impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Bama Chick 28596]

If anyone is interested in taking to the streets MoveOn has got you covered.

I think I’ll check out the one in Huntsville. They’ll be tens of us!

[Biff Tannen 45684]

I plan on being at city hall in Austin.  

[jimmyjazz 45951]

What are people protesting, exactly?

I mean, if Alyssa is showing up, I'm there, but . . .

[henrygandorf 29191]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are people protesting, exactly?

I mean, if Alyssa is showing up, I'm there, but . . .

at least my blue dot has a chance, right?

[BradInATX 9208]

Lol @ Fozzz being a troll. Absolutely not. He's one of the better and more interesting posters in this forum despite being in disagreement with me and most people on almost everything.

Not everyone with a unique or divergent opinion is a troll.

He's got a unique moral compass, but unlike almost everyone who is into politics, he's consistent as hell. I respect that.

 

 

[Pasken 1309]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

I think I’ll check out the one in Huntsville. They’ll be tens of us!

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

What are people protesting, exactly?
I mean, if Alyssa is showing up, I'm there, but . . .

I don’t think it’s a protest exactly - the description for the one in my area said it’s a rally to call on our representatives and senators to support impeachment.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The most effective demonstration would be a massive sustained protest in DC during the Senate trial.   Someone needs to compile a list of five to ten million people willing to give up a week to protest in DC.  Rotate out a million people a week for 5-10 weeks or until Trump resigns. 

[Iceman 2710]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The most effective demonstration would be a massive sustained protest in DC during the Senate trial.   Someone needs to compile a list of five to ten million people willing to give up a week to protest in DC.  Rotate out a million people a week for 5-10 weeks or until Trump resigns. 

Or just be able to prove your allegations after 3 years...

Should be easy with the overwhelming evidence.  Just choose something...

or just claim obstruction when someone doesn't comply with the railroad job/ witch hunt.

It's working!!!

Edited December 12, 2019 by Iceman

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Democracy, how does it work?   Seems to me the American people voted twice in a row not to have Trump president.  

[Jack Straw 2954]

Hey look, Slorch is back. How long until he says he totally doesn’t support Trump at all? 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

When, if ever, are the committees going to address this problem? My youngest has plans to major in computer science in college but I'm going to tell him to forget that and start a  business, run for President and then travel around the country promoting and profiting from it.

 

[GopherRock 1765]

So is today the vote on the articles to advance them to the House floor?

[Tuco 5076]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are people protesting, exactly?

I mean, if Alyssa is showing up, I'm there, but . . .

Our corrupt President and my Republican Congressman who defends him.  That's what I'm protesting. 

If there are five people at the protest when the cameras show up, it will look like a bevvy of crackpots.  If there are 50, it will look like a small but dedicated group.  If there are 500 here, 2000 there, 100000 in a big city, etc, it will look like a movement.  How it looks will affect Congressional votes, of wavering Dems if no one else.  How it looks completely depends on people like you and me. 

Me, typing on a keyboard, does nothing.  

 

[GopherRock 1765]

Doug Collins must be from Wisconsin, because he needs a lot of cheese to go with all that WHINE. 

[Biff Tannen 45684]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Or just be able to prove your allegations after 3 years...

Should be easy with the overwhelming evidence.  Just choose something...

or just claim obstruction when someone doesn't comply with the railroad job/ witch hunt.

It's working!!!

Well, both the Mueller report and the witnesses in the impeachment hearings have proved it, but don't let that get in the way of your reality.  Oh yeah, my own lying eyes and ears have also proved it.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Biff Tannen
sorry to quote the troll

[Rougarou 594]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are people protesting, exactly?

I mean, if Alyssa is showing up, I'm there, but . . .

As I’ve pointed out, this already has the cloud and feeling of “Ol Donny can’t wiggle out of this one! And he easily does” all over it. People are getting ready to be upset about it

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Doug Collins must be from Wisconsin, because he needs a lot of cheese to go with all that WHINE. 

He's a racist cracker from Poorgia, but crackers, cheese and 'whine' compliment each other.

[bolverk 29672]

Small reminder to Trump's defenders in Congress:

Republicans Defending Trump on Impeachment Should Fear the Judgment of History
The House Judiciary Committee began debating articles of impeachment against President Richard Milhous Nixon on the evening of July 24, 1974. In his introductory remarks, the committee chairman, Peter Rodino, a New Jersey congressman who had become a national figure during seven months of impeachment proceedings, said he had been guided throughout by “the principle that the law must deal fairly with every man.” Rodino called this “the oldest principle of democracy” and implored each member of the committee to “act with the wisdom that compels us in the end to be but decent men who seek only the truth.” Shortly afterward, Harold Donohue, a Massachusetts Democrat, moved that the committee “report to the House a resolution together with articles of impeachment, impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.”

