Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Open Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Starts 11/13


BrooklynGuy

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

The Ukraine situation is the reason behind Schiff's antics and the constant MSM smearing of Trump.

There is a very large and nasty monster of a story that lurks just beneath the surface here and Adam Schiff is up to his pencil-neck in the entire disgusting mess.

Much will be revealed in the coming months, but suffice to say that bribery and payoffs to Hunter Biden is only the tiniest bit of thread that is attached to much larger and much more hideous things.

Let's just say there will be shown to be an Epstein connection and CF too.

This rancid onion will be peeled slowly before the public.

You may as well throw Kennedy's real killers and the studio that faked the moon landing into the mix for good measure. Gotta get all those bases covered.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, acidhead said:

Classy

 

Wow that's how they're going to frame that huh? :lol:

Victim Mode : ACTIVATED!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You may as well throw Kennedy's real killers and the studio that faked the moon landing into the mix for good measure. Gotta get all those bases covered.

Not one of your better efforts.

Losing confidence much?

Lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Oh now c’mon, and then. As if Farmer or myself can “force” the senate to do anything. A secret vote is perfectly legal and worthy of general chit chat. You need to chill. Still my point remains. The board republicans are rattled at the though of a secret vote. A concept oddly that only the republican controlled senate can implement. 

It just seems extremely undemocratic to have elected officials vote in secret on the removal of a president.

Their decisions have to be public to voters. To be held accountable.

I try to be against the removal of checks and balances. 

It rattels me because I honestly hate the concept lol.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Classy

 

Yet another vile, confabulating Lefty whose face appears twisted and dissolute from lies and cynicism.

These societal aberrations are removing themselves from the gene-pool.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extra points for using confabulating, dissolute, and aberrations all in two sentences.

I didn't even use confabulating when I wrote my senior thesis.  Course it was about physics 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Dems are making a mistake by not putting the definition of the word THOUGH on a big white board in the hearings.  

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Much will be revealed in the coming months, but suffice to say that bribery and payoffs to Hunter Biden is only the tiniest bit of thread that is attached to much larger and much more hideous things.

Funny, I thought Barr was meant to have done that by now :sleepy:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You may as well throw Kennedy's real killers and the studio that faked the moon landing into the mix for good measure. Gotta get all those bases covered.

Disappointed you left out the lizards... 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Gaetz thought he was going to use one of the experts' words against him because he once wrote an article saying he was against impeachment.

The expert responded "that was before the Ukraine call" :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Setton said:

Disappointed you left out the lizards... 

Damn, they're usually my go-to theory for mockery as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

A secret vote is perfectly legal and worthy of general chit chat.

For citizens, I agree. For ELECTED representatives, nope.  Their only accountability to their constituencies is transparency in HOW they are representing them.  It isn't that difficult a concept.  Try to remember that what the Senate will be deciding is whether or not to remove the choice of 63 million Americans.  Just because you guys are mental in your hatred of him doesn't make it okay to change the Constitution...even if you were actual citizens here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It just seems extremely undemocratic to have elected officials vote in secret on the removal of a president.

Their decisions have to be public to voters. To be held accountable.

I try to be against the removal of checks and balances. 

It rattels me because I honestly hate the concept lol.

On the face I agree but for the sake of conversation if we think in worse case scenario terms I think it can be a viable option. 

In a worse case scenario say POTUS utilizes the power of the office to apply more than political pressure to ensure a compliant congress there must be a mechanism for the Congress to defend America. There would need to be an eventual release of the voting record for sure but done in a manner that ensures the reps. safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Setton said:

Funny, I thought Barr was meant to have done that by now :sleepy:

Oh, no.  Barr put Durham in charge of that and Durham will be very thorough.  I recall hearing that he is going to be revealing his report in increments so hopefully it won't take too much longer for the first one to arrive.  Barr is supposed to have made it clear that he disagreed with a primary conclusion that Horowitz has reached.  He has the authority to do just that, BTW.  The silliness I've seen here about IG's walking on water because they are supposedly non-partisan is just more of the same from the swamp supporters.  

If we find that Barr and Durham are both bent as well then you can crow.  UNTIL then, I'd hold off on going too far out on a limb.  

Of course, you guys are so transparent with you schemes that I can pretty much expose your reaction now.

