at the process.

Ron Paul didn't need to win the election. As someone who campaigned for him, I never had any wild eyed goal of him actually winning. Would it have been cool had Ron won? Absolutely. Walking away from 2012 I felt as if it were mission accomplished. The Ron Paul movement reignited the fire in the belly of the American voter and changed the face of the Republican party. That's not to say the job has been completed but the Republicans have become more liberal (in it's true meaning) than the Democrats.

This whole, impeachment behind closed doors, just wow. Can we hang these people now, please?

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 12:28 PM

Yah. Bolton appears to have had a hard line against what Guiliani was up to, and stood his ground. I can respect that. He's likely not the actual whistleblower but they appeared to have gotten their information from him. More will come out soon.

Why does what Sanders accuse him of imply that I believe the same?

I'm pointing out the general trend of the people you support. The Democrats showcasing Bolton as some hero when for years now the Democrats labeled that hero as a war criminal. But Trump, phone call!

I mean this is insane twilight zone shit the Democrats are doing. It looks really, really, really bad.

Alfster

10-16-2019, 12:42 PM

Dunno about you, but I'd rather support individuals who aren't breaking the law...

BREAKING: SDNY charges Turkish state-run bank Halkbank in sanctions violations in connection with the record-breaking money-laundering scheme to Iran executed by gold trader Reza Zarrab.

Zarrab was the client whose release Giuliani pushed for between Trump and Erdogan.

Oh - and just for fun.

Hill has reportedly informed investigators that Gordon Sondland—the GOP megadonor who serves as US ambassador to the European Union—told Ukrainian officials that they should investigate the Bidens in order to secure an in-person meeting between President Donald Trump with Ukraine’s new leader. Sondland is expected to testify on Thursday.

And just for fun.

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

Neveragain

10-16-2019, 01:15 PM

Jeril

10-16-2019, 02:08 PM

Gelston

10-16-2019, 03:03 PM

Pure masochism? No, because it's necessary and no one wants to see the next Jim Jones born out of some community college

What exactly would you do to stop it? Be as thought provoking as you are on PC?

Alfster

10-16-2019, 04:48 PM

Ok, then let the Democrats fight this out in the public eye. Because none of these alleged crimes come close to lying to the American public to get us into a war. To be perfectly honest, I have 0 qualms with voting for a criminal if it means that criminal is exposing the crimes of our elected officials. It's kind of like supporting Vito Corleone because at least that guy doesn't want to sell you heroine.

Those are just this mornings highlights.

~Rocktar~

10-16-2019, 06:08 PM

Alfster

10-16-2019, 07:16 PM

In this last general election you could vote for a known criminal and protector of pedophiles and sexual predators or Trump who is an asshole and rich.

Your ignorance is outstanding.

~Rocktar~

10-16-2019, 10:29 PM

Your ignorance is outstanding.

Your ability to make no point while going right to the ad hominem attacks is typical.

Seran

10-16-2019, 11:14 PM

Gelston

10-16-2019, 11:19 PM

Pelosi is again refusing calls to take a house vote to legitimize the Impeachment Inquiry.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 12:23 AM

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars began under Bush. Were those somehow overshadowed by the Syrian invasion?

I didn't list Bush as a person I voted for. It's like you want me to be a Republican so bad it's made your brain malfunction.

Seizer

10-17-2019, 08:32 AM

You're retarded.
You’re a cunt. See how easy this is!

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 09:01 AM

You can't be a democrat if you don't join the LGBT, child murdering Borg society.

It's ok, I'll just continue voting Republican.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 09:37 AM

Pretty common misconception among retards. You can be cool with someone's alternative lifestyle and simultaneously not partake in it. But conservatives, like yourself, were thinking that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision mandated that they immediately get a same-sex partner, so I thought I'd clear that up for you.

The only misconception is Democrats thinking your base gives a fuck about your alternative lifestyle. Your gay sex doesn't put food on the working classes table.

Seran

10-17-2019, 10:21 AM

I didn't list Bush as a person I voted for. It's like you want me to be a Republican so bad it's made your brain malfunction.

No your post was much more sinister in it's ignorance, by implying Democrats got us in the recent wars.

Parkbandit

10-17-2019, 10:45 AM

Pretty common misconception among retards. You can be cool with someone's alternative lifestyle and simultaneously not partake in it. But conservatives, like yourself, were thinking that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision mandated that they immediately get a same-sex partner, so I thought I'd clear that up for you.

No one cares about your personal life.

I thought I'd clear that up for you.

Parkbandit

10-17-2019, 10:47 AM

No your post was much more sinister in it's ignorance, by implying Democrats got us in the recent wars.

OMG IT'S SINISTER!!!!

You're such a flaming drama queen.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 11:21 AM

No your post was much more sinister in it's ignorance, by implying Democrats got us in the recent wars.

But Democrats did get us into 2 recent wars. Libya, where they now have slave markets (mission accomplished) and Syria, where we wouldn't be if Democrats didn't keep drawing fake lines in the sand.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 11:47 AM

Libya, where conservatives repeatedly obstructed additional funding for security for US diplomats? Nice how that's conveniently the democrats' fault. You're fucking delusional.

You mean the security that was told to stand down by Hillary and then blame it on a youtube video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F66mGV8xKqo

Here we see Hillary dismissing her ineptitude at the cost of destabilizing a sovereign state.

Seran

10-17-2019, 11:58 AM

But Democrats did get us into 2 recent wars. Libya, where they now have slave markets (mission accomplished) and Syria, where we wouldn't be if Democrats didn't keep drawing fake lines in the sand.

There's no comparison between Bush's Wars to Obama's.

Bush's Iraq War - $819 billion direct cost, 8,343 US losses
Bush's Afghanistan War - $975 billion direct cost, 3,576 US losses
Obama's Libya Conflict - $1.2 billion direct cost, 2 US losses
Obama's Operation Inherent Resolve - $50 billion direct cost, 86 US losses against ISIL in Syria/Iraq

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 12:13 PM

There's no comparison between Bush's Wars to Obama's.

Bush's Iraq War - $819 billion direct cost, 8,343 US losses
Bush's Afghanistan War - $975 billion direct cost, 3,576 US losses
Obama's Libya Conflict - $1.2 billion direct cost, 2 US losses
Obama's Operation Inherent Resolve - $50 billion direct cost, 86 US losses against ISIL in Syria/Iraq

Like I said in my previous post, you want me to be a republican so bad it's made your brain malfunction. I never voted for either Bush.

The problem lies in that Democrats should be pushing to pull out of all of this shit yet here they are wanting more war. What happened with Vietnam after pulling out was never a concern with Democrats in the 70's.

The Democrats of today are about more war, killing more babies, more taxes and not letting people make fun of them when they're packing each others poo. There's nothing here for the average American to vote for.

Seran

10-17-2019, 01:02 PM

Like I said in my previous post, you want me to be a republican so bad it's made your brain malfunction. I never voted for either Bush.

The problem lies in that Democrats should be pushing to pull out of all of this shit yet here they are wanting more war. What happened with Vietnam after pulling out was never a concern with Democrats in the 70's.

The Democrats of today are about more war, killing more babies, more taxes and not letting people make fun of them when they're packing each others poo. There's nothing here for the average American to vote for.

By all means revel in your ignorance. Blaming Democrats for wars or failing to end them is both disingenuous and a logical fallacy
Structured drawdowns began under Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq when their elected officials were prepared, yet that doesn't change the fact the war was initiated and maintained for eight disastrous years under Bush.

Your blaming Democrats and blow off any Republican responsibility by saying you didn't vote for them. Yet your voting for that party doesn't disavow Republican wars nor make them failures of Democrats.

Methais

10-17-2019, 01:07 PM

Almost as easy as triggering a conservative.

Says the guy (or whatever the fuck you are) who is literally triggered 24/7.

Fortybox

10-17-2019, 01:29 PM

Says the guy (or whatever the fuck you are) who is literally triggered 24/7.

This is correct.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 01:34 PM

By all means revel in your ignorance. Blaming Democrats for wars or failing to end them is both disingenuous and a logical fallacy
Structured drawdowns began under Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq when their elected officials were prepared, yet that doesn't change the fact the war was initiated and maintained for eight disastrous years under Bush.

Your blaming Democrats and blow off any Republican responsibility by saying you didn't vote for them. Yet your voting for that party doesn't disavow Republican wars nor make them failures of Democrats.

I'm blaming democrats for doing nothing to hold the masters of the Iraq and Afghani wars accountable, moving ahead on Impeachment of a president that's trying to end these wars and wanting to continue with the quagmire.

But fuck no, the Democrats have done nothing to hold these people accountable almost as if their hands are as blood soaked as the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbhgEQv5KwU

Fucking frauds.

ClydeR

10-17-2019, 01:39 PM

https://i.imgur.com/FjXuaL6.png
https://twitter.com/EmmyA2/status/1184882616387944448

Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Seran

10-17-2019, 01:56 PM

I'm blaming democrats for doing nothing to hold the masters of the Iraq and Afghani wars accountable, moving ahead on Impeachment of a president that's trying to end these wars and wanting to continue with the quagmire.

But fuck no, the Democrats have done nothing to hold these people accountable almost as if their hands are as blood soaked as the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbhgEQv5KwU

Fucking frauds.

Wow that's some seriously convoluted thinking. Bush controlled the military in 2001-2008, he invaded without war authorization. When Obama took over and became Commander in Chief, he heeded the advice of the DoD and began a structured withdrawal as not to leave a horrendous power vacuum. 2019, Trump remembers his campaign promises and likely his deal with Putin and abandons northern Syria and our Kurdish allies to Turkey's invasion, against UN, NATO, DoD and fellow Republicans advice. 'lo and behold, Russia fills this vacuum. I applaud the sentiment of leaving the Middle East, but there's a responsible way of doing it that our President is ignoring.

Going back to the impeachment, this is not why the inquiry is in place. It's centered on abuse of power, emulments violations/corruption, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 02:05 PM

Wow that's some seriously convoluted thinking. Bush controlled the military in 2001-2008, he invaded without war authorization. When Obama took over and became Commander in Chief, he heeded the advice of the DoD and began a structured withdrawal as not to leave a horrendous power vacuum. 2019, Trump remembers his campaign promises and likely his deal with Putin and abandons northern Syria and our Kurdish allies to Turkey's invasion, against UN, NATO, DoD and fellow Republicans advice. 'lo and behold, Russia fills this vacuum. I applaud the sentiment of leaving the Middle East, but there's a responsible way of doing it that our President is ignoring.

Going back to the impeachment, this is not why the inquiry is in place. It's centered on abuse of power, emulments violations/corruption, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

And again we have the Democrats unwilling to hold the war criminals accountable.

Your brain is so fucked with TDS you're still sticking with the Trump\Russia conspiracy.

https://i.imgflip.com/1oxpf1.jpg

http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/HIllary_Clinton_Russia_Reset_Button_Image.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0mgQaFlo_p8/hqdefault.jpg

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 02:21 PM

abandons northern Syria and our Kurdish allies to our Turkish allies invasion

This is a pretty good sign to gtfo asap. Trump 2020.

Methais

10-17-2019, 02:21 PM

When Obama took over and became Commander in Chief, he heeded the advice of the DoD and began a structured withdrawal as not to leave a horrendous power vacuum. Then he pulled out of Iraq and created a power vacuum anyway and now we have ISIS and ISIL because Obama fucked up Libya too.

This is correct.

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 02:45 PM

This is correct.

https://media.giphy.com/media/yma7TTGSY2kA8/giphy.gif

Neveragain

10-17-2019, 03:08 PM

Wow that's some seriously convoluted thinking. Bush controlled the military in 2001-2008, he invaded without war authorization. When Obama took over and became Commander in Chief, he heeded the advice of the DoD and began a structured withdrawal as not to leave a horrendous power vacuum. 2019, Trump remembers his campaign promises and likely his deal with Putin and abandons northern Syria and our Kurdish allies to Turkey's invasion, against UN, NATO, DoD and fellow Republicans advice. 'lo and behold, Russia fills this vacuum. I applaud the sentiment of leaving the Middle East, but there's a responsible way of doing it that our President is ignoring.

