The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[3rdnlng]

Chairman Mr. Magoo is going ahead with impeachment. Who said the circus is dead?

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting?

 

Probably, but they've never cared about long-term consequences, especially when they can just pretend to be victims when their own tactics and precedents are used against them.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Probably, but they've never cared about long-term consequences, especially when they can just pretend to be victims when their own tactics and precedents are used against them.

Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble 

[row_33]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting?

 

they don't care about anything or anyone but themselves and their feelings at the moment

 

then again, 90% of us wouldn't be here if liberals thought a few seconds about the consequences of their actions

 

 

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting?

  Doubtful.  But if they are aware of the concept of "turnabout is fair play" they no doubt have a plan concocted to have the Republican Party outlawed as a hate group if not before 2020 then very likely by 2024.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Are they even the least bit conscious of the precedent they're setting?

 

I think they consulted with Harry Reid on this decision.

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Morning third, hope all is well with you

 

Turley also confessed, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

He confessed? If proven? You're an idiot.

[row_33]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Doubtful.  But if they are aware of the concept of "turnabout is fair play" they no doubt have a plan concocted to have the Republican Party outlawed as a hate group if not before 2020 then very likely by 2024.

 

 

they are animals only concerned about the immediate situation, but don't worry.... huge animals that will snap their spine are patiently waiting one step into the woods....

 

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble 

  Even you don't believe that.  

 

[row_33]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Even you don't believe that.  

 

 

why do you bother with that waste

[RochesterRob]

15 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

why do you bother with that waste

  Just letting his handlers know that I don't buy their nonsense.  His puppet strings are no doubt being pulled by some leftist organization.

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He confessed? If proven? You're an idiot.

It has been proven 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Just letting his handlers know that I don't buy their nonsense.  His puppet strings are no doubt being pulled by some leftist organization.

 

it has to be a joke, nobody could be that much of an incorrigible knucklehead

 

[SoCal Deek]

I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately!  Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. 

[B-Man]

Presidential Misconduct: Some Historical Perspective

by David Harsanyi

 

Original Article

 

 

This week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trotted out a trio of dispassionate legal experts to explain why the impeachment of Donald Trump was justified. They were there to bring a veneer of gravitas and erudition to what’s been, until now, a highly partisan affair. But however smart people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be, they aren’t immune from peddling partisan absurdities. Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic.

 

 

 

.

[dubs]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately!  Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. 

this times infinity

[B-Man]

Evidence-Starved Democrats, Like Oliver Twist, Know They Need 'More

Issues & Insights, by The Editorial Board

 

Original Article

 

The Washington Post editorial Wednesday on the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report gave the game away.

 

“The Democratic report lacks direct testimony of Mr. Trump confirming the quid pro quo … It also acknowledges ‘unanswered questions’” – and “the speedy referral” of the impeachment inquiry from the intelligence panel to the House Judiciary Committee “smacks of political expediency.”

 

Intel panel chairman Adam Schiff was urged to do some more digging so the committee can “provide a fuller and, to many Americans, more persuasive picture of his guilt,” the Post’s editorial board said under the title, “There’s more to learn” – perhaps the Freudian slip of the year.

 

 

.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

this times infinity

Of course the just as important alternative would be to have some whack a doodle professor fly in from San Francisco and comment on the name of the President’s son.   Yes, that would be just as appropriate. Not!

[B-Man]

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: What Did We Learn From the Impeachment Hearing? 

 

“Rounding up a few academics to complain about any Republican isn’t exactly a daunting task. That’s like wandering around Hyannis Port in the summertime and bumping into a drunk Kennedy.”

 

 

 

 

 Democrat Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses:   Witnesses were chosen by Democratic committee leadership.

 

 

 

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: What Did We Learn From the Impeachment Hearing? 

 

“Rounding up a few academics to complain about any Republican isn’t exactly a daunting task. That’s like wandering around Hyannis Port in the summertime and bumping into a drunk Kennedy.”

 

 

 

 

 Democrat Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses:   Witnesses were chosen by Democratic committee leadership.

 

 

 

  Absence of black impeachment witnesses?  WTF?  Witnesses should be limited to those who have first hand factual relevant evidence of which there is none.