Watergate style hearings, coming soon to a television near you.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Yes, I still think that there will not be a vote on articles of impeachment. I am pretty accurate with my predictions. More accurate than your dumbass since 2016
There may be a silly vote today, but it isn't articles of impeachment. Let's be clear on that.
Now, I am sure you will say "Yeah, but we don't need that" to spin you way out of it
But, for weeks you said you didn't even need the vote they are supposedly having today, yet here we are.
Let me know when there are actual articles of impeachment. You say they don't need a crime, so they should do this already. What is there to investigate if a crime isn't needed? Investigations are for crimes right?
I agree this is not what your second prediction was about, but its a step closer. Todays vote is unnecessary, but hey, Repuks demanded it and it did not hurt to give it to them... so Happy Birthday.
IT will be done, after the proper procedure, 1) Investigate 2) Present findings to the public 3) Impeach.
This isn't the vote Republicans are demanding. Why lie again?
On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”. Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”.
Oh geeze! Affirming an inquiry. Where is the Special Counsel who is investigating Trump? Oh, that's right. He's already been investigated for two years so now the clown show thinks it can concoct it's own bullshit and impeach.
Leftists are certainly the dumbest morons on the planet.
OldMercsRule
Verified User
He has been under intense pressure from the CIA, FBI, Mueller, the dim wit Democrat/Marxist media, (ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, NYT, WP), and the fools in the dim wit Democrat Political party. That pressure has led to miss steps on Trump's part. SO WHAT?
Trump will crush the dim wit Democrats/Marxists in 2020.
OldMercsRule
Verified User
It is all the "opinions of deep state swamp dwellers" Who gives a fuck about their opinions. We can read the transcript ourselves. You must not be very smart. burp.
OldMercsRule
Verified User
Tell me what the Manifesto says, please. You are lying, as you know. Nobody as thick as your goodself could read the first pages of Capital, as you know. All the rest is the usual illiterate peasant gibber. Ask you masters to kick you back up the tree, there's a good monkey!
Fuck you.
Which pressure source led to all of these missteps?
And these...
And these are not even up to date.
@"Trump’s Russia Ties"Darth Omar
Russian asset
Learn to be more circumspect lol.
There are too many things to list that could go wrong for democrats with this if I was cheering for it.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I don’t actually watch Fox with any regularity and haven’t had Rush on in my car radio since I don’t know when because I rarely have anything on but Pandora while driving lol.
I consume 99% of news online. But I saw on Twitter where Chris Wallace [one of Fox’s star commentators] got ‘goose bumps’ over the democrats ‘historic’ kinda/sorta Impeachment vote. I simply can’t conceive of one of Wallace’s counterparts on CNN being similarly affected by some positive Trump development.
Maybe you can show me an example.
OMG
another Chris Matthews with "tingling up the leg?"
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Pretty much.
I saw it the other day but didn’t save it. Apart from the ‘rah-rah’ [pundits are never without their biases but they should at least try to keep the pretense going] thing, what a stupid thing to say. The vote was ‘historic’ only in the sense it’s essentially meaningless.
It’s still Schiff's hearing; he still calls all the shots etc.
My amateur pundit impression is that Thursday was a ‘test vote’ for Pelosi—she wanted to stick her toe in the water before she takes a dive into the deep end of the pool. And what she discovered was that the vote broke along party lines. That tells her she has a good chance of sending impeachment to the senate.
But what then? Another party line vote? A loss in the Senate is a victory for Trump and republicans. Maybe Chris Wallace would cry on TV, idk lol. But I don’t see what democrats hope to gain with this.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
The reds are getting what they asked for and they will still bitch. All these people who testified in front of Dems and Repubs will do so again and all can see it. You just know it will prove to all that Trump's phone call was perfect. Perfect? Who talks like that? That is a high level that he imposed all by himself.
Day after day Trumps' made up defenses will corrode. The truth will come out.
You guys will not accept it, no matter what. It is for open-minded and fair people.
Day after day Trumps' made up defenses will corrode. The truth will come out.
You guys will not accept it, no matter what. It is for open-minded and fair people.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
I gave up on commercial radio long ago myself. Too many annoying commercials, not enough real content. I prefer public radio and NPR, or I simply listen to good music on CD's so I can concentrate on my number one focus while driving: safety. That is only logical because the number one danger most Americans face is still death on the highway.
I've been wondering what this recently popular term meant. So I looked it up:
"The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Counsellors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, "star chambers". This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings." (wiki)
It makes sense that Republicans would use the term in hopes of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the US House of Representatives proceedings, which are in accordance with our great Constitution, because Trump has no substance of a defense.
I couldn't tell you about CNN because I don't watch it. I like PBS, BBC, DW, and NHK. I also learn quite a bit from posting here at JPP because I spend as much time researching the things I read and post as I do actually posting. I also go online to research stories I hear on my preferred radio or TV sources. If a story is online at a reputable major media source (I do not consider Fox to be reputable) I expect those stories to be far more credible than the small outlier sources which have a known political agenda. If a source is unheard of to me, then I research that source to learn if they are recognized as reputable or if they have a known political agenda such as Fox. If there is an agenda then I consider the reporting to be propaganda.
I gave up on commercial radio long ago myself. Too many annoying commercials, not enough real content. I prefer public radio and NPR, or I simply listen to good music on CD's so I can concentrate on my number one focus while driving: safety. That is only logical because the number one danger most Americans face is still death on the highway.
I've been wondering what this recently popular term meant. So I looked it up:
"The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Counsellors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, "star chambers". This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings." (wiki)
It makes sense that Republicans would use the term in hopes of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the US House of Representatives proceedings, which are in accordance with our great Constitution, because Trump has no substance of a defense.
I couldn't tell you about CNN because I don't watch it. I like PBS, BBC, DW, and NHK. I also learn quite a bit from posting here at JPP because I spend as much time researching the things I read and post as I do actually posting. I also go online to research stories I hear on my preferred radio or TV sources. If a story is online at a reputable major media source (I do not consider Fox to be reputable) I expect those stories to be far more credible than the small outlier sources which have a known political agenda. If a source is unheard of to me, then I research that source to learn if they are recognized as reputable or if they have a known political agenda such as Fox. If there is an agenda then I consider the reporting to be propaganda.
So lying about the reasons for a meeting that was meant to solicit dirt on a political opponent from a foreign power is a big no-no.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You have it all figured out. I guess all we can do is wait for Nancy to have a vote on articles of impeachment. Maybe Trump can cut taxes or start a war before that happens? What do you think?
Why would Trump need to cut taxes? I thought the last tax cut was the best ever.
Also, he's never going to get a tax cut through Pelosi's House.
Start a war? Nah...he won't start a war, he'll just give everything to his autocrat friends.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
As always, you have it all figgered out
You did it again
Kudos sir. Can't get anything by you