By this point, the members had sat through eleven weeks of closed hearings. The committee’s staff had summarized the evidence against the President in several dozen thick black notebooks. The President’s approval ratings had sagged to about twenty-five per cent, and a majority of Americans supported impeachment. Nevertheless, most Republicans on the committee refused to abandon the President. “The closer President Nixon comes to impeachment, the louder his supporters proclaim his innocence,” James Reston wrote, in the Times. “If you say he is innocent often enough, maybe you can make people believe it.”

At the time, these members’ defense of Nixon seemed desperate and futile. Decades later, and long after many of their congressional careers had ended, their support for Nixon would continue to linger over their legacies, an inalterable epitaph. It was the leading item in almost all of their obituaries, if not in the headline. From the Times, on August 27, 1985: “Ex-Rep. Charles Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies.” From the Times, on May 22, 1991: “Former Rep. Joseph Maraziti, 78, Defender of Nixon on Watergate.” From the Times, on March 8, 2000: “Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings.” From the Los Angeles Times, on June 6, 2007: “Wiley Mayne, 90; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon.”

Spoiler

 

This week, as the current Judiciary Committee begins impeachment hearings on President Donald Trump, these obituaries might serve as a reminder to the committee’s Republican members that the consequences of their decisions in the coming days will likely extend far beyond the next election. The Judiciary Committee debate on articles of impeachment against Nixon lasted six days. The tone of the hearings was at times soaring and at other moments opaque––alternately invoking the nation’s highest ideals, the fine-grained details of the accusations against the President, and the arcana of legal standards and legislative proceedings. But the significance was clear throughout. “This is no ordinary set of speeches,” Elizabeth Drew wrote, for The New Yorker. “It is the most extraordinary political debate I have ever heard––perhaps the most extraordinary since the Constitutional Convention. And perhaps the most important political debate since that one. These people are drawing on history, attaching themselves to it, and becoming part of it.”

Charles Wiggins, who represented a region in Southern California that overlapped with Nixon’s former congressional district, would emerge as the most articulate and forceful defender of the President during the hearings. He dismissed the notebooks of evidence accumulated by the committee’s staff. “My guess,” he said, “you can put all of the admissible evidence in half of one book. Most of this is just material. It is not evidence, and it may never surface in the Senate because it is not admissible evidence. Simple theories, of course, are inadequate. That is not evidence. A supposition, however persuasive, is not evidence. A bare possibility that something might have happened is not evidence.”

Narrowing the evidence as much as possible against the President became a central strategy for Nixon stalwarts. “If we bring this case and carry it through the House and into the Senate, we will have to prove it,” David Dennis, an Indiana Republican, said. “We will have to prove it by competent evidence. The managers on the part of the House will have to make the case. At that point, hearsay will not do, inference upon inference will not do. Ex parte affidavits will not do. Memoranda will not do. Prior recorded testimony and other legal proceedings to which the President was not a party will not serve.” Charles Sandman, who would be a regular, caustic presence on behalf of Nixon throughout the hearings, said that the Founders had meant for a President to be impeached “only for something extremely serious, which affects his capability to conduct the affairs of the Nation.” Sandman declared that he was not a “nitpicker” and that “there were lots of crimes committed by lots of people, but were they placed at the door of the President?” Sandman did not think so.

When Rodino finally adjourned the hearings, after 11 p.m. on Tuesday, July 30th, the committee had approved three articles of impeachment against the President: for obstructing the investigation into the Watergate break-in, for repeatedly violating the rights of citizens and “impairing the due and proper administration of justice,” and for defying congressional subpoenas. Twenty-one Democrats supported the first two articles. All but two Democrats also voted for the third. Ten out of seventeen Republicans opposed all three articles.

The day before the hearings began, a bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers––four Republicans and three Southern Democrats––had met in secret and resolved to back impeachment. All of them ultimately supported at least one article from the Judiciary Committee, as did three other Republicans. In the years after Watergate, many of these lawmakers would be lionized for their role in the hearings, prioritizing constitutional duty over politics. Only after the release of the so-called smoking-gun tape, which made clear that Nixon had ordered the Watergate coverup, did the ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment reverse their decisions. The President resigned three days later.

