Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You know who the real winners are in all this?  Her law students, who probably had a couple classes canceled so she could attend this.

  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I don't think this is the progressive default position. Also, I'm not really comfortable with you being correct about something.

 

I know. I feel dirty, dumb and am really rethinking my position on this debate.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
8 hours ago, dubs said:


that’s not true. At best it’s unclear.  There is precedent for impeachment of district judges for conduct before he was in office. 
 

If Dems thought they had him on that, we’d have seen this charade last year. Point is they don’t, and Tibs still can’t point to a single “crime” committed by this president. No one can. 
 

 

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

So... personally hearing things third-hand is no longer the correct legal standard for 'personal knowledge'?

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

From what little I have seen of this, it doesn't appear these idiots have much courtroom/appellate experience.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 

 

Wow, quite literally none of this is true.

 

Amazing.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Albwan said:

EK9QTKFX0AEkRW4.thumb.jpg.bbadd9e67cd5a1772b1bf5f903a6ffc2.jpg

 

No matter how miserable and messed up it might be at home, today I'm so thankful

for what I have and thankful I don't have to come home to or interact with this woman.


This kook was thought to be a possible replacement for Scalia by some!? :blink:  She did not make the short list, but for someone, anyone, to think she was an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court ... Oy. And here's an article from 2009 with the hopin' and wishin' for her to replace Souter.

Makes me wonder if she'd have been on Hillary's list?

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
42 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

He abused the power of his office to extort a foreign ally at war with an adversary to dig up dirt on a political rival at home that would benefit his reelection campaign. 


haha. None of this is true. None. 
 

 

Posted
54 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, not what happened.  Again: she attacked Trump for naming him "Barron" and violating the Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility, which is not only not "attacking Trump's kid," but is infinitely stupider than that.

That’s not the way the game is played by either side. Any mention of any child in any capacity automatically triggers the “Children are off limits” clause.  Righteous indignation follows.  In the testimony provided today by Phyllis from The Office, she’s part of the resistance and invoking the boy’s name in the impeachment hearing was scripted, intentional, and designed to intimidate him and send a clear message to DJT—no one is off limits. 
 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Wow, quite literally none of this is true.

 

Amazing.


You beat me to it!

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

You know who the real winners are in all this?  Her law students, who probably had a couple classes canceled so she could attend this.

Probably near exam time. She’s gonna be all worked up grading now.

Edited by Kevbeau
Posted
43 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Seems there's nothing to get ahead of...

 

The article you linked to is behind a paywall. That's frowned upon here.

×
×
  • Create New...