Going back to the impeachment, this is not why the inquiry is in place. It's centered on abuse of power, emulments violations/corruption, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

Here's a good watch, Democrats accusing Tulsi of being a Russian asset. This is the Democrats best chance and they smear her as a Russian asset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iJsy-bJ-k

Seran

10-17-2019, 05:56 PM

That absurd commentary aside, she's not wrong about CNNs bias against her.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-17-2019, 06:46 PM

Are things heating up? Feels like things are heating up.

Fortybox

10-18-2019, 08:15 AM

Texas rally was YUGE!

No wonder why they want to impeach. They can't win.

Methais

10-18-2019, 09:38 AM

Texas rally was YUGE!

No wonder why they want to impeach. They can't win.

They've literally already admitted this. Probably by accident, but yeah.

https://i.imgflip.com/30dcww.jpg

ClydeR

10-18-2019, 09:49 AM

Last week every major news outlet reported that Rick Perry was resigning next month. Most people assumed that the reason he was resigning was because of his trips to Ukraine that might have been related to Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate Biden. But today Perry said he isn't resigning after all!

How long do you think Perry will last?

How long would Rick Perry last after saying he would not resign? If you guessed 10 days, then you get a prize.

ClydeR

10-22-2019, 02:48 PM

Looks like the Ukraine investigation is heating up. There were gasps.

Washington -- The top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" closed-door testimony that elicited sighs and gasps from House lawmakers leading the impeachment inquiry, people familiar with his testimony told CBS News on Tuesday.

More... (https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-william-taylor-ukraine-testimony-2019-10-22/)

Methais

10-22-2019, 03:02 PM

Looks like the Ukraine investigation is heating up. There were gasps.

https://i.imgur.com/EiPS1nJ.png

OH WELL IN THAT CASE IF DEMOCRATS SAY IT HAPPENED THEN IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED AND EXACTLY THE WAY THEY SAID

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 04:29 PM

Isn't it funny how everyone seems to have just completely forgotten about the so called "whistleblowers" that started all of this? Almost as if they didn't exist in the first place.

Alfster

10-22-2019, 05:15 PM

Lol. Keep chasing those right wing conspiracy theories

Seran

10-22-2019, 05:16 PM

Not forgotten, we're all just in awe of the damning testimony provided by career diplomats about the illegal activity.

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 07:06 PM

Lol. Keep chasing those right wing conspiracy theories

"Conspiracy theories"?

Facts:

The anonymous "whistleblower's" complaint started all of this nonsense.
The "whistleblower's" name hasn't been released.
The "whistleblower" hasn't testified before congress.
No one is even talking about the "whistleblower" anymore.

If this sort of sham was going on to arrest Hillary the left would be literally losing their minds right now. Yes, literally losing their minds. But it's an "impeachment inquiry" against Trump so the left sees nothing wrong with it. Because they're sad.

Not forgotten, we're all just in awe of the damning testimony provided by career diplomats about the illegal activity.

I must have missed all of the "damning testimony provided by career diplomats about illegal activity." Care to share some links that don't have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NYT, or Washington Post in the title?

Seran

10-22-2019, 07:52 PM

How about FoxNews, Al Jhazeera or The Hill? Actually, why would anyone bother, you're going to deny and refute everything without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Get ready to vote Pence 2020.

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 08:07 PM

How about FoxNews, Al Jhazeera or The Hill? Actually, why would anyone bother, you're going to deny and refute everything without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Get ready to vote Pence 2020.

Weird way of saying "Oh I don't actually have any sources for the shit I'm saying" but hey, you do you.

Ashlander

10-22-2019, 08:12 PM

Weird way of saying "Oh I don't actually have any sources for the shit I'm saying" but hey, you do you.

Whistleblower has a book coming out now according to CNN. Keeping all details of the author anonymous though.

Taernath

10-22-2019, 08:14 PM

I must have missed all of the "damning testimony provided by career diplomats about illegal activity." Care to share some links that don't have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NYT, or Washington Post in the title?

Sure

Ukraine ambassador says in 'damning' testimony that he was told Trump wanted quid pro quo deal, report says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-bill-taylor-testimony-ambassador-quid-pro-quo-deal-biden-a9167016.html

The US ambassador to Ukraine has contradicted Donald Trump, telling House impeachment investigators that military aid to the former Soviet state was dependent upon a declaration of an investigation into the Bidens.

Ambassador Bill Taylor said during closed door hearings on Tuesday that he stands by calling it “crazy” to make the military assistance contingent on an investigation into Mr Trump’s potential political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Upon his arrival in Kiev, Mr Taylor claimed that he was alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels, and that other US diplomats said they were working on convincing Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. During a phone call with EU ambassador Gordon Sondland, Mr Taylor said, according to prepared remarks, he was told that the president felt that aid was dependent on a public announcement that Ukraine was opening an investment into Hunter Biden‘s business dealings with Ukrainian oil company Burisma.

...

This is a pretty big story, so burying your head under the sand only makes you look sillier the longer you do it.

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 08:19 PM

Whistleblower has a book coming out now according to CNN. Keeping all details of the author anonymous though.

You gotta be kidding. Is this even real life anymore?

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 08:41 PM

Sure

Ukraine ambassador says in 'damning' testimony that he was told Trump wanted quid pro quo deal, report says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-bill-taylor-testimony-ambassador-quid-pro-quo-deal-biden-a9167016.html

This is a pretty big story, so burying your head under the sand only makes you look sillier the longer you do it.

Oh we're talking about Bill Taylor's laughable third hand information as the "damning evidence"? The same guy who received a text message from Ambassador Sondland saying Trump specifically said there was NO quid pro quo, but claimed in his testimony that he called Sondland and on the phone Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Almost as if this guy is making shit up because he hates Trump or something. Let's wait for Sondland's testimony before we rely on third hand information from some nobody.

Also Democrats don't get to sit there on their high horse for weeks saying when Biden openly engaged in a quid pro quo it was okay because he was just rooting out corruption, but when Trump supposedly engages in a quid pro quo it's an impeachable offense because quid pro quo's are automatically impeachable offenses.

What a joke our country has become if diplomates can't engage in, you know, diplomacy. Remember when Obama was caught on a mic telling the Russian PM to give him a break for a few weeks until after he won the next election then he could be more "flexible" towards Russia after he won? Why wasn't he impeached for a quid pro quo? Because quid pro quos aren't illegal unless there is actual evidence (not third hand information) that Trump demanded Ukraine "dig up dirt" on a political rival. Remember we have no such information, not even from Taylor, that Trump ever said such a thing. All we have is Adam Schiff literally lying to the American people that that's what happened.

This story isn't a story at all unless you have an unnatural hatred for Trump.

Seran

10-22-2019, 08:44 PM

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 08:55 PM

Withholding aid so one country won't invade another, or to get them from killing an indigenous people is a hell of a lot different than getting a foreign leader to publically announce your political propaganda.

Is it the same as or different than getting the country in question to fire a prosecutor investigating the company the VP's son works at?

Gelston

10-22-2019, 08:58 PM

I'm looking at an apartment that is 10 minutes from Great Wolf Lodge and Gaylord Texan Resort

Taernath

10-22-2019, 09:03 PM

third hand information from some nobody.

The ambassador to Ukraine is some nobody? lmao

https://i.imgur.com/UKiTV9f.jpg

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 09:03 PM

I'm looking at an apartment that is 10 minutes from Great Wolf Lodge and Gaylord Texan Resort

Homophobe.

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 09:12 PM

The ambassador to Ukraine is some nobody? lmao

https://i.imgur.com/UKiTV9f.jpg

Let's see...

President of Ukraine said no quid pro quo
President of US said no quid pro quo
Transcript says no quid pro quo
Ambassador to EU says no quid pro quo

The guy who heads up the US embassy in Ukraine for a whole 4 months relying on third hand information says otherwise. He's not even an official ambassador.

Yup, gonna say some nobody compared to the people we have already heard from.

Honestly why are we even investigating this anymore when the Ukraine government is saying there was no quid pro quo, they didn't feel any pressure, and they weren't even aware aid was being withheld.

This is like someone starting a fight, getting their asses kicked, the police all say the ones that got their asses kicked started the fight and didn't want to cooperate with any investigations but the state decided to press charges anyways and throw the ones who were attacked in jail for 4 years.

Oh wait, that's exactly what happened in NY with Antifa being the aggressors and the Proud Boys being the victims who were thrown in jail.

The left has lost all semblance of justice.

Taernath

10-22-2019, 09:16 PM

Let's see...

President of Ukraine said no quid pro quo
President of US said no quid pro quo
Transcript says no quid pro quo
Ambassador to EU says no quid pro quo

The guy who heads up the US embassy in Ukraine for a whole 4 months says otherwise. He's not even an official ambassador.

Yup, gonna say some nobody compared to the people we have already heard from.

BREAKING: Individuals involved in possible corruption have already investigated themselves and found themselves to be innocent.

Boy that was a close one!

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 09:19 PM

BREAKING: Individuals involved in possible corruption have already investigated themselves and found themselves to be innocent.

Boy that was a close one!

Ukraine isn't in any legal trouble whatsoever even if this quid pro quo did occur. If anything they would be seen as the victims in all of this. So I guess now they're just lying? Must be because they are former soviets, you know RUSSIAN ASSETS!

Why are we ignoring the fact that Sondland, the one the supposed quid pro quo information came from, sent a text to the guy who heads the embassy in Ukraine stating there was no quid pro quo? I guess evidence that helps Trump doesn't count either.

Gosh, it sure is getting difficult to defend oneself in the US these days.

Taernath

10-22-2019, 09:25 PM

But Nixon SAID it wasn't a crime!

Alright

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 09:26 PM

Alright

I see you're not really interested in discussing the facts of this case.

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 09:30 PM

Ambassador Sondland, the person Taylor got his third hand information from stating there was a quid pro quo, is expected to testify that there was NO quid pro quo. If that happens that essentially makes Taylor's testimony completely null because his testimony is hearsay and the guy who he got his information from says the exact opposite.

Going to be fun watching Democrats spin that one if that happens.

"This guy is lying before Congress! He's a Trump supporter! He can't be trusted! Did you know 'Sondland' means PUPPET in Russian?!!?"

"Oh yeah, also, he can totally be trusted as long as the information isn't coming directly from him but rather through a third party who claims they heard it directly from him. Then we can trust this Sondland guy! Did you know 'Sondland' means 'TRUSTWORHTY' in English?!"

Parkbandit

10-22-2019, 10:13 PM

Tgo01

10-22-2019, 10:18 PM

This is as equally stupid as the Russian collusion investigation.

Just admit you are still upset about 2016 and move on.

Better yet.. how about you nominate some Democrat that can actually beat Trump in an election?

Just a short 5 years ago I never would have imagined we would have even entertained the thought of prosecuting someone for littering based on anonymous complaints and hearsay evidence alone, and yet here we are watching as Democrats try to impeach a president on exactly that and their voters all too happily follow them down the path to hell.

Shit the rational given by many judges for why they ruled against speed cameras was because they said a police officer needed to witness the infraction. Mere VIDEO EVIDENCE wasn't enough, and here we are trying to impeach the duly elected president of the US based on HEARSAY! I feel like I'm not even awake anymore and I'm just stuck in a never ending nightmare of virtue signaling goons.

Democrats: You lost an election 3 years ago because you nominated literally the most evil politician the US has ever had. It's time to get the fuck over it already.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 04:03 AM

Parkbandit

10-23-2019, 08:25 AM

Methais

10-23-2019, 09:30 AM

I'm looking at an apartment that is 10 minutes from Great Wolf Lodge and Gaylord Texan Resort

Confirmed Gelston lives at the Gaywolf Resort.

cwolff = gaywolff = confirmed Gelston is cwolff

Methais

10-23-2019, 09:34 AM

Shit the rational given by many judges for why they ruled against speed cameras was because they said a police officer needed to witness the infraction. Mere VIDEO EVIDENCE wasn't enough, and here we are trying to impeach the duly elected president of the US based on HEARSAY! I feel like I'm not even awake anymore and I'm just stuck in a never ending nightmare of virtue signaling goons.

Setting leftist butthurt tantrums aside for a moment, how do you prove who was driving the car? You're not seriously arguing in favor of speed (or red light, which got pwned in court in NOLA) cameras are you?

Seran

10-23-2019, 10:36 AM

Warren says if she's elected she's not opposed to withholding aid to Israel until they agree to a two state solution. I guess going by the current logic of ALL quid pro quos are impeachable offenses then Warren can't even run. This might be the first time in history Congress has had to step in to preemptively impeach a candidate running for president.

Oh...oh wait let me guess...this is somehow different than what Trump supposedly did, right guys?

Wow. You have got your head so far up your ass that I'm surprised you can even reach your keyboard. Quid pro quo is obtaining a personal favor, gift, benefit from another exchange for a benefit. Trump withheld military aid in exchange for political assistance from the President of Ukraine, namely to publically release he was investigating Biden's son and Trump's email hacking claims. This is an abuse of power and soliciting and illegal foreign contribution to his campaign.

Gelston

10-23-2019, 10:54 AM

Methais

10-23-2019, 11:10 AM

Taernath

10-23-2019, 11:26 AM

Is the Ukraine president lying about there being no quid pro quo?

You understand that Ukraine doesn't WANT there to be the appearance of quid pro quo, right?

Methais

10-23-2019, 11:41 AM

You understand that Ukraine doesn't WANT there to be the appearance of quid pro quo, right?

Ok...so is the Ukraine president lying about it too then?

Seran

10-23-2019, 12:03 PM

You understand that Ukraine doesn't WANT there to be the appearance of quid pro quo, right?

That doesn't fit into the caveman simplicity of this group. "Trump good, Trump no lie, Give good snu snu."

Methais

10-23-2019, 12:04 PM

That doesn't fit into the caveman simplicity of this group. "Trump good, Trump no lie, Give good snu snu."

Still waiting for an actual answer.

Is the Ukraine president lying when he says there was no quid pro quo?

Taernath

10-23-2019, 12:24 PM

Still waiting for an actual answer.

Is the Ukraine president lying when he says there was no quid pro quo?

It's immaterial what he thinks, he's a party to the investigation. It's like if a group of people get pulled over for reckless driving, and a passenger says they weren't - you expect the cop to walk away?

Gelston

10-23-2019, 12:28 PM

It's immaterial what he thinks, he's a party to the investigation. It's like if a group of people get pulled over for reckless driving, and a passenger says they weren't - you expect the cop to walk away?

No, it is like a group of people getting pulled over for hit and run, except the victim says they were never hit and no damage can be found on either vehicle.

Methais

10-23-2019, 12:28 PM

It's immaterial what he thinks, he's a party to the investigation. It's like if a group of people get pulled over for reckless driving, and a passenger says they weren't - you expect the cop to walk away?

Ok well have fun with all that. I'm sure it will produce the same stellar results as the Mueller investigation did, and then they'll move onto the next retarded and do the same thing all over again, but with some other eastern European country that might be near Russia.

I'd love to see impeachment happen. Trump won't get convicted, but the meltdowns the left will have after that and after the extra wrecking the 2020 election will bring will make it all worth it.

Taernath

10-23-2019, 12:35 PM

No, it is like a group of people getting pulled over for hit and run, except the victim says they were never hit and no damage can be found on either vehicle.

... the victim would be Joe Biden.

Ok well have fun with all that. I'm sure it will produce the same stellar results as the Mueller investigation did, and then they'll move onto the next retarded and do the same thing all over again, but with some other eastern European country that might be near Russia.

I'd love to see impeachment happen. Trump won't get convicted, but the meltdowns the left will have after that and after the extra wrecking the 2020 election will bring will make it all worth it.

Always the optimist.

Methais

10-23-2019, 12:43 PM

... the victim would be Joe Biden.

Always the optimist.

Are things heating up yet?

Astray

10-23-2019, 12:44 PM

Are things heating up yet?

Yes.

Wait.

That other answer.

Methais

10-23-2019, 12:46 PM

Yes.

Wait.

That other answer.

https://media.giphy.com/media/148RzvOyLJcbUQ/giphy.gif

ClydeR

10-23-2019, 12:47 PM

Ambassador Sondland, the person Taylor got his third hand information from stating there was a quid pro quo, is expected to testify that there was NO quid pro quo. If that happens.....

Sondland testified days before Taylor. One of the two committed perjury.

Parkbandit

10-23-2019, 02:01 PM

Taernath

10-23-2019, 03:35 PM

You do realize this is even weaker shit than the "ZOMG RUSSIAN COLLUSION!" bullshit we just sat through for 2 years, right?

Weaker in terms of what? Mulvaney was out there the other day having a public meltdown telling us 'we do it all the time, get over it'. If you mean that it won't get Trump out of office, you're probably right since the R's are spineless. But with an impeachment at least everything is on record.

Methais

10-23-2019, 04:03 PM

Current Republican arguments against impeachment: we're corrupt as fuck and don't give a single fuck about the laws of this country, get over it

Can someone link the Republican's alternate facts source that the Mueller report exonerated Trump? They mention it every day but I've yet to see it.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f606d170587d8676a3726261a6a00efa/tenor.gif?itemid=7445527

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 05:00 PM

Setting leftist butthurt tantrums aside for a moment, how do you prove who was driving the car? You're not seriously arguing in favor of speed (or red light, which got pwned in court in NOLA) cameras are you?

I'm not arguing in favor of speed cameras, that's why I brought them up :p

If an officer needs to witness the infraction in order to issue a citation I think the least we should ask of "witnesses" in an impeachment inquiry is to have first hand knowledge of anything they are alleging. Someone sitting before congress (well one committee in the basement) and saying "Yeah I think bad things happened because I heard from someone who heard from someone who said Trump said a bad thing" is absurd.

Parkbandit

10-23-2019, 05:06 PM

Weaker in terms of what? Mulvaney was out there the other day having a public meltdown telling us 'we do it all the time, get over it'. If you mean that it won't get Trump out of office, you're probably right since the R's are spineless. But with an impeachment at least everything is on record.

What? Republicans aren't even PART of this political stunt.. what specifically are they spineless over? That they aren't falling for this bullshit?

There is a real reason why Republicans are being left out of interviews, meetings and votes.. and it has nothing to do with any phone call, the Russians or pornstar payments...

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 05:06 PM

Wow. You have got your head so far up your ass that I'm surprised you can even reach your keyboard. Quid pro quo is obtaining a personal favor, gift, benefit from another exchange for a benefit. Trump withheld military aid in exchange for political assistance from the President of Ukraine, namely to publically release he was investigating Biden's son and Trump's email hacking claims. This is an abuse of power and soliciting and illegal foreign contribution to his campaign.

Isn't it hilarious how the narrative keeps changing based on "bombshell revelations!"

First it was "Trump's quid pro quo was withholding aid in order to investigate Biden!"

When that didn't pan out it was "Trump was withholding aid in order to secure a favor!"

When the transcripts showed that "favor" was referring to election interference (something Democrats wanted) Democrats pretended it was about investigating Biden.

Now we have "Trump's quid pro quo was withholding aid until they publicly announced they were investigating Biden's son!"

Also how is telling Israel "I want X and until you give me X you won't get aid" not the literal definition of a quid pro quo? Are you sure you're mature enough to be discussing this topic if you don't even know what a quid pro quo is?

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 05:10 PM

... the victim would be Joe Biden.

How is Joe Biden the victim in all of this?

Democrats have been playing this up that Ukraine is the victim in Trump's supposed underhanded dealings.

Democrats standing up there saying "Our most dear and beloved ally NEEDED that aid for military equipment so they could defend themselves from RUSSIA! Remember Russia bad! And Trump withheld that aid from our most great and perfect ally until he secured a favor in return!"

Sure seems like Ukraine is the victim according to Democrats.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 05:14 PM

Weaker in terms of what? Mulvaney was out there the other day having a public meltdown telling us 'we do it all the time, get over it'.

Mulvaney has already clarified his position and said people were misinterpreting his statements.

This is why this "impeachment inquiry" is looking like nothing but a witch hunt.

So far we have an anonymous whistleblower who we might never know and has hearsay information.
The guy heading up the Ukraine embassy for a whole 4 months with his hearsay information.
And people saying "Look at what Mulvaney said! We have to believe him! Oh no, don't believe him when he says his words are being misconstrued! Believe his original statements that we misconstrued!"

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-23-2019, 07:11 PM

It's like you don't read anything at all. DNC server was an attack on America. We want to know who did it.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 07:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrQT9fUmk28

"The corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about it. That's why we held up the money."

You're so retarded you probably think the earth is flat because you read it on Breitbart once.

Oh so the money was held up due to CORRUPTION? You mean the exact same reasoning Obama and Biden gave? Funny how that works.

You must have missed the memo of how you were supposed to spin this one.

Alfster

10-23-2019, 07:14 PM

It's like you don't read anything at all. DNC server was an attack on America. We want to know who did it.

Surprised they're not more interested in the rnc data.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 07:22 PM

They don't have to know who hacked the RNC servers, RNC willingly gave that data over to Russia.

Annahlee = Hillary Clinton. It all makes so much sense now!

Do any Democrats on the board feel embarrassed that Annahlee is on your side? Or do you see nothing wrong with a raging racist representing your party on the PC?

Alfster

10-23-2019, 07:26 PM

I'm just having a hard time believing that those of you who are defending Trump's actions would be okay if Hillary had done the same thing.

This is the most dangerous part of Trump's presidency in my opinion. He's arguing that because he's president he can do whatever he wants.

Want a back channel to Ukraine that goes against America's official positions? Let's use private citizens without security clearances to take care of that. If Hillary had farted in the oval office y'all would be screaming to impeach.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 07:36 PM

He's arguing that because he's president he can do whatever he wants.

When did he ever say or even imply that?

Want a back channel to Ukraine that goes against America's official positions? Let's use private citizens without security clearances to take care of that.

What are you even talking about now?

If Hillary had farted in the oval office y'all would be screaming to impeach.

I put up with 8 years of Obama shitting all over my country and everything that made it great and I never once thought he should be impeached. Give me a break.

Taernath

10-23-2019, 07:49 PM

When did he ever say or even imply that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8

Taernath

10-23-2019, 07:53 PM

Mulvaney has already clarified his position and said people were misinterpreting his statements.

He was asked several times to clarify what he meant in his initial interview. He's just a dumbass toady is all.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 08:02 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8

I tried to Google this for more context and wouldn't you know it? Each and every single article I found provided NO context and just repeated this out of context phrase, whether in print form or video form.

I finally had to track down the full speech from the White House for the truth (isn't that an ironic turn of events) and it turns out he was referring to the firing of James Comey, which, yes, he had the right to fire James Comey and it wasn't "obstruction" like the Democrats were talking pushing for at the time.

Jesus Christ. It's getting to the point where no news source is a reliable news source anymore these days. Why are these supposed news sites so afraid to just provide a bit more context? Almost as if they know with context what Trump said makes sense, but with no context it makes it sound like Trump is saying he could nuke California tomorrow if he felt like it.

Taernath

10-23-2019, 08:06 PM

I tried to Google this for more context and wouldn't you know it? Each and every single article I found provided NO context and just repeated this out of context phrase, whether in print form or video form.

I finally had to track down the full speech from the White House for the truth (isn't that an ironic turn of events) and it turns out he was referring to the firing of James Comey, which, yes, he had the right to fire James Comey and it wasn't "obstruction" like the Democrats were talking pushing for at the time.

Jesus Christ. It's getting to the point where no news source is a reliable news source anymore these days. Why are these supposed news sites so afraid to just provide a bit more context? Almost as if they know with context what Trump said makes sense, but with no context it makes it sound like Trump is saying he could nuke California tomorrow if he felt like it.

Person 1: "Trump said X"
Tgo: "Nuh uh prove it."
Person 2: *posts multiple video clips of Trump literally saying X*
Tgo: "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!"

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 08:08 PM

Person 1: "Trump said X"
Tgo: "Nuh uh prove it."
Person 2: *posts multiple video clips of Trump literally saying X*
Tgo: "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!"

Yes context matters, even when we're talking about Trump.

We're talking about Ukraine here and Alfster said "He's arguing that because he's president he can do whatever he wants."

I ask when Trump has ever said this, clearly in reference to what's going on about Ukraine, and you provide year old out of context video clips of Trump talking about his power to fire Comey, which he did have the power to do so and wasn't obstruction of justice.

Taernath

10-23-2019, 08:10 PM

Yes context matters, even when we're talking about Trump.

We're talking about Ukraine here and Alfster said "He's arguing that because he's president he can do whatever he wants."

I ask when Trump has ever said this, clearly in reference to what's going on about Ukraine, and you provide year old out of context video clips of Trump talking about his power to fire Comey, which he did have the power to do so and wasn't obstruction of justice.

https://i.imgur.com/Jt1gM18.jpg

ClydeR

10-23-2019, 08:16 PM

Also how is telling Israel "I want X and until you give me X you won't get aid" not the literal definition of a quid pro quo? Are you sure you're mature enough to be discussing this topic if you don't even know what a quid pro quo is?

Surely you understand the difference. It is okay to use government resources to pressure other countries to do something for the benefit of the United States. It is not okay to use government resources to pressure another country to do something for you personally.

Did Trump do the former with Ukraine? Trump says no. In his press conference last Thursday, Mulvaney said that Trump held up aid to Ukraine for three reasons, one of which was that Ukraine was not sufficiently cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department investigation, which Mulvaney said would be for the benefit of the United States, not just for the benefit of Trump. As you know, Mulvaney later retracted that statement.

Did Trump do the latter with Ukraine -- use government resources to pressure Ukraine for Trump's personal benefit? Since Trump says he did not pressure Ukraine at all, then no, unless you don't believe Trump about pressuring Ukraine. And if you think he is lying about pressuring Ukraine, then you probably think he did it for personal gain.

Until we have the chance to see the evidence being collected, it all comes down to whether we trust Trump.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 08:21 PM

Surely you understand the difference. It is okay to use government resources to pressure other countries to do something for the benefit of the United States. It is not okay to use government resources to pressure another country to do something for you personally.

How is threatening Israel with going through with a forced two state solution benefiting the US exactly? Seems like that benefits Democrats directly because they are the anti-Israel/pro-Muslim terrorists party these days.

~Rocktar~

10-23-2019, 09:44 PM

How is threatening Israel with going through with a forced two state solution benefiting the US exactly? Seems like that benefits Democrats directly because they are the anti-Israel/pro-Muslim terrorists party these days.

Wait, what?!?!! So they are tying in this Ukraine call to some BS about wanting Israel to go with a two state system? Seriously?

Oh, and what about the 4 or 5 times that Israel already offered a two state system and the Palestinian leadership, specifically Hamas and that shitpile Arafat turned them down?

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 09:50 PM

Wait, what?!?!! So they are tying in this Ukraine call to some BS about wanting Israel to go with a two state system? Seriously?

No, Warren suggested she would withhold Israel aid until Israel agreed to a two state solution, otherwise known as a quid pro quo.

I'm just wondering if Democrats are going to insist Warren now drop out of the race since quid pro quos are apparently impeachable offenses now. I'm now waiting for the "But it's different when a Democrat does it!" posts.

Gelston

10-23-2019, 10:09 PM

No, Warren suggested she would withhold Israel aid until Israel agreed to a two state solution, otherwise known as a quid pro quo.

I'm just wondering if Democrats are going to insist Warren now drop out of the race since quid pro quos are apparently impeachable offenses now. I'm now waiting for the "But it's different when a Democrat does it!" posts.

I, personally, would withhold Israel aide until forever. Also, all the other countries outside the Western Hemisphere.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 10:11 PM

I, personally, would withhold Israel aide until forever. Also, all the other countries outside the Western Hemisphere.

That's not a quid pro quo so you're good. Also I'm fine with withholding aid from all countries as well.

Gelston

10-23-2019, 10:13 PM

That's not a quid pro quo so you're good. Also I'm fine with withholding aid from all countries as well.

Not all. I'd step up support to nations that are in our regional sphere of influence.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 10:16 PM

Not all. I'd step up support to nations that are in our regional sphere of influence.

Racist.

Gelston

10-23-2019, 10:17 PM

Racist.

tranny

~Rocktar~

10-23-2019, 10:24 PM

No, Warren suggested she would withhold Israel aid until Israel agreed to a two state solution, otherwise known as a quid pro quo.

I'm just wondering if Democrats are going to insist Warren now drop out of the race since quid pro quos are apparently impeachable offenses now. I'm now waiting for the "But it's different when a Democrat does it!" posts.

Ahhh, ok, missed that. Did anyone remind her that they have already offered it a bunch of times and been turned down?

And no, she should not drop out, the comedy gold that will come from her campaign if she gets the nomination is worth putting up with her batshit crazy ass for now.

Tgo01

10-23-2019, 10:38 PM

Ahhh, ok, missed that. Did anyone remind her that they have already offered it a bunch of times and been turned down?

She's part of the "Jews bad, Muslim terrorists good" party now so she probably doesn't care. I'm just waiting for her to hold up a map of the Middle East win which Israel is not displayed.

Seran

10-24-2019, 01:17 AM

Isn't it hilarious how the narrative keeps changing based on "bombshell revelations!"

First it was "Trump's quid pro quo was withholding aid in order to investigate Biden!"

When that didn't pan out it was "Trump was withholding aid in order to secure a favor!"

When the transcripts showed that "favor" was referring to election interference (something Democrats wanted) Democrats pretended it was about investigating Biden.

Now we have "Trump's quid pro quo was withholding aid until they publicly announced they were investigating Biden's son!"

Also how is telling Israel "I want X and until you give me X you won't get aid" not the literal definition of a quid pro quo? Are you sure you're mature enough to be discussing this topic if you don't even know what a quid pro quo is?

Because securing land for Palestinian refugees is not breaking US law. Withholding aid until a foreign country agrees to back your narrative and investigate your political rivals is against US law. If you understood that, you'd be far less ignorant.

Seran

10-24-2019, 01:18 AM

It's like you don't read anything at all. DNC server was an attack on America. We want to know who did it.

The FBI and NSA already proved it was Russia, which doesn't fit the President's narrative.

Seran

10-24-2019, 01:24 AM

I, personally, would withhold Israel aide until forever. Also, all the other countries outside the Western Hemisphere.

Agreed.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 01:36 AM

Because securing land for Palestinian refugees is not breaking US law.

What about withholding aid until they agree to fire the prosecutor investigating the company the VP's son works for?

Also securing land for Palestinian "refugees"? What are you even talking about now?

Seran

10-24-2019, 01:55 AM

Also securing land for Palestinian "refugees"? What are you even talking about now?

I suggest you read about the Six Day War and the invasion if Lebanon. Without a doubt the Israelis are in the right and the Palestinian leadership has screwed their people out of peace and a controlled right of return, however Israel has anything but clean hands.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 01:58 AM

I suggest you read about the Six Day War and the invasion if Lebanon. Without a doubt the Israelis are in the right and the Palestinian leadership has screwed their people out of peace and a controlled right of return, however Israel has anything but clean hands.

Just answer my question.

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians are "refugees" because their leadership are a bunch of terrorists who willingly allow them to starve and go without because they want to spend money on attacking Israel? I wouldn't disagree with you there.

But to you the solution is to give the Palestinians MORE Israeli land? You can't be saying this. You just can't be this dumb. I refuse to believe it.

Seran

10-24-2019, 01:59 AM

How about you exercise your reading ability to figure it out yourself, this isn't Google.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 02:02 AM

How about you exercise your reading ability to figure it out yourself, this isn't Google.

How about you just answer the fucking questions I ask of you and at least try to act like you're here for an honest discussion and not just to say random bullshit and expect everyone to take you at your word? Because I've been hearing Democrats and everyone else on the left screaming for years now for why we need a two state solution but you are literally the first to suggest the reason is because of Palestinian "refugees."

Seran

10-24-2019, 02:21 AM

How about you just answer the fucking questions I ask of you and at least try to act like you're here for an honest discussion and not just to say random bullshit and expect everyone to take you at your word? Because I've been hearing Democrats and everyone else on the left screaming for years now for why we need a two state solution but you are literally the first to suggest the reason is because of Palestinian "refugees."

I don't think you've noticed, but everytime someone posts conclusive information or validates their argument, you refute the evidence as being insufficient. It's not because folks are wrong, but because you don't understand the topics you're attempting to engage in. It's my hope that by educating yourself a bit, you'll be capable of an informed argument and make a rebuttal that's isn't cringe worthy.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 02:29 AM

I don't think you've noticed, but everytime someone posts conclusive information or validates their argument, you refute the evidence as being insufficient.

So this is how you think an argument works? You say something, the other person asks for a source so everyone can be on the same page, and you think the other person is just supposed to say "Oh okay, you win then!"

No. The reason I ask for a source is because 99% of the time the person making the claim either has no idea what they are talking about, they got some of the facts wrong, or worse yet they are flat out lying. Latrinsorm was notorious for this when he still posted here. He would say something outlandish, I would ask him for a source, and literally in his source it stated the exact opposite of what he just got finished saying. It actually took me a while to realize he was doing this because once a source was provided I just took it on faith that he was being honest, it wasn't until I started reading his sources I realized how much of a liar he was. Honestly I should thank him for that because he really opened my eyes to just how disingenuous some people are with their arguments and how very little people most people on the internet tend to know about the subject they are discussing, but they sure as shit like to act as if they know what they are talking about.

It's not because folks are wrong, but because you don't understand the topics you're attempting to engage in. It's my hope that by educating yourself a bit, you'll be capable of an informed argument and make a rebuttal that's isn't cringe worthy.

Talk about irony.

"You dare to actually read the sources I provide and you give a counter argument like a rational adult! I DON'T LIKE THAT! Instead I'm just going to say random shit that pops into my head then tell you to act like an adult and research just how right I am!"

Just tell me what you mean by Palestinian "refugees" already, Seran. This isn't difficult. It's not like trying to defend Democrats holding secret impeachment hearings in the basement of the capital building, which you also fail at doing. This is even easier than that! This is telling me what YOU meant by the words YOU said. This should be the easiest thing in the world. I'm not even asking for a source, I'm just asking you what the fuck you're talking about.

Seran

10-24-2019, 02:41 AM

Because I could go on for paragraphs explaining what a displaced person is, why Palestinian's are being manipulated out of a resettlement plan by leadership whose concerned about the lose of power without conflict and then wrap it up in a neat little bow by explaining UN Monitoring and peacekeepers and you'd still not understand the difference between personal gain and resolving a decades old political and reglious conflict.

By laying out a roadmap on relevant topics, I'm hoping to engage your curiosity and teach you about self-enricment and diplomacy with the hope, the irrational hope, that you'll cede the point.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 02:54 AM

Because I could go on for paragraphs explaining what a displaced person is

Do you honestly think I'm asking you to explain to me what a refugee is? Give me a break.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 02:59 AM

Taylor, the "star witness" with his "bombshell" testimony apparently has a close link to Burisma, the Ukraine gas company Trump wanted investigated.

Taylor was an advisor for USUBC. The Atlantic Council is funded by Burisma.

USUBC and Burisma worked closely together. In fact Taylor wrote several analysis pieces that were published by the Atlantic Council.

A rational person would say this is a conflict of interest and Taylor's testimony, already just being nothing but hearsay evidence to begin with, should be taken with a grain of salt. But Democrats and those suffering from TDS will instead choose to ignore all of this and will ignore the fact that the person who supposedly gave Taylor the "quid pro quo" information was Sondland, a person who has apparently already testified that there was NO quid pro quo. But that's more difficult to ascertain seeing as how this is all going on behind closed doors because apparently now Democrats LOVE their government being as transparent as mud.

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 04:41 AM

What the fuck would conservatives know about conflicts of interest?

Okay we have heard the retarded point of view. Anyone else care to weigh in on why we shouldn't care about conflict of interests from these witnesses giving hearsay testimony in a secret meeting behind closed doors?

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-24-2019, 08:48 AM

Are you triggered? You seem triggered.

Neveragain

10-24-2019, 09:07 AM

Are you triggered? You seem triggered.

Imagine going through life being this pissed about an election. 3 years man, wtf?

What's really stupid is that Democrats probably could have got a lot of what they wanted with this president. He was a NY democrat most of his life but, alas, the Democrat party has gone full retard.