The makeup of the current Judiciary Committee differs markedly from that of the Nixon era. The Republican minority is now dominated by members of the House Freedom Caucus, the influential conservative faction that has been uncompromising in its defense of Trump. Its most prominent figures include Jim Jordan, the Ohio congressman who relentlessly undermined witnesses during the Intelligence Committee hearings; Florida’s Matt Gaetz, who, in October, led a brief G.O.P. occupation of the secure room where the Intelligence Committee was conducting its depositions; and Louie Gohmert, of Texas, who has compared impeachment to a “coup” and warned of “civil war.”

Even Republican House members who had been seen as candidates to turn on Trump have thus far sounded more like Nixon’s defenders during Watergate. Will Hurd, the Texas congressman and the only African-American member of the G.O.P. caucus, has often been cited as a possible defector, because of his typically moderate positions and his decision not to seek reëlection next year. But, during the Intelligence Committee hearings last month, he asserted that an impeachable offense should be “compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous,” and that he had not yet heard such evidence. Francis Rooney, of Florida, another retiring congressman who is being closely watched, told Tim Alberta, of Politico, last month, “the whole thing is one step removed from the President.”

In the Senate, it seems at least plausible that frequent Trump dissenters, such as Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins, could form an initial bloc against the President. Could they then be joined by establishment figures, such as the Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander, who is retiring, or Rob Portman, of Ohio? What about the senators Cory Gardner and Martha McSally, who are facing tough reëlection fights, in Colorado and Arizona, respectively? These scenarios seem far-fetched, given their statements so far on impeachment, but at least it’s imaginable. What might happen then? Perhaps other Republicans sensitive to history’s long arc will find safety in numbers. Trump would, in all likelihood, still be safe, but he would be tarnished. In American history, the Trump Presidency will inevitably be studied for the ways that democratic norms and institutions have been subverted. Republicans must consider how they wish to be remembered in the narrative of these events. History will have its judgment, too. Legacies exist in the future, but they are forged in the here and now.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/republicans-defending-trump-on-impeachment-should-fear-the-judgment-of-history

 

For fun, I looked at the wiki entries for each of the four listed above, and they're indefensible defense of Nixon is listed prominently (even for those who later changed their minds). Moreover, they all saw their own popular support decline.

 

Sandman was on the House Judiciary Committee when it considered articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. He was the most vitriolic defender of Nixon in the hearings.[4]

In the 1974 Congressional elections, Republicans suffered generally because of the Watergate scandal that had by the time of the election forced Nixon to resign. Although Sandman announced that he would vote for impeachment on the House floor after the release of the "smoking gun" transcript (as did all of the Republicans who had voted against the articles in committee), his reputation was severely tarnished by his performance in the televised hearings. He was soundly defeated by Democrat William J. Hughes, his opponent in 1974, in an election that Sandman described as "not a Republican year"[5]

*****

Maraziti was one of the 38 House Judiciary Committee members who considered articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal, consistently voting with the one-third Republican bloc against impeachment. He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1974 to the Ninety-fourth Congress. 

*****

Wiggins fiercely defended Nixon during debate on the House Judiciary Committee over Nixon's impeachment.[3] However, Wiggins dropped his support after the revelation of the so-called "Smoking Gun" tape.[4][5] He had actually been invited to the White House by Chief of Staff Alexander Haig to review the transcripts before their release. However, after reading the transcript, Wiggins concluded that the tapes proved that Nixon had indeed taken part in the plan to cover up the break-in and other illegal activities.[2]

In a statement, Wiggins said that based on this evidence, "the facts then known to me now have changed." He added that it was now clear Nixon had a "plan of action" to cover up the break-in, and that alone would be "legally sufficient" to prove Nixon engaged in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice."... Several other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee followed his lead, a fact emphasized by The New York Times in its headline, "Wiggins for Impeachment; Others in G.O.P. Join Him."[6][7]

Wiggins's earlier advocacy for Nixon saw his margin of victory reduced in the congressional elections of 1974.[8] Re-elected in 1976, he was not a candidate for reelection to the Ninety-sixth Congress in 1978, instead returning to private practice in Los Angeles California from 1979 to 1982, in Washington, D.C. from 1982 to 1984, and in San Francisco, California in 1984.[1]

*****

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mayne played an influential role in amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, especially those involving the admissibility of opinion testimony. His political downfall, however, came in his fourth term during his service on that Committee, when Mayne was one of ten Republican Committee members to vote against Articles of impeachment of President Richard Nixon arising from the Watergate scandal. At the time of his Committee votes, Mayne believed that the proof was not sufficient to necessitate a call for impeachment. In Nixon's final days in office, however, Mayne's opinion quickly changed after evidence implicating Nixon in a subsequent coverup was made public, and he vowed to vote in favor of impeachment when the articles came before the full House.[4] The damage, however, had been done, and Mayne narrowly lost the 1974 election to his 1972 opponent, Democrat Berkley Bedell.[6]

 

I'm not naive enough to think that all Trump's defenders (or even most) in these hearings will be voted out, but I do take comfort in knowing that each of their legacies will be forever tied to the orange shitstain currently occupying the Oval Office, and at least a few will suffer at the ballot box -- even in their currently gerrymandered districts. These three seem especially vulnerable.

% of vote since 2014:

Steve Chabot, OH (63 -> 59 -> 51%)
Debbie Lesko, AZ (XX -> XX -> 52%)
Tom McClintock, CA (60 -> 63 -> 54%)

 

[SquishMitten 10406]

Wow, an actual decent piece in the Atlantic, and related to this farcical impeachment of all things.

As the House Judiciary Committee drafts articles of impeachment intended to remove President Donald Trump from office, let us pause to reflect on the subject of relative malfeasance. Allow me to stipulate that Trump is unfit for office. He is a coarse, vulgar, and dishonest demagogue. Yet I want to suggest that his transgressions, while notable, pale in comparison with a far greater crime that unfolded right before our eyes, for years, well before his election.
That crime is the Afghan War. Now, withholding security assistance from a beleaguered nation threatened by Russia in return for political favors is a despicable act. This is true even if that nation is one that Washington only recently decided to classify as vital to U.S. interests.  
But a misguided war that drags on inconclusively for more than 18 years is, I submit, a far greater crime. This is especially the case if that war has cost the United States more than $1 trillion, with 2,300 U.S. troops and more than 3,800 American contractors killed, and another 20,000 GIs wounded in action, many grievously. And that’s not counting the more than 100,000 members of Afghan security forces and Afghan civilians killed along the way.
No evidence exists to suggest that the United States and its allies are today winning this war. Indeed, the available evidence points in the opposite direction: The Taliban are growing in strength day by day. The on-again, off-again peace negotiations undertaken by the Trump administration amount to little more than a transparent effort to get out of Afghanistan, as the president has repeatedly promised to do, while creating a “decent interval” between the U.S. troop withdrawal and the eventual collapse of the Afghan regime in Kabul.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/if-ukraine-is-impeachable-whats-afghanistan/603334/
The fact that we are willing to support impeachment premised upon the delay of lethal aid of Ukraine (a rather dubious thing to be doing anyway), while we treat a colossal scandal that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as business as usual seems to be a rather clear and ominous sign that our society is broken at a fundamental level.  Where are our priorities? 


And you think that’s relevant how? Do you know a bunch of people that love the fact we’re still in Afghanistan? That there’s a clear cut “win” to be had? But besides that, who are we supposed to be railing against? Obama? Hillary? Bush? If they committed crimes, then they should be prosecuted. If there’s a single person here who disagrees with my last sentence, I ask them to speak up. I’d be shocked if there’s anyone who does. Also, can any of those three be impeached? Because if they can’t, then you aren’t making any sort of a point.

I have no disagreement that Afghanistan is worthy of a discussion. Nobody does. But to bring it up here is irrelevant and just more of the same old whataboutism bullshit.

[sachick 1189]

Finally someone bringing up that aid was released in 2017 and 2018 and Trump wasn't concerned with corruption until Biden was the leading candidate.

[Biff Tannen 45684]

Should I be watching this shitshow?

[hayden_horn 11362]

the republicans are really going overboard here. i know i'm biased here, but holy shit they are acting like children. history will not be kind.

[sachick 1189]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Should I be watching this shitshow?

Are you a fan of train wrecks? I'm listening for now but not sure how much I can take.

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Should I be watching this shitshow?

if only to cement to yourself that republicans are completely in the bag. they all have to be corrupt. there is no other explanation.

[jimmyjazz 45951]

If you want to see adults whine and interrupt, sure, watch it.  So far Gym, Louie, and Matt have made utter fools of themselves, and are ignoring procedure.

If I were Nadler I'd stand up and say "Gym and Louie, if you continue to speak out of order, I will throw you out."

[Biff Tannen 45684]

So no.  Got it.

[Brisketexan 105139]

2 hours ago, Iceman said:

Or just be able to prove your allegations after 3 years...

Should be easy with the overwhelming evidence.  Just choose something...

or just claim obstruction when someone doesn't comply with the railroad job/ witch hunt.

It's working!!!

You know, after all of this, maybe I just want one thing.

I want all Republicans and Trump sycophants to be consistent on the burden of proof.  We all know that literally thousands of people are in prison as a result of cases with LESS evidence than Trump's.  I want the RepubliTrumpkins to insist on the same burden of proof for, oh, say, black and brown criminal defendants on any charge.

I want Trumpublicans marching outside the courthouse when Jorge his on trial, insisting that he CANNOT be convicted without a "smocking gun."  We have a new burden of proof for criminal conviction - it apparently requires a written, signed confession, with 10 witnesses, and video of the crime being committed (maybe -- I doubt that would be sufficient to convict Trump in the eyes of the Trumpkins, but let's pretend it would be).  Apply that standard to EVERYONE.  Do it, you gutless fucking hypocritical orange cock-gobblers.  Do it.  For once in your pathetic, simpering lives, be consistent.

[hayden_horn 11362]

i mean, honestly, look at the signs behind the republicans. 

the scary thing is, there are people out there that are seeing this behavior from the republicans and are saying "that's what i want, i agree with all of this outrage. bring down the system!"

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

If you want to see adults whine and interrupt, sure, watch it.  So far Gym, Louie, and Matt have made utter fools of themselves, and are ignoring procedure.

If I were Nadler I'd stand up and say "Gym and Louie, if you continue to speak out of order, I will throw you out."

If I were Nadler, I would simply say that "The House rules prevent me from noting that you are behaving like hypocritical gutless pussies, so I will not so note that fact for the Congressional Record."

[TXSG8R 3362]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the republicans are really going overboard here. i know i'm biased here, but holy shit they are acting like children. history will not be kind.

I think most of them are betting on our 5 second attention span culture to continue.

[Biff Tannen 45684]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, after all of this, maybe I just want one thing.

I want all Republicans and Trump sycophants to be consistent on the burden of proof.  We all know that literally thousands of people are in prison as a result of cases with LESS evidence than Trump's.  I want the RepubliTrumpkins to insist on the same burden of proof for, oh, say, black and brown criminal defendants on any charge.

I want Trumpublicans marching outside the courthouse when Jorge his on trial, insisting that he CANNOT be convicted without a "smocking gun."  We have a new burden of proof for criminal conviction - it apparently requires a written, signed confession, with 10 witnesses, and video of the crime being committed (maybe -- I doubt that would be sufficient to convict Trump in the eyes of the Trumpkins, but let's pretend it would be).  Apply that standard to EVERYONE.  Do it, you gutless fucking hypocritical orange cock-gobblers.  Do it.  For once in your pathetic, simpering lives, be consistent.

Well I want a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards is it?

[SquishMitten 10406]

seriously. fucking hell, man. just hammer the facts and refute the person who just lied. because republicans are just flat out lying. this is no debate. this is just a series of prepared statements

Didn’t y’all listen to WhatTheBuck a few posts up? The Ds either have all the Rs on ignore or they think it’s best to not engage the trolls. Pointing out their lies is just a distraction. Everybody watching is intelligent enough to see through those lies so there’s no benefit to pointing them out. Misinformation should always go unchecked. I think that’s the gist of it.

[jimmyjazz 45951]

Now it's Matt's turn to lie.  We already have testimony that the Ukrainians knew aid was withheld based on 7/25/19 communications from Ukrainian officials.

[sachick 1189]

I hate the "but they didn't announce an investigation and they got their money" argument. BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT!

[hayden_horn 11362]

2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I think most of them are betting on our 5 second attention span culture to continue.

i honestly don't get it.

for republicans, what would be so bad about president pence?

why are they so willing to sell out for donald fucking trump?

@Brisketexan has been right - republicans are now the party of trump. there must be some real danger in the internal republican polling.

[Iceman 2710]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, after all of this, maybe I just want one thing.

I want all Republicans and Trump sycophants to be consistent on the burden of proof.  We all know that literally thousands of people are in prison as a result of cases with LESS evidence than Trump's.  I want the RepubliTrumpkins to insist on the same burden of proof for, oh, say, black and brown criminal defendants on any charge.

