njbuff Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Because Flynn was fighting the system. Comey was fighting for the system. One's David without the slingshot, the other is Goliath backed up by 1000s of other Goliaths. But Flynn's still got more to say. Don't people on the left hate Comey too? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Paging, @Capco: You can run if you want, but it'd be a hell of a lot cooler to have a conversation. In your opinion, who interferred more in the 2016 election: the Russians and their proxies, or our own US intelligence services? Show your work if you wouldn't mind.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 ...so the Dems premise is that the electorate is too stupid to decide what they think should be the legitimate outcome at the polling booth?.....and the Rooskies interfered with the 2016 election?....SERIOUSLY?......reelect Schiff 2020......honorable. forthright, truthful and America at heart........ 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, njbuff said: Don't people on the left hate Comey too? Yup. Comey "cost Hillary the election" with his press conference about NOT charging her for the email scandal. That's the line the left uses. The reality is, of course, Comey's not on the right or the left. He's establishment to his core, and the establishment plays both sides against the middle. At the time of that press conference the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and White House were actively working to assure that HRC was going to be elected the next president. Comey knew that she would win, he was promised as such. So what could a press conference hurt, he figured. Maybe he could get some cred for his own reputation by holding the press conference (where he let her skate from serious legal peril) and that would be the end of it. He never expected she would lose. And when she did, Comey and all the rats became vulnerable to exposure for the crimes they'd been committing. 4
njbuff Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...so the Dems premise is that the electorate is too stupid to decide what they think should be the legitimate outcome at the polling booth?.....and the Rooskies interfered with the 2016 election?....SERIOUSLY?......reelect Schiff 2020......honorable. forthright, truthful and America at heart........ And yet I have watched clips from people on MSNBC and CNN that slick on Schiff's knob. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Yup. Comey "cost Hillary the election" with his press conference about NOT charging her for the email scandal. That's the line the left uses. The reality is, of course, Comey's not on the right or the left. He's establishment to his core, and the establishment plays both sides against the middle. At the time of that press conference the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and White House were actively working to assure that HRC was going to be elected the next president. Comey knew that she would win, he was promised as such. So what could a press conference hurt, he figured. Maybe he could get some cred for his own reputation by holding the press conference (where he let her skate from serious legal peril) and that would be the end of it. He never expected she would lose. And when she did, Comey and all the rats became vulnerable to exposure for the crimes they'd been committing. So, all of what is going on right now is basically, Comey, Page, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, etc doing some serious backhanded shyt?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, njbuff said: So, all of what is going on right now is basically, Comey, Page, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, etc doing some serious backhanded shyt? Correct -- with one big name left off your list: "The president wants to know everything we are doing." Page to Strzok text 3
njbuff Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Correct -- with one big name left off your list: "The president wants to know everything we are doing." Page to Strzok text Trump was called a liar from the get-go when he said this. Big shock there. 1
B-Man Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 ONLY TEN? Ten Ways The Democrats’ Own Impeachment Witnesses Destroyed Their Case Against Trump. . 3
njbuff Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: ONLY TEN? Ten Ways The Democrats’ Own Impeachment Witnesses Destroyed Their Case Against Trump. . Someone told me Democrats can only count to ten. I don't wanna believe that. Is that true? ?
keepthefaith Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 58 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...LMAO....I'm a conservative leaning Independent.....but I've already blown my Depends budget watching these fickle azzclowns clamoring for a "lightning rod to clean up the DC stench".....and NOW that he has arrived, it's "whoa....wait......we didn't mean this.....the swamp was just fine.....all is good....we have 535 with OUR interests as FIRST....yada yada..." ...effin hypocrites.......more chlorine please........... It would only take 5 people to make a big difference in DC. A pres and leaders of both parties in house and senate to make the decision to all work together on the big stuff. Most of the rest would fall in line. It would take this to be true over several presidential terms though. Trump's a deal maker, a transactional guy. The Dems don't realize it but as the minority party they could really take advantage of that and have an actual record to run on. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Stay away from china shops. Coronavirus???