Methais

10-24-2019, 10:33 AM

Seran

10-24-2019, 11:05 AM

Do you honestly think I'm asking you to explain to me what a refugee is? Give me a break.

Yes, because you've been programmed by, I'm assuming, Sean Hannity into believing there's no difference between a humanitarian crisis and inviting foreign influence into our elections to bypass domestic law.

Seran

10-24-2019, 11:08 AM

Methais

10-24-2019, 11:20 AM

How about you exercise your reading ability to figure it out yourself, this isn't Google.

Quoted for when you demand sources for anything.

Methais

10-24-2019, 12:21 PM

Ever notice Seran and Anal Lee are almost always posting at the exact same time?

Which one of you has the voter card and the cock & balls pond though?

Tgo01

10-24-2019, 08:08 PM

I'll give the Democrats credit for one thing, this fake impeachment bullshit seems to be having an effect on Trump's approval numbers. But I guess that's what this is really about and has nothing to do with truth or justice or anything silly like that.

GSIV Rogue

10-24-2019, 08:25 PM

Justice Department is opening criminal investigation into its own Russia investigation: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-dept-is-said-to-open-criminal-inquiry-into-its-own-russia-investigation/ar-AAJjIHv?#page=2

From the article:

"Mr. Trump has made clear that he sees the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. That view factors into the impeachment investigation against him, as does his long obsession with the origins of the Russia inquiry."

Personally, I think Trump is brilliant in business and stress management. I have a lot of respect for his ability to succeed - even if I disagree with some of his methods. I agree with abolishing Obamacare - probably the single best thing he did as President. I'm not happy with the trade war going on with China, but I understand the theory behind it. Insofar as Trump himself is concerned - he probably would have been better off personally if he had not taken office, as I believe he is going to be continually hounded and scrutinized until he is no longer a political figure - or worse for him - ends up in jail.

Tgo01

10-25-2019, 01:52 AM

Democrats are now saying the whistleblowers testimony isn't necessary anymore because of the other "witnesses" that have come forward.

You Democrats and Never Trumpers aren't still buying this shit are you?

A "whistleblower" comes forward with damning evidence that Trump is a crook and needs to be impeached.
This "testimony" is used as an excuse to start an informal "impeachment inquiry."
Further "testimony" is garnered from these secretive meetings.
Now Democrats say Republicans and the American public don't even need to know who this whistleblower is who started this whole thing nor does this person need to be questioned about the "testimony" they provided.

Does it honestly not bother you that the only person who has been confirmed to know the "whistleblower's" identity is Adam Shitthead? This doesn't reek of a political hit job?

Seran

10-25-2019, 10:23 AM

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-25-2019, 10:33 AM

Just which Democrats are you referring to? The ones inside your head, or a legitimate reporter quote.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/13/schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-probe-045910
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2019/10/25/with-other-witnesses-democrats-say-whistleblowers-testimony-isnt-needed/
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/465619-schiff-whistleblower-testimony-might-not-be-necessary-anymore
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-say-whistleblower-s-testimony-is-unnecessary-as-other-witnesses-come-forward/ar-AAJjNe7

Just top 4 from google, you ignorant fuck.

Neveragain

10-25-2019, 10:37 AM

Just which Democrats are you referring to? The ones inside your head, or a legitimate reporter quote.

Probably the same legitimate reporters that propped up Clinton when she was calling all of her political opponents Russian assets. The fact anyone believes any of this shit after Clinton labeled Democrat candidates Russian assets is remarkable.

I'm really excited for the next 50 years of politics. Let's review the probable future timelines:

Trump wins 2nd term: The Democrats spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with the continued string of investigations.

Warren wins: The Republicans spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with investigations into Warren lying about her race to gain access to college and career.

Biden Wins: The Republicans spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with investigations into Biden, his son and the Ukraine.

The probability of this clown show continuing at the taxpayers expense, 100%.

Methais

10-25-2019, 10:47 AM

Just which Democrats are you referring to? The ones inside your head, or a legitimate reporter quote.

In before he logs into Anal Lee to agree with himself.

Neveragain

10-25-2019, 11:07 AM

Just which Democrats are you referring to? The ones inside your head, or a legitimate reporter quote.

"Gaslighting Description: Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity."

Seran

10-25-2019, 11:26 AM

Probably the same legitimate reporters that propped up Clinton when she was calling all of her political opponents Russian assets. The fact anyone believes any of this shit after Clinton labeled Democrat candidates Russian assets is remarkable.

I'm really excited for the next 50 years of politics. Let's review the probable future timelines:

Trump wins 2nd term: The Democrats spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with the continued string of investigations.

Warren wins: The Republicans spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with investigations into Warren lying about her race to gain access to college and career.

Biden Wins: The Republicans spend the next 4 years impeding legislation with investigations into Biden, his son and the Ukraine.

The probability of this clown show continuing at the taxpayers expense, 100%.

That was a remarkably stupid comment for her to make. She's had her moment and is about as toxic and endorsement as George W Bush for the Republicans.

Seran

10-25-2019, 11:27 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/13/schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-probe-045910
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2019/10/25/with-other-witnesses-democrats-say-whistleblowers-testimony-isnt-needed/
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/465619-schiff-whistleblower-testimony-might-not-be-necessary-anymore
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-say-whistleblower-s-testimony-is-unnecessary-as-other-witnesses-come-forward/ar-AAJjNe7

Just top 4 from google, you ignorant fuck.

Thank you. I'm pretty certain it's a spin attempt because the whistleblower (Bolton) is wanting to stay anonymous for now. Democrats risk losing their momentum if they don't drop the inquiry or go public with all out impeachment soon.

Methais

10-25-2019, 11:49 AM

RichardCranium

10-26-2019, 05:38 AM

For anyone who doesn't want to read the last 5 posts of anal abortions I've summed it up for you here:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Tgo01

10-26-2019, 05:46 AM

For anyone who doesn't want to read the last 5 posts of anal abortions I've summed it up for you here:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RichardCranium again.

Someone give this man some green!

Parkbandit

10-26-2019, 09:09 AM

For anyone who doesn't want to read the last 5 posts of anal abortions I've summed it up for you here:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Wait.. people actually read Anal Lee's posts for something other than making fun of him?

Interesting...

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-26-2019, 09:22 AM

Who was it who posted walls of text, no sources and like 4-5 times in a rapid fashion putting how triggered it was on full display then got banned?

Astray

10-26-2019, 09:23 AM

Who was it who posted walls of text, no sources and like 4-5 times in a rapid fashion putting how triggered it was on full display then got banned?

That useless, cowardly pile of human feces that was Sellstuff1?

Parkbandit

10-26-2019, 10:34 AM

That useless, cowardly pile of human feces that was Sellstuff1?

Sellstuff1 got banned for posting the N-word repeatedly in a post.

Methais

10-26-2019, 11:53 AM

One of the key White House/GOP talking points in the last several weeks is that the House impeachment inquiry that began no later than September 24 (when Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced it) is illegal because the House didn’t formally vote to authorize it. It was never a particularly strong argument, since impeachments have on several occasions occurred without such preliminary votes. But so long as it was a partisan he-said she-said clash, Republicans figured at least their own people could enjoy the unity and righteous indignation associated with pretending the godless Democrats were recklessly violating the Constitution or violating sacred House rules.

Now, however, a federal judge has sided with Pelosi, as the New York Times reports:

The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham …

In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.

[D.C. District Court] Judge [Beryl] Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

This isn’t just a moral victory for House Democrats. It comes with some practical consequences, too:

The House Judiciary Committee is entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Judge Howell … ruled in a 75-page opinion. Attorney General William P. Barr had withheld the material from lawmakers.

Typically, Congress has no right to view secret evidence gathered by a grand jury. But in 1974, the courts permitted the committee weighing whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon to see such materials — and, Judge Howell ruled, the House is now engaged in the same process focused on Mr. Trump.

Republicans will likely point at Howell’s Obama connection and continue to complain. But if they appeal the decision it probably won’t change. And at some point they may need to focus on the evidence of the president’s impeachable offenses instead of going for the capillaries with procedural objections.

House impeachment investigators issued a subpoena to President Donald Trump’s acting budget director Russ Vought, part of a round of subpoenas sent by the House Intelligence Committee.

Also subpoenaed were Michael Duffey, a senior official in the Office of Management and Budget, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, counsel at the State Department.

Story Continued Below
All three men declined recent requests by investigators to testify voluntarily. Vought and Duffey are expected to face questions about their knowledge of a White House decision to block military aid to Ukraine despite approval from Congress and the Pentagon.

Story Continued Below
Vought on Twitter has laced into Democrats leading the impeachment probe. On Monday, he called any suggestion of cooperation with the impeachment investigation “fake news” and appended the hashtag “#shamprocess.”

He cited a White House letter on Oct. 8 declaring that officials would refuse to participate in the impeachment process.

Vought has also retweeted Republican criticisms of the investigation.

Brechbuhl, a close ally of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is one of the few State Department officials eyed by the House who has not appeared voluntarily or relied on a subpoena to evade the Trump administration’s blockade.

Brechbuhl’s attorney, Ron Tenpas, was not immediately available for comment. An auto reply from his email account indicated he would be traveling outside the country with limited access to email until Oct. 29. Democrats are demanding Brechbuhl appear for a deposition on Nov. 6.

Democrats have demanded Duffey appear on Nov. 5 and Vought to appear on Nov. 6, the same day as Brechbuhl.

Late in the night Oct. 16, Rudy Giuliani made a phone call to this reporter.

The fact that Giuliani was reaching out wasn't remarkable. He and the reporter had spoken earlier that evening for a story about his ties to a fringe Iranian opposition group.

But this call, it would soon become clear, wasn't a typical case of a source following up with a reporter.

The call came in at 11:07 p.m. and went to voicemail; the reporter was asleep.

The next morning, a message exactly three minutes long was sitting in the reporter's voicemail. In the recording, the words tumbling out of Giuliani's mouth were not directed at the reporter. He was speaking to someone else, someone in the same room.

Giuliani can be heard discussing overseas dealings and lamenting the need for cash, though it's difficult to discern the full context of the conversation.

The call appeared to be one of the most unfortunate of faux pas: what is known, in casual parlance, as a butt dial.

And it wasn't the first time it had happened.

"You know," Giuliani says at the start of the recording. "Charles would have a hard time with a fraud case 'cause he didn't do any due diligence."

It wasn't clear who Charles is, or who may have been implicated in a fraud. In fact, much of the message's first minute is difficult to comprehend, in part because the voice of the other man in the conversation is muffled and barely intelligible.

But then, Giuliani says something that's crystal clear.

"Let's get back to business."

He goes on.

"I gotta get you to get on Bahrain."

Giuliani is well-connected in the kingdom of Bahrain.

Last December, he visited the Persian Gulf nation and had a one-on-one meeting with King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa in the royal palace. "King receives high-level U.S. delegation," read the headline of the state-run Bahrain News Agency blurb about the visit.

Giuliani runs a security consulting company, but it's not clear why he would have a meeting with Bahrain's king. Was he acting in his capacity as a consultant? As Trump's lawyer? Or as an international fixer running a shadow foreign policy for the president?

In May, Giuliani told the Daily Beast his firm had signed a deal with Bahrain to advise its police force on counterterrorism measures. But the Bahrain News Agency account of the meeting suggested Giuliani was viewed more like an ambassador than a security consultant. "HM the King praised the longstanding Bahraini-U.S. relations, noting keenness of the two countries to constantly develop them," it said.

The voicemail yielded no details about the meeting. But Giuliani can be heard telling the man that he's "got to call Robert again tomorrow."

"Is Robert around?" Giuliani asks.

"He's in Turkey," the man responds.

Giuliani replies instantly. "The problem is we need some money."

The two men then go silent. Nine seconds pass. No word is spoken. Then Giuliani chimes in again.

"We need a few hundred thousand," he says.

It's unclear what the two men were talking about. But Giuliani is known to have worked with a Robert who has ties to Turkey.

His name is Robert Mangas, and he's a lawyer at the firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as a registered agent of the Turkish government.

Giuliani himself was employed by Greenberg Traurig until about May 2018.

Mangas provided an affidavit in the case of Reza Zarrab, a Turkish gold trader charged in the United States with laundering Iranian money in a scheme to evade American sanctions.

Giuliani was brought on to assist Zarrab in 2017. He traveled to Turkey with his former law partner Michael Mukasey and attempted to strike a deal with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to secure the release of their jailed client, alarming the federal prosecutor leading the case.

Giuliani and Mangas were both employed by Greenberg Traurig at the time. The firm and Mangas had registered with the Justice Department to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of Turkey, according to an affidavit from Mangas.

Mangas provided the affidavit at the request of a judge to explain whether there was any conflict in Giuliani representing Zarrab while still employed by a firm registered to lobby on behalf of Turkey.

Mangas, who did not return a request for comment, says in the court document that Giuliani was never involved in the representation of Turkey.

A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson said Mangas has not been to Turkey since 2013 and therefore could not have been the person discussed on the call.

"Mr. Mangas has not spoken to Mr. Giuliani since before he left Greenberg Traurig in May 2018," the spokesperson added in a statement provided to NBC News after the story was published.

In the voicemail, Giuliani's conversation partner can be heard responding to the "few hundred thousand" comment. But it's possible to make out only the beginning of his answer, and even that is somewhat garbled.

"I'd say even if Bahrain could get, I'm not sure how good [unintelligible words] with his people," the man says.

"Yeah, okay," Giuliani says.

"You want options? I got options," the man says.

"Yeah, give me options," Giuliani replies.

The exchange took place at the 2:20 mark in the voicemail message. The other man does most of the talking in the remaining 40 seconds, and it's difficult to piece together what he says.

Not the first time
By the time of that call, it was already clear that Giuliani butt dials don't only happen after 11 p.m.

The late-night Giuliani butt dial came 18 days after a midafternoon Giuliani butt dial.

The first one happened when the NBC News reporter was at a fifth-birthday party for an extended family member in Central Jersey.

It was 3:37 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28, and a pink unicorn piñata had just been strung up around a tree in the backyard.

Amid his 3-year-old daughter's excitement, the reporter decided to let Giuliani's call go to his voicemail.

The previous day, the reporter interviewed Giuliani for an article quoting several of his former Justice Department colleagues who said they believed he committed crimes in his effort to push the Ukrainians to launch an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden.

After the pink unicorn piñata came the bouncy castle and then cake. It wasn't until at least an hour after the call that the reporter realized it had led to a three-minute voicemail, the maximum his phone allows.

In the message, Giuliani is heard talking to at least one other person. The conversation appears to pick up almost exactly where Giuliani's phone call with the reporter left off the day before, with Giuliani insisting he was the target of attacks because he was making public accusations about a powerful Democratic politician.

"I expected it would happen," Giuliani says at the start of the recording. "The minute you touch on one of the protected people, they go crazy. They come after you."

"You got the truth on your side," an unidentified man says.

"It's very powerful," Giuliani replies.

Giuliani spends the entire three minutes railing against the Bidens. He can be heard recycling many of the unfounded allegations he has been making on cable news and in interviews with print reporters.

Among the claims: that Biden intervened to stop an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company because his son Hunter sat on the board, and that Hunter Biden traded on his father's position as vice president to earn $1.5 billion from Chinese investors.

"There's plenty more to come out," Giuliani says. "He did the same thing in China. And he tried to do it in Kazakhstan and in Russia."

"It's a sad situation," he adds. "You know how they get? Biden has been been trading in on his public office since he was a senator."

Shortly after, Giuliani turns to Hunter Biden. "When he became vice president, the kid decided to go around the world and say, 'Hire me because I'm Joe Biden's son.' And most people wouldn't hire him because he had a drug problem."

Giuliani's effort to spur a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry underway in the House. And Wednesday, two of Giuliani's associates pleaded not guilty to making illegal campaign contributions in part to advance the interests of foreign nationals, including a former Ukrainian prosecutor who was involved in the effort to oust the country's former U.S. ambassador.

In the recording, Giuliani doesn't mention anything about his own activities in Ukraine and elsewhere. But he does make unfounded claims about Hunter Biden's overseas work.

"His son altogether made somewhere between 5 and 8 million," Giuliani says. "A 3 million transaction was laundered, which is illegal."

Last week, Hunter Biden said in an ABC News interview that he will step down from the board of the Chinese investment company that he joined in October 2017.

One of Hunter Biden's early business partners was Christopher Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry. But Heinz objected to Hunter Biden's decision to work for the Ukrainian gas company and ultimately cut ties with him. Heinz had nothing to do with the Chinese investment fund.

But in the voicemail message, Giuliani is heard telling his friend that Kerry's stepson was working for the same foreign entities that employed Hunter Biden.

"His partner was John Kerry's stepson," Giuliani said. "Secretary of State and the vice president for the price of one."

The recording ends the same way it began. "They don't want to investigate because he's protected, so we gotta force them to do it," Giuliani says, before apparently turning to the president's now-infamous call with the Ukrainian president.

"And the Ukraine, they're investigating him and they blocked it twice. So what the president was [unintelligible word], 'You can't keep doing this. You have to investigate this.' And they say it will affect the 2020 election."

"No it…." Giuliani adds, but the recording cuts off before he can finish the thought.

Over the last 10 days, Giuliani has given few media interviews.

Calls to his phone Thursday led to a recorded message saying his mailbox was full. The call has not been returned — at least not yet.

William Barr suffered a double-whammy just in time for the weekend.

A federal judge dealt a significant blow to Barr on Friday by ordering him to give Democrats access to all grand jury material from the Mueller investigation — a court setback that came as the Trump-loyal attorney general also faced criticism over revelations that his review of the Russia probe has turned into a full-fledged criminal inquiry.

Beryl Howell, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., gave Barr’s Justice Department until Wednesday to give the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee all redacted parts of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report as well as all underlying grand jury evidence, exhibits and transcripts.

The judge poked holes in arguments by Barr’s attorneys that they couldn’t divulge Mueller’s most secret findings because the Democrats who requested them are just conducting an impeachment inquiry, not a “judicial” proceeding.

“DOJ is wrong,” Howell stated bluntly in a two-page ruling.

[More Politics] Russian secret agent Maria Butina out of jail, likely faces deportation »
She contested that Democrats, as part of their ongoing impeachment inquiry, may need Mueller’s confidential grand jury evidence, even though their probe has shifted away from the special counsel’s findings and is now primarily focused on President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukrainian officials into investigating Joe Biden and other political rivals before the 2020 election.

“In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the president is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the special counsel’s investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the special counsel that varies from what they tell (Congress),” Howell wrote.

Barr has long sought to keep Mueller’s most sensitive findings under wraps.

[More Politics] Russian secret agent Maria Butina out of jail, likely faces deportation »
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler — whose committee led the impeachment inquiry when it was mostly focused on Mueller’s findings — said Congress will make use of the special counsel’s grand jury evidence as part of the probe into whether Trump should be removed from office, even if it is currently zeroing in on the Ukraine scandal.

"The court’s thoughtful ruling recognizes that our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution and thoroughly rejects the spurious White House claims to the contrary,” Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "This grand jury information that the administration has tried to block the House from seeing will be critical to our work.”

Hours before Howell’s ruling, Barr faced intense heat over news that his department’s politically-charged review of the “origins” of the Russia investigation had been upgraded to a criminal inquiry.

The new designation, which was first reported by The New York Times, means the Justice Department is effectively investigating itself in a criminal context.

It also gives Barr’s handpicked investigator, U.S. Attorney John Durham, the ability to summon a grand jury, subpoena witnesses and even file charges against prosecutors and others who worked on the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian election interference, which paved the way for Mueller’s special counsel probe.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who leads the current rendition of the impeachment inquiry, said the escalation raises “profound new concerns” that Barr’s Justice Department “has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge.”

“If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution, or to help the president with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage,” Schiff said in a statement.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his panel has already covered the ground Barr is now moving in on.

“We’ve found nothing remotely justifying this,” Warner tweeted. “He needs to come before Congress and explain himself.”

Warner’s Democratic colleague from Oregon, Sen. Jeff Merkley, was floored.

“Barr’s job is Attorney General of the United States. The UNITED STATES. He’s not Donald Trump’s PR flunky. Is this really happening or is this just the latest episode in some bizarre TV series?” Merkley tweeted.

Republicans and Barr himself have long floated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories suggesting the FBI acted out of political animus against Trump when it launched its initial counterintelligence probe into whether Russia was conspiring with the president’s 2016 campaign.

Trump has claimed all aspects of the Russia investigation was part of a “witch hunt” meant to take him down.

Despite such claims, Mueller’s extensive final report makes clear the FBI launched its initial inquiry after it discovered that several Trump campaign officials had extensive ties to Russian government operatives.

John Bolton, the ex-White House security chief who was fired by President Trump, is reportedly set to get the last laugh by spilling the beans to the impeachment inquiry.

The walrus-mustached hawk is in talks over giving testimony to the Democratic-led investigation, CNN reported, in what would be a bombshell appearance that could be most devastating blow yet to Trump.

TR;DR

Nice mental illness you got there bro.

Methais

10-26-2019, 11:54 AM

History of timekeeping devices

For thousands of years, devices have been used to measure and keep track of time. The current sexagesimal system of time measurement dates to approximately 2000 bc from the Sumerians.

The Egyptians divided the day into two 12-hour periods, and used large obelisks to track the movement of the sun. They also developed water clocks, which were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, and later outside Egypt as well; they were employed frequently by Persians and the Ancient Greeks, who called them clepsydrae. The Zhou dynasty is believed to have used the outflow water clock around the same of the time, devices which were introduced from Mesopotamia as early as 2000 bc.

Other ancient timekeeping devices include the candle clock, used in ancient China, ancient Japan, England and Mesopotamia; the timestick, widely used in Persia, India and Tibet, as well as some parts of Europe; and the hourglass, which functioned similarly to a water clock. The sundial, another early clock, relies on shadows to provide a good estimate of the hour on a sunny day. It is not so useful in cloudy weather or at night and requires recalibration as the seasons change (if the gnomon was not aligned with the Earth's axis).

The earliest known clock with a water-powered escapement mechanism, which transferred rotational energy into intermittent motions,[1] dates back to 3rd century bc in ancient Greece;[2] Chinese engineers later invented clocks incorporating mercury-powered escapement mechanisms in the 10th century,[3] followed by Arabic engineers inventing water clocks driven by gears and weights in the 11th century.[4]

The first mechanical clocks, employing the verge escapement mechanism with a foliot or balance wheel timekeeper, were invented in Europe at around the start of the 14th century, and became the standard timekeeping device until the pendulum clock was invented in 1656. The invention of the mainspring in the early 15th century allowed portable clocks to be built, evolving into the first pocketwatches by the 17th century, but these were not very accurate until the balance spring was added to the balance wheel in the mid 17th century.

The pendulum clock remained the most accurate timekeeper until the 1930s, when quartz oscillators were invented, followed by atomic clocks after World War II. Although initially limited to laboratories, the development of microelectronics in the 1960s made quartz clocks both compact and cheap to produce, and by the 1980s they became the world's dominant timekeeping technology in both clocks and wristwatches.

Atomic clocks are far more accurate than any previous timekeeping device, and are used to calibrate other clocks and to calculate the International Atomic Time; a standardized civil system, Coordinated Universal Time, is based on atomic time.

Astray

10-26-2019, 02:13 PM

Sellstuff1 got banned for posting the N-word repeatedly in a post.

Yeah but he's too pathetic to stay gone.

Tgo01

10-26-2019, 07:09 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin went on a victory lap this week, replacing the US as chief power broker in Syria, and gaining a closer ally in Europe's backyard.

This is a far cry from the Putin of 2014, who became an international pariah after promoting civil unrest in Ukraine and annexing Crimea.

President Donald Trump effectively handed him these victories by pulling out of Syria, diminishing the US interest in Ukraine's security, and inviting Putin back to the world stage.

Trump's Syria withdrawal, in particular, made "Russia look like a major world power on the world stage," said James Nixey, head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program.

The European Union, too internally divided to agree on a coherent Russia policy, has also failed to rein in Putin.

How come every week something new comes out that Trump did that bolstered Putin? Hmmmm...

Syria has never liked the US and has always had much stronger ties to Russia. What is this dumb shit?

