Watching Shiffy, Nadler, and the Motley Crew press conference this morning
Comments
-
I don't even know where to begin with this...coming from you. You can't have it both ways with the constitution...CirrhosisDawg said:
This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.CirrhosisDawg said:
Why does trump’s impeachment that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?Swaye said:
If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.CirrhosisDawg said:So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?
This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution. -
You’re confused frequently.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I don't even know where to begin with this...coming from you. You can't have it both ways with the constitution...CirrhosisDawg said:
This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.CirrhosisDawg said:
Why does trump’s impeachment that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?Swaye said:
If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.CirrhosisDawg said:So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?
This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution. -
You keep believing and smoking those poles. Any normal human being would tell the caller to fuck off and die if they even bothered to answer the solicitation. Only freaks like you answer and respond.CirrhosisDawg said:
Support for trump’s impeachment is approximately 50%Swaye said:I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.
Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.
Trump’s approval rating is approximately 40%
Then again, you’ve proudly proclaimed for years now that you’re an idiot. -
Do you know any normal human beings?DuckHHunterisafag said:
You keep believing and smoking those poles. Any normal human being would tell the caller to fuck off and die if they even bothered to answer the solicitation. Only freaks like you answer and respond.CirrhosisDawg said:
Support for trump’s impeachment is approximately 50%Swaye said:I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.
Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.
Trump’s approval rating is approximately 40%
Then again, you’ve proudly proclaimed for years now that you’re an idiot. -
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any? -
Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.
If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it. -
@allpurpleallgold @TheKobeStopper @TierbsHsotBoobsCirrhosisDawg said:Swaye said:I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.
Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.
Btw, neither you nor any other trumptard has defined tds. What is it? -
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts". -
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts". -
huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it...sad.Bendintheriver said:
Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.
If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.