Wacka Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Can’t wait for Tom Shalue(sp) to all do Schiff for brains and/or Biden on Greg Guttfeld’s show tonight. 1
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Capco said: New evidence can come to light during a trial. The trial can be postponed until a later date as new evidence is gathered (or for many other reasons). I believe it's called a continuance. This is not something that is just being made up on the spot by Democrats. Look, I get where you're coming from, but you're discussing this from the position of hindsight. I'll do this in Crayola. Bear with me. House decided Trump pulled a quid pro quo with Ukraine. House held deliberations, and paraded witnesses in to make their case to impeach Trump. House entered all of its evidence. They had so much evidence...'overwhelming' evidence, according to Schiff...that the House voted to impeach. Got me so far? So much OVERWHELMING evidence that they moved to impeach and take it to the Senate. You can not deny any of this up to this point. Now, they take the evidence from the House deliberations and present it to the Senate so they, too, will vote to impeach based on, again, what Schiff called "overwhelming" evidence. After a few days of presenting their evidence, pretty much the entire world realized that the House genuinely has no evidence. You can not deny any of THIS up to this point. If you think I'm wrong, then you can present US with the overwhelming evidence that no one showed this week. So House has overwhelming evidence, makes it case, and evidence turns out to be so bad that you are NOW suggesting that maybe new evidence can come to light during the trial????? If they need new evidence, why didn't they wait to impeach until that new evidence showed up? You see the flaw in your thinking now? So easy even a caveman can understand it. 11 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Capco said: Only in Trumplandia does the omission of information create a clearer picture. Please elaborate. If your perspective is that acquiescence to the demands of your enemy equates to creating a “clearer picture”, you haven’t paid attention to the political history of our country. The only information that needs to be provided is that which leads to the successful resolution of the senate trial, and that which results in the quickest verdict in favor of the President.
Chef Jim Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 30 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: It would only take 5 people to make a big difference in DC. A pres and leaders of both parties in house and senate to make the decision to all work together on the big stuff. ????? No really.... ?????
Foxx Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Capco said: @Deranged Rhino Yes. I'd like to see all pertinent evidence brought forth, for both the prosecution and the defense, including the OIG testimony and witnesses. As you say, this is tearing the country apart and it needs to be resolved one way or another so we can mend these wounds. But that mending can only happen if both sides are open to both possibilities. When the Democrats make mental gymnastics to beat around the bush a lot of people here cry foul, but when the Republicans do it the same folks jump through the same mental hoops lock, stock, and barrel. Let them make their cases with all the evidence at their disposal, both prosecution and defense. Neither side should make political moves to prevent information from being brought forth and yet both sides are doing it. But when I try to point out those mental gymnastics I just get called an idiot lol. let's try this one more time. since it appears that you refuse to spend the measly two hours watching the WHC initial defense (the first in this whole sham) that i recommended to you, to get you up to speed. i will give a brief synopsis. of which, will be interspersed with my own beliefs. the reasons why the White house did not comply with subpoenas from the House inquiry is essentially two fold. the first is that the White House claims that the inquiry was fraudulently conceived. the theory goes something like this (though, trust me, you would be better off listening to the lawyers explain it). the Constitution rests the burden of impeachment with the House, not one person within that house but rather, the House. so when Nancy proclaimed that the House was going to start an impeachment investigation, she was putting herself above the Constitution. again, it explicitly states (and makes sense), that the power lies with the House. so because the White House believes that the inquiry was ill conceived, any demands that emanate from it are non starters. this belief is strongly based in historical precedent, meaning that every other impeachment that has been undertaken, there has been a House vote to approve the inquiry. this did not happen with the current ridiculousness. one must ask why that is when this Congress took three previous votes to begin an impeachment inquiry of Trump (all of which had nothing to do with the current madness). House Res. 646 in December of '17 (it was killed by a vote to table of 58 to 364), House Res. 705 in January of '18 (it was killed by a vote to table of 66 to 355). and the most recent one before this fraudulently conceived one, House Res. 498 in July of '19 (it was killed by a vote to table of 95 to 332). all of these votes were strictly along partisan lines (meaning the only yes votes ever recorded were Democrat votes, not a single Republican ever voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. with this knowledge in mind, if one is being objective, the obvious question here is, why didn't they merely have another vote to follow historical precedent? after all, precedent practically mandates it, not to mention the wording of the Constitution where it puts the onus on the House and not one single individual. in fact, it was argued that a partisan impeachment was the founders greatest fear (exactly what we have now, today, right here). back to the question... why not simply have the vote? i mean, their claims to this day is that the evidence is overwhelming, surely the Democrats had the votes this time right? the reason why they didn't have the vote is because they were going to impeach him come hell or high water because they know they can't beat him at the voting booth and they didn't want to put certain Representatives in jeopardy as being on the record for having supported something they knew was a farce. if it went sideways or worse yet, south, they could be in great danger of losing control of the House. so they worked around that by having a vote to 'affirm the ongoing proceeding', several weeks after the ill conceived inquiry had already begun. this provided them cover