I want Trumpublicans marching outside the courthouse when Jorge his on trial, insisting that he CANNOT be convicted without a "smocking gun."  We have a new burden of proof for criminal conviction - it apparently requires a written, signed confession, with 10 witnesses, and video of the crime being committed (maybe -- I doubt that would be sufficient to convict Trump in the eyes of the Trumpkins, but let's pretend it would be).  Apply that standard to EVERYONE.  Do it, you gutless fucking hypocritical orange cock-gobblers.  Do it.  For once in your pathetic, simpering lives, be consistent.

 

as far as the last sentence, just remember, there are plenty of folks who find Trump unsatisfactory.  Just because they might not hate him as much as you, does not make them a sympathizer.  The ongoing tantrum by the left is not helping the country either, but carry on...

Proof.  Bring it.  Shit or get off the pot.

[Brisketexan 105139]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well I want a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards is it?

Donald?

[sachick 1189]

Ok, and I'm out. Going to listen to Taylor Swift instead.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Should I be watching this shitshow?

 

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if only to cement to yourself that republicans are completely in the bag. they all have to be corrupt. there is no other explanation.

I believe you should watch enough of it to cement the facts in your head. Folks talk about history not being kind, but history also gets whitewashed and rewritten and even photoshopped.

I trust the GOP with nothing. 

[Brisketexan 105139]

Just now, Iceman said:

 

as far as the last sentence, just remember, there are plenty of folks who find Trump unsatisfactory.  Just because they might not hate him as much as you, does not make them a sympathizer.  The ongoing tantrum by the left is not helping the country either, but carry on...

Proof.  Bring it.  Shit or get off the pot.

Sworn testimony of Sondland.  Read it.  Now flush yourself.

You're purposefully IGNORING testimony to state your position.  I can lead you to facts, but I can't make you think.  Trust me, it's clear that NOTHING can make you think.

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

 

as far as the last sentence, just remember, there are plenty of folks who find Trump unsatisfactory.  Just because they might not hate him as much as you, does not make them a sympathizer.  The ongoing tantrum by the left is not helping the country either, but carry on...

Proof.  Bring it.  Shit or get off the pot.

the proof has been brought, dude. 

you and the house republicans can refuse or pretend not to see it, but the proof is fucking there.

[Iceman 2710]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Sworn testimony of Sondland.  Read it.  Now flush yourself.

You're purposefully IGNORING testimony to state your position.  I can lead you to facts, but I can't make you think.  Trust me, it's clear that NOTHING can make you think.

you have nothing, so;

1) call me a racist

2)call me a nazi

or

3) claim the IQ high ground

 

That's your whole fucking game.

 

 

[Iceman 2710]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the proof has been brought, dude. 

you and the house republicans can refuse or pretend not to see it, but the proof is fucking there.

proof of illegal acts is being ignored?

Edited December 12, 2019 by Iceman

[horncyclist 1387]

All of this is outrageous, but the "This is undermining the 63 million [less than Hillary by the way] who voted for him" takes the cake. Are they arguing that you can't impeach any President that was elected? Then why the fuck is it in the constitution. That plus lie after lie after lie.

[Biff Tannen 45684]

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sworn testimony of Sondland.  Read it.  Now flush yourself.

You're purposefully IGNORING testimony to state your position.  I can lead you to facts, but I can't make you think.  Trust me, it's clear that NOTHING can make you think.

 

Just now, Iceman said:

you have nothing, so;

1) call me a racist

2)call me a nazi

or

3) claim the IQ high ground

 

That's your whole fucking game.

 

 

torbush

[TXSG8R 3362]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i honestly don't get it.

for republicans, what would be so bad about president pence?

why are they so willing to sell out for donald fucking trump?

@Brisketexan has been right - republicans are now the party of trump. there must be some real danger in the internal republican polling.

So you haven't heard about the President Pelosi conspiracy theory?

[jimmyjazz 45951]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

you have nothing, so;

1) call me a racist

2)call me a nazi

or

3) claim the IQ high ground

 

That's your whole fucking game.

 

 

He LITERALLY told you what to read, and you ignored it.

[Dahobbs 17534]

2 hours ago, Iceman said:

Or just be able to prove your allegations after 3 years...

Should be easy with the overwhelming evidence.  Just choose something...

or just claim obstruction when someone doesn't comply with the railroad job/ witch hunt.

It's working!!!

It's been proven by overwhelming evidence as has obstruction. But, if you're just going to ignore facts and evidence, yeah, I can see how you'd think otherwise. 

[Iceman 2710]

Trump sucks unilaterally at everything except blocking the dems?

 

LOlz.