ADVERTISEMENT

On this impeachment thing

YOU THINK THAT'S AN ANSWER ??????????????????
RIGHT HERE - RIGHT NOW :

NAME ONE !!!
ONE ADAM SCHIFF LIE.
WAITING.
ONE....MSNBC contributor and Daily Beast editor Sam Stein discusses new reporting from the New York Timeswhich shows that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff lied to him about never having spoken to the Ukraine whistleblower during an appearance on "Morning Joe" on September 17 (below). Stein admitted Wednesday on "Morning Joe" (above) that Schiff.
 
YOU THINK THAT'S AN ANSWER ??????????????????
RIGHT HERE - RIGHT NOW :

NAME ONE !!!
ONE ADAM SCHIFF LIE.
WAITING.
THREE....
He wrote that Bruce Ohr, then a top Justice Department official, didn’t go to the FBI with dossier dirt until November 2016, so it would be impossible for him to have influence on the wiretaps application in October.

In fact, Mr. Ohr began feeding dossier information in August 2016, starting with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and reaching deep inside the Justice Department.

I'd bury your computer with more, but that's enough for you to see the truth. Oop's, my bad I forgot who I was responding to.
 
ONE....MSNBC contributor and Daily Beast editor Sam Stein discusses new reporting from the New York Timeswhich shows that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff lied to him about never having spoken to the Ukraine whistleblower during an appearance on "Morning Joe" on September 17 (below). Stein admitted Wednesday on "Morning Joe" (above) that Schiff.
When responding to Stein's questions about the "whistleblower", Schiff acknowledged that he didn't have complete certainty that the person his staff spoke with was IN FACT THE whistleblower, at that moment. Stein later defended Schiff, to a degree, although stating that Schiff "could have been more clear" in his answer to him.
 
TWO....“Adam Schiff lied about having quote-unquote stone-cold evidence about Russia collusion,”
1) This quote is attributed to WHOM ?? Let me guess !!
2) Regardless, the above statement represents a characterization or an opinion of what constitutes "evidence"
and of what constitutes "stone-cold". The 12,000 misrepresentations and lies that have been fact-checked following Trump's statements do NOT include the limitless times he's referred to matters involving the same type of statement as the one you used.
 
Last edited:
THREE....
He wrote that Bruce Ohr, then a top Justice Department official, didn’t go to the FBI with dossier dirt until November 2016, so it would be impossible for him to have influence on the wiretaps application in October.

In fact, Mr. Ohr began feeding dossier information in August 2016, starting with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and reaching deep inside the Justice Department.

I'd bury your computer with more, but that's enough for you to see the truth. Oop's, my bad I forgot who I was responding to.
Mr. Schiff gave a misinformed, wrong answer with regard to the memo in which the subject date relationship was mentioned. Intended to mislead ? No reprimand or action by the DOJ or I.G. that followed.

Who's YOUR guy, again ??
Bury my computer with more ??
You want electronic transmissions related to Trump lies ?
You'll need a motherboard the size of YOUR HOUSE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
1) This quote is attributed to WHOM ?? Let me guess !!
2) Regardless, the above statement represents a characterization or an opinion of what constitutes "evidence"
and of what constitutes "stone-cold". The 12,000 misrepresentations and lies that have been fact-checked following Trump's statements do NOT include the limitless times he's referred to matters involving the same type of statement as the one you used.
If you could read, you'd have seen it was attributed to you liberal media giant, MSNBC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
If you could read, you'd have seen it was attributed to you liberal media giant, MSNBC.
If YOU could read YOUR OWN POSTS, you'd realize the quote in question was posted BY ITSELF, with no attribution to MSNBC !! (separately from the 1st post in which you claimed your 1st Adam Schiff " lie" )
 
Last edited:
If YOU could read YOUR OWN POSTS, you'd realize the quote in question was posted BY ITSELF, with no attribution to MSNBC !! (separately from the 1st post in which you claimed your 1st Adam Schiff " lie" )
Yada yada yada.....Beautiful day on the course...no worry about libs, or my Bears losing, or Trump.....just a great day with wind at my back on every hole. Plus picked up my winnings today for the year.
 
Yada yada yada.....Beautiful day on the course...no worry about libs, or my Bears losing, or Trump.....just a great day with wind at my back on every hole. Plus picked up my winnings today for the year.
I gotta hand it to ya'...….
You don't care whether or not your posts are right or wrong...up or down...….rational or crazy.....
You're just havin' fun.....
Trump in 2020 and pretty much just ta' hell with everything and everybody else.....
Although, like in diving competition, we get minimum degree-of-difficulty multipliers when we regularly whip up on you, here...….

(Men's Club ++ for '19 -- good yr. )
 
Last edited:
An extraordinary NY Times op-ed was penned by former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei V. Kozyrev (1991 to 1996, first post Soviet FM) wherein he suggests that currently "presidential morality seems to be a thing of the past" while holding out hope that "(m)oral principles still matter in American politics and policy. And the future still belongs to moral truth and to those who embrace it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

From his support of conversion therapy to RFRA, Pence has always used his position of power to keep the LGBTQ community marginalized. Depending on how involved he is in the Ukraine thing, and what ultimately does happen, he might be more electable than Trump right now. He would bring back your more mainstream conservatives and the evangelicals that may have soured on Trump. As President Pence he would have an actual plan that he's spent years cultivating. They're really afraid of him.
 