of sorts for their votes and allowed them to proceed with their agenda. tangentially related here is, why didn't the Dems appoint a special council to do the investigation like the precedent set with Clinton's impeachment? because they knew there was no there there and as with the Mueller report, they couldn't control the outcome. by acting as the judge and jury, they hoped to effectively influence the executioner (the Senate) by controlling the narrative. secondly, there is the whole separation of powers thing. executive privilege has historical precedent all the way back to George Washington. there is good reason for it as well. in matters of foreign policy (and any and all policy for that matter), you can't have people talking about the Presidents innermost thoughts. they can't say how the President really feels about certain things. and there are yet multitudes of other reasoning here that just makes exposing executive thoughts, conversations and/or documents, not a great idea. part of what the White House is doing by claiming Executive Privilege is maintaining that historical precedent for all of the future Presidents to come. just as it was preserved for this current Administration by the previous ones. now, whenever there is a dispute between two branches of government, the proper remedy is the third branch of government. the Dems did not want to take this route. when Bolton's aide was subpoenaed, he asked the court to rule on the validity of the subpoena. the Dems immediately pulled the subpoena. again, if one is being completely objective, they ask themselves why they did that. by most appearances, it, at the very least seems an odd thing to do. i have my thoughts on why they did that but i'll save them for a bit latter in this little missive. lastly here, once again is precedent. you will hear the Democrats say, we had witnesses at Clinton's Impeachment trial in the Senate. while that is true, there were no new witnesses. every witness that was called had previously testified. so, if the Democrat's request for the witnesses they want are granted, this would be setting new precedent, as they would be ones that have not previously testified. precedent is huge in Congress. oh, one other here is that this is not a court of law but rather a political court and there are differences. the Democrats are playing a dangerous game though. if they get votes to call witnesses they would like there is no guarantee that they will testify. and if they testify, they could be very limited in what they could and couldn't say. whereas, the witnesses the Republicans would want called, would not be afforded the same protections. it has the potential to go south on the Dems real fast. calling the whistle blower, Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would certainly have the potential of open a can of whoopass on them in short order, further exposing things they would rather not have put out into the open. with all of that being said... i too am on record here as wanting to see this venue used to bring it all out. let's just lay all the cards on the table and let them fall where they may. lets have the only ones left standing be those who are not dirty (though that may be a dangerous ask because there may be no one left standing (of which i would not be entirely disappointed with either)). i believe we are being presented with a golden opportunity here. we have the chance of a lifetime. to undercut the rampant graft that has infested the host, we need to seize upon the opportunity. to get a real good start on it, in one fell swoop, would be utilizing the situation that presents itself before us right ***** now. bring it all in, air it all out and kill all the dirty players (when i say kill, i don't mean to literally kill anyone, that is not for me to say but rather, to remove them from political life). i have been waiting most of my entire adult life for the time we now find ourselves in. i always thought it a fantasy that i would ever see a true reckoning and while it is not guaranteed that we will see that reckoning, it is closer to reality than at any time in the last 200 years. i like to think that even if we miss this chance, that it won't matter. they are never going to be able to put the paste back in the tube. look at the state of the world, humanity is rising in almost every corner. i believe that there was a powder keg in many places just waiting to be lit. did i think one man could change the entire world? he has. Edited January 25, 2020 by Foxx 5 2 2
snafu Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 3 hours ago, Foxx said: and here you have it, the prepared Dem talking point that i see being parroted everywhere. did we really think it would be a different card? https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1221134040994066432 This is a false premise. The WH lawyers didn’t do anything more than show how Schiff & co. cherry picked their own evidence. WH lawyers just did the simple job of using the House’s own evidence to disprove theis own case. There’s really no reason for more evidence to be brought forward if the record is clear that there’s nothing to impeach the President over. Schumer it twisting the presentation, but I suppose that was inevitable. 3 1
B-Man Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, snafu said: This is a false premise. The WH lawyers didn’t do anything more than show how Schiff & co. cherry picked their own evidence. WH lawyers just did the simple job of using the House’s own evidence to disprove theis own case. There’s really no reason for more evidence to be brought forward if the record is clear that there’s nothing to impeach the President over. Schumer it twisting the presentation, but I suppose that was inevitable. Exactly. They would have used the "see we need witnesses" spin no matter what Trump's team had said. That was the planned narrative. . 3
snafu Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 3 hours ago, Capco said: Only in Trumplandia does the omission of information create a clearer picture. Do you need a clearer picture? Have you not formed an opinion based on the picture painted by days and days of House hearings and 21 hours of summary? If you need more, don’t you think it was the House’s job to get more? 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Exactly. They would have used the "see we need witnesses" spin no matter what Trump's team had said. That was the planned narrative. . Yup. Because they want to be able to run 2020 ads against "vulnerable" GOP Senators who are "guilty of a cover-up". If they can't beat Trump at the ballot box (which they can't, and they know it), then they can try to take the Senate away from him (all fair) and/or delegitimize his second term (unfairly/despicably so).
Recommended Posts