~Rocktar~

10-26-2019, 07:17 PM

Now that he's a witness in the impeachment investigation, Trump starts attacking the Ukraine ambassador that he appointed:

TRUMP LAUNCHES FRESH ATTACK ON HIS OWN ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: 'HE'S A NEVER-TRUMPER AND HIS LAWYER IS A NEVER-TRUMPER'

President Donald Trump's only rebuttal so far of a career diplomat who gave damning testimony at impeachment proceedings was to label him as a "never-Trumper"—without addressing any of the statements that the diplomat made.

Trump's comments came after he was asked to respond to statements made by Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, in which he provided evidence for ongoing the alleged quid-pro-quo attempt to make military aid to Ukraine contingent on the country probing 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden.

It's always the Leftists that make the vapid argument that everyone a Conservative appoints is either lock step following the leader as a mindless drone or somehow the leader, by virtue of putting someone in a position they are then above criticism. Only the Left, who claims to be this big tent of ideas (vomit) demands absolute fealty to their leaders and submission to the party ideal or, like in the case of Gabbards, Williamson, entertainment personalities and anyone else for that matter, the party excoriates them and actively works to ruin them publicly, privately, attack their families, even get them fired and/or arrested.

And then the Left sets about to call everyone else Fascist. If you are on the Left and want to see a fascist, look no further than the leadership of the Left or the mirror.

Tgo01

10-26-2019, 07:19 PM

Right, your qualifications for speaking on world politics are "I live in my parent's basement and beg people to give me money. Also I read Breitbart." Speaking from a position of authority on dumbshit, I see.

Speaking of which: everyone be sure to sign up to my Patreon!

~Rocktar~

10-26-2019, 07:39 PM

So you don't find an issue with Trump betraying everyone he appoints? That's just normal behavior for politicians, to have control over the appointment of a position, then to shit all over that person as soon as it's convenient?

I am willing to accept personal flaws in the face of excellent political positions, judicial appointments and dealing with foreign governments.

rolfard

10-26-2019, 08:09 PM

Then how come Trump appoints the most flawed people to his positions?

230 so far have been fired or resigned from their position. Trump has been in office three years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resign ations

He's draining his own personal swamp. Keep it going!

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-26-2019, 08:10 PM

I'd think a never Trumper, like Annahlee, would cheer the fact that so many people have rotated through positions.

Tgo01

10-26-2019, 08:19 PM

Unlike conservatives, I cherish a government that functions (and not as a puppet of a foreign government).

You also cherish being a racist asshole.

RichardCranium

10-26-2019, 08:21 PM

Unlike conservatives, I cherish a government that functions (and not as a puppet of a foreign government).

Fuck the government.

Gelston

10-26-2019, 08:21 PM

You also cherish being a racist asshole.

He also cherishes penis shaped ponds.

Tgo01

10-26-2019, 08:24 PM

He also cherishes penis shaped ponds.

Is he Sellstuff1 or Tabor? Or is Sellstuff1 and Tabor the same person?

Gelston

10-26-2019, 08:28 PM

Is he Sellstuff1 or Tabor? Or is Sellstuff1 and Tabor the same person?

Let's just say there have been some very similar activities.

GSIV Rogue

10-26-2019, 08:29 PM

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

~Rocktar~

10-26-2019, 10:47 PM

Unlike conservatives, I cherish a government that functions (and not as a puppet of a foreign government).

Our government would work a lot better if the Left would stop doing everything they can possibly manage to try and invalidate an election, subvert judicial process and use the manipulation by the media of useful idiots like you to tear asunder the most basic precepts of the United States of America. You and others like you are knowingly or unknowingly trying to shatter the foundations of our society in the name of "Progressivism" as you worship at the feet of Socialism and Marx all in the name of "fairness" and "Social Justice". The foundation of your cult is jealousy, envy and hatred of the person that has more than you because they made better choices and you feel that isn't fair.

So, stop with the pretense that you want anything other than the overthrow of the government and installation of Socialist society where you think you will be in the ruling class. True Conservatives remember Robespierre's Law: Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

Parkbandit

10-27-2019, 09:16 AM

Right, your qualifications for speaking on world politics are "I live in my parent's basement and beg people to give me money. Also I read Breitbart." Speaking from a position of authority on dumbshit, I see.

https://media.giphy.com/media/121dCll6tJ9o76/giphy.gif

Parkbandit

10-27-2019, 09:18 AM

I cherish a government

Here is your problem right there.

Back

10-27-2019, 12:11 PM

Our government would work a lot better if the Left would stop doing everything they can possibly manage to try and invalidate an election, subvert judicial process and use the manipulation by the media of useful idiots like you to tear asunder the most basic precepts of the United States of America. You and others like you are knowingly or unknowingly trying to shatter the foundations of our society in the name of "Progressivism" as you worship at the feet of Socialism and Marx all in the name of "fairness" and "Social Justice". The foundation of your cult is jealousy, envy and hatred of the person that has more than you because they made better choices and you feel that isn't fair.

So, stop with the pretense that you want anything other than the overthrow of the government and installation of Socialist society where you think you will be in the ruling class. True Conservatives remember Robespierre's Law: Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

This is a really twisted way of seeing things.

No one is trying to invalidate the 2016 election. That would have involved recounts and all that mess back in 2016. Trump won, by a technicality, and he is president.

The rules for appointing judges is as fair as it can be in our system with everyone being part of the process. Don't nominate shitty judges.

Freedom of the press is vital to democracy. If you can't ask the president 'wtf?' you're living under an authoritarian regime. As Americans we have every right to ask anyone in our government any question without fear of being disappeared.

Fairness and social justice are goals we should aspire to. As our civilization learns and grows we are more able to help each other survive longer and populate more. Our advances in medicine alone means more people get to live longer. When we can help everyone in society it helps society grow. When we can help the most defenseless, or hungry, or sick among us it is our responsibility to help no matter who they are or where they come from.

None of this comes from a place of jealousy or envy or evil or some seriously crazy notion of anti-Americanism. All of that is straight up bullshit you've been fed by rich people and corporations who are afraid that we are going to tax them fairly.

Seriously... you've been lied to so much for so long that its twisted your notion of helping people into a bad thing. That speaking out to power is a bad thing. That everyone having a voice in deciding who our leaders are is a bag thing.

You've got it all backwards.

Neveragain

10-27-2019, 12:48 PM

Unlike conservatives, I cherish a government that functions (and not as a puppet of a foreign government).

Our government was specifically designed not to function, passing legislation (removing individual freedom), was meant to be difficult. Mostly because common people are retarded, like your "puppet of a foreign government" delusion.

Jeril

10-27-2019, 01:01 PM

Unlike conservatives, I cherish a government that functions (and not as a puppet of a foreign government).

So it doesn't matter to you if the government functions in a way that doesn't benefit the people? Heh.

~Rocktar~

10-27-2019, 01:14 PM

This is a really twisted way of seeing things.

You Leftists have twisted the hell out of reality and America, the truth hurts sometimes.

No one is trying to invalidate the 2016 election. That would have involved recounts and all that mess back in 2016. Trump won, by a technicality, and he is president.

It's not a technicality that he won the same way all 44 Presidents before him won. This is the kind of bullshit that you Leftist twats like to spread. The Left and their media lapdogs are and have been trying to invalidate it since election night.

The rules for appointing judges is as fair as it can be in our system with everyone being part of the process. Don't nominate shitty judges.

So where did I complain about his appointment of judges?

Freedom of the press is vital to democracy. If you can't ask the president 'wtf?' you're living under an authoritarian regime. As Americans we have every right to ask anyone in our government any question without fear of being disappeared.

No one says you can't ask, they do say you shouldn't flat out lie, smear, make up crap and call the President Racist without any grounds or evidence beyond "anonymous sources". Since the mass media, particularly CNN, NBC and ABC have factually and maliciously flat out made up stories to act as a hit job on the POTUS you have to wonder about that. Yet here you are defending a completely corrupt, malicious and destructive media, why? Traditionally there have been 3 branches of government and the media was a watchdog, somewhere in the 50s that changed dramatically and the media has become, in general, a complicit and enabling lapdog of the Leftist/Socialist agenda. Hell, even as far back as the 20s and 30s they were covering for Hitler's atrocities, things in the USSR and later China.

So, who has Trump threatened? How has he threatened to have them jailed or locked up? Just when has he sent government agents to attack them or steal stories and so on? So far his worst offense has been calling out Acosta fo being an arrogant shit and kicking him out of the White House for being an arrogant shit. If the press is clearly biased and covering for one side or the other, then it clearly isn't free. Also, Freedom of the Press does not mean freedom from criticism.

So, want to make up some other conspiracy bullshit? And to think you call my way of seeing things fucked up.

Fairness and social justice are goals we should aspire to. As our civilization learns and grows we are more able to help each other survive longer and populate more. Our advances in medicine alone means more people get to live longer. When we can help everyone in society it helps society grow. When we can help the most defenseless, or hungry, or sick among us it is our responsibility to help no matter who they are or where they come from.

Fairness and Social Justice are subjective terms and have no basis in reality. And you can argue about the moral and ethical points of helping those in need and that's fine, then you can act on those points on a personal level. Trying to enforce those points through laws, taxation and mandating speech and behavior takes it from the real of ethical and moral charity to oppression and economic slavery. When you take the labor or one person by force in order to give that to someone else for any reason, that is slavery and that is what wealth redistribution taxation and social programs enforce.

None of this comes from a place of jealousy or envy or evil or some seriously crazy notion of anti-Americanism. All of that is straight up bullshit you've been fed by rich people and corporations who are afraid that we are going to tax them fairly.

All of Marxism, the ideas that "the rich", which is also a subjective term, need to pay more is 100% driven by envy and jealousy of people who have more than you. There is no fair tax other than a flat tax but you don't want that because it doesn't inflict what you consider a punitive punishment on those who work and produce more than you, it doesn't enable you to bring down and enslave the middle class and it doesn't allow you to hide the fact that all taxes are in the end paid for by the poor and they have an even greater impact on the poor than anyone else.

Seriously... you've been lied to so much for so long that its twisted your notion of helping people into a bad thing. That speaking out to power is a bad thing. That everyone having a voice in deciding who our leaders are is a bag thing.

You've got it all backwards.

Gee, let's make up a whole bunch of shit so we can straw man argue. You are the quintessential Leftist useful idiot. While you are out there worshiping at the foot of Marx and the Socialist/Communist Left, take time to remind you:

Robespierre's Law: Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

Orp

10-27-2019, 01:53 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-nancy-pelosi-winning-will-impeach-donald-trump-1467996

Methais

10-27-2019, 02:21 PM

Right, my qualifications for speaking on world politics are "I live in my parent's basement and stay triggered all day every day on a 30 year old text game forum that I've been banned from numerous times for being a racist piece of shit. Also I read motherjones." Speaking from a position of authority on dumbshit, I see.

This is correct.

Methais

10-27-2019, 02:25 PM

Trump won, by a technicality, and he is president.

What specifically is this technicality you speak of?

The rules for appointing judges is as fair as it can be in our system with everyone being part of the process. Don't nominate shitty judges.

Freedom of the press is vital to democracy. If you can't ask the president 'wtf?' you're living under an authoritarian regime. As Americans we have every right to ask anyone in our government any question without fear of being disappeared.

Fairness and social justice are goals we should aspire to. As our civilization learns and grows we are more able to help each other survive longer and populate more. Our advances in medicine alone means more people get to live longer. When we can help everyone in society it helps society grow. When we can help the most defenseless, or hungry, or sick among us it is our responsibility to help no matter who they are or where they come from.

None of this comes from a place of jealousy or envy or evil or some seriously crazy notion of anti-Americanism. All of that is straight up bullshit you've been fed by rich people and corporations who are afraid that we are going to tax them fairly.

Seriously... you've been lied to so much for so long that its twisted your notion of helping people into a bad thing. That speaking out to power is a bad thing. That everyone having a voice in deciding who our leaders are is a bag thing.

You've got it all backwards.

When was the last time you posted where you weren't the stupidest person in the thread? Has this ever happened?

Gelston

10-27-2019, 02:27 PM

Apparently it us a technicality to win exactly how it says you win.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-27-2019, 02:45 PM

Backrash has gone full denial. Such a fag.

Methais

10-27-2019, 02:47 PM

Backrash has gone full denial. Such a fag.

He's simply doing what his TV told him to do. Mainly because he's incapable of independent thought.

Gelston

10-27-2019, 02:56 PM

The Constitution doesn't even mention the regular populace voting. Just electors. But yeah, Back, Trump win by a technicality.

Methais

10-27-2019, 03:04 PM

The Constitution doesn't even mention the regular populace voting. Just electors. But yeah, Back, Trump win by a technicality.

Remember when Back was all about the Electoral vote instead of the popular vote because Hillary was too, until she lost and now they're both all about the popular vote and the Electoral College is now a rigged system?

https://i.redd.it/4m3d1g2pswr21.jpg

Gelston

10-27-2019, 03:30 PM

All my liberal friends were so convinced Trump had no chance. Election night will forever be one of my most cherished memories.

Back

10-27-2019, 03:32 PM

Remember when Back was all about the Electoral vote instead of the popular vote because Hillary was too, until she lost and now they're both all about the popular vote and the Electoral College is now a rigged system?

Remember when you were actually right about something or told the truth? Neither do I.

Why does it bother you guys so much that Hillary won the popular vote?

Gelston

10-27-2019, 03:36 PM

Remember when you were actually right about something or told the truth? Neither do I.

Why does it bother you guys so much that Hillary won the popular vote?

It doesn't bother me that she won something that has nothing to do with winning the election.

Tgo01

10-27-2019, 03:38 PM

Remember when you were actually right about something or told the truth? Neither do I.

Why does it bother you guys so much that Hillary won the popular vote?

It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is people saying stupid shit like Trump won “on a technicality.”

Gelston

10-27-2019, 03:41 PM

It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is people saying stupid shit like Trump won “on a technicality.”

That doesn't bother me either. It dies concern me that US citizens don't seem to understand at all how elections work though.

Back

10-27-2019, 03:41 PM

It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is people saying stupid shit like Trump won “on a technicality.”

https://i.giphy.com/media/3oFzma9FGIblOf6Wk0/giphy.webp

Methais

10-27-2019, 04:04 PM

Remember when you were actually right about something or told the truth? Neither do I.

What specifically am I lying about and/or am incorrect about?

Why does it bother you guys so much that Hillary won the popular vote?

Who said they were bothered by it? I think it's pretty fucking awesome because it added to your chronic butthurt exponentially and made Trump's win even better.

The only ones who are bothered about Hillary winning the popular vote are retards like you.

Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Methais

10-27-2019, 04:07 PM

https://i.giphy.com/media/3oFzma9FGIblOf6Wk0/giphy.webp

Still waiting for you to tell us what specifically this technicality was that you speak of.

I bet you also think whoever scores the most runs total out of all 7 possible games is the winner of the World Series, and that a team winning because they were the first to win 4 games is just winning by a technicality if the other team had more overall runs scored because of that crushing 14-2 defeat in game 3.

Dumbass.

Tgo01

10-27-2019, 04:27 PM

https://i.giphy.com/media/3oFzma9FGIblOf6Wk0/giphy.webp

Yeah, that's how I picture you every time you can't admit Trump won fair and square. Perfect representation.

Parkbandit

10-27-2019, 09:20 PM

Trump won, by a technicality, and he is president.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SparklingWeightyLangur-small.gif

The rules for appointing judges is as fair as it can be in our system with everyone being part of the process. Don't nominate shitty judges.

Freedom of the press is vital to democracy. If you can't ask the president 'wtf?' you're living under an authoritarian regime. As Americans we have every right to ask anyone in our government any question without fear of being disappeared.

Fairness and social justice are goals we should aspire to. As our civilization learns and grows we are more able to help each other survive longer and populate more. Our advances in medicine alone means more people get to live longer. When we can help everyone in society it helps society grow. When we can help the most defenseless, or hungry, or sick among us it is our responsibility to help no matter who they are or where they come from.

None of this comes from a place of jealousy or envy or evil or some seriously crazy notion of anti-Americanism. All of that is straight up bullshit you've been fed by rich people and corporations who are afraid that we are going to tax them fairly.

Seriously... you've been lied to so much for so long that its twisted your notion of helping people into a bad thing. That speaking out to power is a bad thing. That everyone having a voice in deciding who our leaders are is a bag thing.

You've got it all backwards.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SparklingWeightyLangur-small.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SparklingWeightyLangur-small.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SparklingWeightyLangur-small.gif

Parkbandit

10-27-2019, 09:21 PM

All my liberal friends were so convinced Trump had no chance. Election night will forever be one of my most cherished memories.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/IMcK9SzaDebm0/giphy.gif

Parkbandit

10-27-2019, 09:23 PM

Remember when you were actually right about something or told the truth? Neither do I.

Why does it bother you guys so much that Hillary won the popular vote?

It doesn't.

What bothers us is extremely stupid people using that as somehow she should be President and that Trump won via a technicality.

Thankfully, you didn't spread your stupidity gene onto another generation.. and that was the only smart thing you've ever done.

So thank you.

Methais

10-28-2019, 09:33 AM

It doesn't.

What bothers us is extremely stupid people using that as somehow she should be President and that Trump won via a technicality.

Thankfully, you didn't spread your stupidity gene onto another generation.. and that was the only smart thing you've ever done.

So thank you.

I would imagine it's pretty difficult to impregnate someone with a micropenis and a ballbag full of soy sperm, so there's a decent chance it wasn't his choice. And that's assuming he's gotten laid since Maimara told us about his tiny peen years ago.

Parkbandit

10-28-2019, 03:32 PM

I would imagine it's pretty difficult to impregnate someone with a micropenis and a ballbag full of soy sperm, so there's a decent chance it wasn't his choice. And that's assuming he's gotten laid since Maimara told us about his tiny peen years ago.

#"HisChoice"

https://media3.giphy.com/media/wdtOFbtHmT47S/giphy.gif

Tgo01

10-28-2019, 05:38 PM

Pelosi is finally going to allow a floor vote for this impeachment shit on Thursday. I guess they finally convinced (threatened) enough "moderate" Democrats to go along with their shit.

Who would have thought Trump ordering the military to kill the world's number 1 terrorist target would be what finally pushes Democrats over the edge? I guess they were planning on granting him citizenship so he could vote Democrat but that darn Trump got to him first.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-28-2019, 05:43 PM

She's trying to get it out of the way so they can say they impeached him in the 2020 election. Dems can't take another year of the great press Trump is getting from this.

Tgo01

10-28-2019, 05:49 PM

She's trying to get it out of the way so they can say they impeached him in the 2020 election. Dems can't take another year of the great press Trump is getting from this.

I'm curious how this vote plays out. I know it won't be strictly along party lines. There are some RINOs who are going to vote for the impeachment inquiry, but there also has to be some "moderate" Democrats in red districts that are going to try and save their job and vote against it. If they do vote for it they can pretty much kiss their seat goodbye come 2020. That's probably another reason she wants to get it over with as soon as possible, so the "moderate" Democrats have a whole year for voters to forget that they voted for impeachment.

Archigeek

10-28-2019, 06:39 PM

I'm curious how this vote plays out. I know it won't be strictly along party lines. There are some RINOs who are going to vote for the impeachment inquiry, but there also has to be some "moderate" Democrats in red districts that are going to try and save their job and vote against it. If they do vote for it they can pretty much kiss their seat goodbye come 2020. That's probably another reason she wants to get it over with as soon as possible, so the "moderate" Democrats have a whole year for voters to forget that they voted for impeachment.

There will be a few in moderate districts on both sides, everyone else will be party line. It's basically an academic exercise to limit the whining about not doing it.

~Rocktar~

10-28-2019, 09:44 PM

Anyone know what the odds are in Vegas of Republicans sweeping the House, gaining in the Senate and Trump re-election are?

Tgo01

10-28-2019, 09:45 PM

Anyone know what the odds are in Vegas of Republicans sweeping the House, gaining in the Senate and Trump re-election are?

No. But to be fair didn't they also predict a Hillary win in 2016?

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-29-2019, 04:49 PM

So if I'm reading things correctly, they are NOT voting articles of impeachment.

They are just adding laws to the process to make Trump dance for them... again, if I'm reading things properly.

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 05:01 PM

So if I'm reading things correctly, they are NOT voting articles of impeachment.

They are just adding laws to the process to make Trump dance for them... again, if I'm reading things properly.

Yeah it's not an impeachment vote, it's a...well I'm not sure exactly what it is because Nancy Pelosi won't actually say what the vote is for. But at least it will be a floor vote, unless Pelosi changes her mind on that too before Thursday.

Seran

10-29-2019, 05:56 PM

Thank you. I'm pretty certain it's a spin attempt because the whistleblower (Bolton) is wanting to stay anonymous for now. Democrats risk losing their momentum if they don't drop the inquiry or go public with all out impeachment soon.

So if I'm reading things correctly, they are NOT voting articles of impeachment.

They are just adding laws to the process to make Trump dance for them... again, if I'm reading things properly.

They're passing a resolution defining the procedures for the public portion of the impeachment Inquiry. The results of those hearings will then be forwarded to Judiciary to write the articles of impeachment. Both the resolution and articles of impeachment will have full House vote.

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 07:17 PM

Some Republicans are saying Schiff is instructing witnesses to not answer certain questions asked by Republicans in the secret meetings.

See now this is why this should all be out in the open, so we can see for our own eyes if Schiff is being a piece of Schiff or not. I have no reason to believe the Republicans in question are lying, they aren't the ones conducting these secret closed door meetings.

Even you suffering from the worst of TDS must admit this is absolutely fucked up and proves what a charade this whole thing is.

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 08:32 PM

Democrats are already saying they might not even hold this vote on Thursday. I wonder if that has anything to do with at least one Democrat stating so far they will vote against whatever it is they are voting on.

Honestly, Democrats, how much more of this bullshit are you willing to put up with? I know Orange Man bad and all, but we still believe in due process and rule of law in this country, don't we?

Seran

10-29-2019, 09:00 PM

Gelston

10-29-2019, 09:02 PM

I think most folks would agree unattributed rumors are nothing but conspiracy fodder for everyone, depending on who it benefits, to peddle.

Fixed that for you. CNN and MSNBC have put out tons of unsubstantiated rumors, as has Fox and others.

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 09:08 PM

I think most folks would agree unattributed rumors are nothing but conspiracy fodder for Sean Hannity and Infowars to peddle.

So two Republicans got before news cameras today and said this was happening, but you chalk that up to "unattributed rumors" while at the same time you defend Democrats holding these secret meetings and leaking only information they want you to hear.

You're not a real person are you? I refuse to believe it.

Also from what I understand this whatever Pelosi wants to call it on Thursday would allow Republicans to call witnesses...but they have to be approved by Schiff. So I ask you again, without you deflecting to conspiracy theory bullshit, are you really still defending this obvious bullshit?

Seran

10-29-2019, 09:28 PM

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 09:31 PM

It's actually a brilliant move on her part. Democrats began the impeachment inquiry and they'll be the ones running it, which is their right as the majority. This is how you prevent Trump stooges like McCarthy trying to subpeona Hillary Clinton about Benghazi during their impeachment hearings.

I repeat:

You're not a real person are you? I refuse to believe it.

Seran: Two Republicans standing before news cameras and saying Schiff isn't allowing witnesses to answer questions is just unattributed rumors.
Also Seran: It's brilliant that Democrats are actively suppressing Republicans from calling witnesses they want.

Are you Androidpk? You act exactly like him other than not getting into a fit of rage and threatening people every time they say something you don't like. Maybe this is your more even tempered persona?

Seran

10-29-2019, 09:37 PM

Tgo01

10-29-2019, 09:41 PM

If you're concerned with president, then I'd refer you to the House resolution H.Res.581 passed to initiate the Clinton impeachment, which only granted subpeona power if both chairman and ranking minority agreed fully, or in that absence if the /entire/ Republican dominated committee or it's designees voted to authorize.

That's subpoenas, I'm not even talking about that. I mean if Republicans want to call a witness they literally have to get Schiff's blessing before said witness can be called.

Seran

10-29-2019, 09:43 PM

Welcome to a Republican minority.