IF indictments come down against any of the upper echelon you will repeat your media mantra about "revenge" for Impeachment or trying to "confuse the public" some nonsense as that.  The difference is that if Durham brings indictments he'll do it the old-fashioned way- AFTER collecting a preponderance of evidence so that the overwhelming likelihood is conviction.  So... if convictions occur you'll scream abuse of power or some other BS but screaming will be ALL you can do and you'll look pathetic while doing so :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bee said:

Has Schiff not heard of the saying.... United we stand divided we fall..

I'm sure he has heard it.  It's just that he is actually attempting to bring it about.  He and those like him are traitors.  He's on top of the world right now but if he accomplishes the goal he is working for, he'll find he also will be put at risk.  There will no longer be a "protected class" who are free to go about their business while the rest of us suffer.  He won't be stepping out in public , with or without bodyguards :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

On the face I agree but for the sake of conversation if we think in worse case scenario terms I think it can be a viable option. 

In a worse case scenario say POTUS utilizes the power of the office to apply more than political pressure to ensure a compliant congress there must be a mechanism for the Congress to defend America. There would need to be an eventual release of the voting record for sure but done in a manner that ensures the reps. safety. 

Elections, you're talking about elections. That's the mechanism. 

A compliant congressman should be voted out. If there is not enough public support to do that then the issue is with the public.

All I'm saying is dont destroy checks and balances on the way to defend them.

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Elections, you're talking about elections. That's the mechanism. 

If a POTUS has a compliant congress and DOJ there is no value in elections. Which is what I meant by protect America. 

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

All I'm saying is done destroy checks and balances and the way to defend them.

Agreed im just a worse case scenario tabletop exercise kind of guy

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If a POTUS has a compliant congress and DOJ there is no value in elections. Which is what I meant by protect America. 

Agreed im just a worse case scenario kind of guy 

I get where you are coming from.

But I could equally argue the point that in a worst case scenario, secret voting on impeachment is exactly what a authoritarian goverment would want. 

Makes it easier to rig a vote or for an vote an elected official to just go with the highest bidder. Because that elected official would be able to lie to the public about how he or she voted.

Idk if anyone will get this reference. But it would be like playing the game Secret Hitler :lol:

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

All I'm saying is dont destroy checks and balances on the way to defend them.

He - and others here - have made it abundantly clear that they'll applaud ANY ACTION that removes this president because they feel the end justifies the means.  

BTW - from Fox News coverage of the Judiciary committee farce:

Gaetz asks the witnesses to "Raise your hand" if they have "personal knowledge of a single fact" that confirms quid pro quo. No witness raises their hand.
 
Yet they sit there and continue to blather on about the justification for Impeaching this president.  Gaetz, Jordan, Collins and a couple of others have been workhorses in this time of trouble.  I'll be sending them a few bucks for their re-election campaigns
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, and then said:

He - and others here - have made it abundantly clear that they'll applaud ANY ACTION that removes this president because they feel the end justifies the means.  

BTW - from Fox News coverage of the Judiciary committee farce:

Gaetz asks the witnesses to "Raise your hand" if they have "personal knowledge of a single fact" that confirms quid pro quo. No witness raises their hand.
 
Yet they sit there and continue to blather on about the justification for Impeaching this president.  Gaetz, Jordan, Collins and a couple of others have been workhorses in this time of trouble.  I'll be sending them a few bucks for their re-election campaigns

They were there because of their constitutional expertise not because they had personal knowledge of the white houses actions :lol:

The question had literally zero relevance talk about disinformation yikes dude 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Gaetz asks the witnesses to "Raise your hand" if they have "personal knowledge of a single fact" that confirms quid pro quo. No witness raises their hand.

Just in case anyone missed it...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

The question had literally zero relevance

Did it have any relevance when it was asked of all the other witnesses?  They all answered NO to it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

The question had literally zero relevance

The question had all the relevance.

These people all claim that Trump committed an impeachable crime.  They said so.

It is highly relevant to then ask them if they have personal knowledge of the crime.  They don't.

This is what a "FARCE" is...in its purest form.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Did it have any relevance when it was asked of all the other witnesses?  They all answered NO to it as well.

Do you mean all the Constitutional experts today?  

Or do you mean the ones Trump will be impeached over not letting testify? 

Of course ther s gordland sondland surely you didn't mean him :lol:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sondland-was-there-a-quid-pro-quo-the-answer-is-yes/2019/11/20/34741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

 

 

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is ironic that the GOP 's best talking point, that no one has testified they schemed with POTUS in explicit language, in actuality will lead to an article of impeachment because those with that knowledge are refusing to testify due to the POTUS' request. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.