This is like a televised card game where the camera and viewers catch a guy winning a pot by cheating and the guy says " No it's not cheating, the other players didn't know that I was cheating."

Let's all not forget that there doesn't even need to be a quid pro quo for this to be a major issue. We all watched the POTUS request foreign aid in investigating his political rival. There doesn't need to be anything else. All smoke.
 
Let's all not forget that there doesn't even need to be a quid pro quo for this to be a major issue. We all watched the POTUS request foreign aid in investigating his political rival. There doesn't need to be anything else. All smoke.
True, at least for it to be a major issue. However, to convince any Republican Senators to vote for removal would require such at the very least, and even then likely is insufficient.
 
the bar seems pretty high

"[Dunne cited the hypothetical example of Trump “if he did pull out a handgun and shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.” Shootings are normally prosecuted in New York by state prosecutors.

When he was asked if Trump could be prosecuted for such a blatant crime, Consovoy said, “This is not a permanent immunity.”

The lawyer said a president could be charged for a shooting after he left or was removed from office.

But Judge Denny Chin pressed Consovoy: “I’m talking about while in office.”

“Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” Chin asked.

Consovoy (trump's lawyer) replied: “That is correct.” ]"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/trump-tax-return-subpoena-case-argued-in-federal-appeals-court.html


 
the bar seems pretty high

"[Dunne cited the hypothetical example of Trump “if he did pull out a handgun and shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.” Shootings are normally prosecuted in New York by state prosecutors.

When he was asked if Trump could be prosecuted for such a blatant crime, Consovoy said, “This is not a permanent immunity.”

The lawyer said a president could be charged for a shooting after he left or was removed from office.

But Judge Denny Chin pressed Consovoy: “I’m talking about while in office.”

“Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” Chin asked.

Consovoy (trump's lawyer) replied: “That is correct.” ]"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/trump-tax-return-subpoena-case-argued-in-federal-appeals-court.html

I was about to post a similar excerpt. Utterly amazing...
 
True, at least for it to be a major issue. However, to convince any Republican Senators to vote for removal would require such at the very least, and even then likely is insufficient.
Truth told in this post..
But know this: There is virtually NOTHING under the sun that will bring about the 20 or so GOP Senate votes necessary for removal.
You say, hey, what about shooting someone in the middle of 5th Avenue ???
Maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
True, at least for it to be a major issue. However, to convince any Republican Senators to vote for removal would require such at the very least, and even then likely is insufficient.
I agree the QPP is needed to convince some pub senators.......but the Trump supporters will just move the goalpost again....like the tweet about the Ukrainians knowing about the aid.
But at some point the goalpost ends up in the freakin parking lot........ and there's no sane argument left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
I agree the QPP is needed to convince some pub senators.......but the Trump supporters will just move the goalpost again....like the tweet about the Ukrainians knowing about the aid.
But at some point the goalpost ends up in the freakin parking lot........ and there's no sane argument left.
And then we'll see the INsane arguments....
In the past 2 1/2 weeks, Trump spokespersons have progressively trotted out SIX different explanations/interpretations of the Trump-Zelensky phone call......
I think six is all they had...hence the stand-in/sit-in at the House secured interview room by GOP members, today....
Total cartoon show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
I’m not an attorney but I’d assume that if you’re the President, you don’t want criminals invoking executive privilege because he says you were involved.

 
I’m not an attorney but I’d assume that if you’re the President, you don’t want criminals invoking executive privilege because he says you were involved.
I may be mistaken as to executive privilege, but all other privileges belong to the person whose conversation is legally entitled to protection, so I would strongly say the privilege belongs to the White House/President and can only be exercised at its/his direction ultimately, or at the very least acquiescence.
 



This NYT report demonstrates that the President's position that Ukraine was unaware is incorrect, pointing out that top Ukraine people were advised in early August.


And let's talk a little about he (Taylor)...

Bill Taylor graduated in the top 1% of his class at West Point
Company Commander 101st Airborne while serving in Vietnam
Bronze Star for heroism...

After testifying on Capitol Hill...
Radicalized, unhinged, unelected bureaucrat
Never Trumper (human scum)

Swift Boat anyone ?
 
I was about to post a similar excerpt. Utterly amazing...

trump thrives on trolling,
and maybe being in chararcter (ala wrestling)

with the shoot someone example,
are they just having fun pushing the limits to see what will still be supported. or is it a true belief



PMr9e5.gif
 
Not mine but it's probably true.


Let me preview for you the Trump defenses that are coming soon to a cable studio near you:

  • The quid pro quo wasn’t real because only the U.S. knew it existed. For a quid pro quo to be real, both sides must be party to it.
  • Maybe both sides knew about it, but it was never enforced.
  • Because the quid (withholding military aid) was illegal, then by definition it couldn’t have been an actual thing.
  • Maybe it was illegal and maybe both sides knew about it and maybe it was enforced, but executive authority allows all of this.
  • Maybe executive authority doesn’t actually allow any of this, but the impeachment process in the House was tainted, so whatever the Senate thinks of Trump’s actions, they’re duty-bound to acquit him because they have to think about future precedent.
You see the modus operandi here, right? The president’s defenders will push claim after claim after claim until they finally find one that sticks, at which point they’ll say, “A-ha! He’s innocent
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT