MetoliusAg said:Wow.Bo Darville said:
Why do you defer so much respect for these government scum? Government service at the federal level, save for the military, should never be seen as noble.
You've got some serious issues, Bo, if you truly view American patriots like Taylor, Yovanovitch, and Kent that way.
This is absolutely undeniable and what really infuriates me about the entire thing. Media bias and double standards for Democrat politicians will be our downfall. It's shameful that any ag would support such blatant hypocrisy.titan said:Modified slightly. (bold)Red Rover said:MetoliusAg said:
This impeachment investigation isn't a POTUS election; it's about the rule of law.
Does the fact they have been calling for impeachment before [sworn in - in Jan 2017!] these phone calls were made make you at least consider for a moment that this may be entirely political? Does Russian accusations and a multi-year investigation that turned up nothing criminal do that? What about Kavanaugh and the political circus they pulled there?
I don't understand how after the endless sham accusations anyone can believe Washington Democrats when they accuse anyone of anything.
Yes, It is baffling --- it makes one despair of actually getting common ground when it can't be seen what a pre-determined set-up it has all been ---- President Trump may have even done something wrong, but its not something that would have brought this if he was a Democrat President.
MetoliusAg said:That depends on what new information today's two closed session witnesses produced.Quote:
And chances of senate removal rise to 0.0% up from 0.0%.
Do you really think a GOP Senate majority can afford the political risk of condoning bribery? The Constitution specifically spells out bribery as a cause for impeachment and removal from office.
Gary Johnson said:aggiehawg said:Actually agree with you that Castor was a huge failure. He sucks as an effective cross examiner.Quote:
I felt sorry for Castor on Wednesday and again today. He's a smart, competent attorney, but the facts are 99% against the side he's on. Can't make bread when you have no flour, yeast, or water.
I thought Castor was good. Played good cop to the R pit bulls and didn't come off hostile. He has nothing to work with.
Your musings about the rule of law ring hollow when you refuse to hold your politicians to the same standard. It also doesn't help that the Democrats are hypocritical liars of the highest order.MetoliusAg said:This impeachment investigation isn't a POTUS election; it's about the rule of law.aggieforester05 said:MetoliusAg said:That depends on what new information today's two closed session witnesses produced.Quote:
And chances of senate removal rise to 0.0% up from 0.0%.
Do you really think a GOP Senate majority can afford the political risk of condoning bribery? The Constitution specifically spells out bribery as a cause for impeachment and removal from office.
Not much of a risk when their opponents are morally and ethically bankrupt on top of having devastatingly horrible policy positions. Nobody with a conscience is going to suddenly change their vote for those bottom feeding scum bags in the Democrat party. Try voting for someone worth a bucket of piss and then maybe your side will finally offer a good alternative.
And frankly the R's have a better shot at winning 2020 Potus election with Nikki Haley.
Gary Johnson said:
WTF
What rule of law is being violated there? Deat's link certainly shows what seems to be the `money quote' of the deposition today.Deats said:
EOT
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B45r4UMgcCA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Oh, so there is some kind of prior row there. Okay. Well, that speech at the Federalist has many facts, not just opinions. He doesn't have to like him to evaluate what saying.Quote:
Met absolutely despises Barr for blowing up his years if talking points in regards to the Mueller hoax.
That sort of is the whole EOT about the whole matter. And none of the two or three pro-impeachers on the thread have once answered that dilemma which is so clear cut. Like said, if first decade it was to choose Bush43 with some known crimes at Gitmo or such (make up one) or Bin Laden to rule --- well, still no contest.agsalaska said:
This is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.
Why would I support the Democrats?
You aren't missing anything other than this. The so-called smear campaign against her began with the Prosecutor General Lutshenko, not Rudy. It was Lutshenko who told Rudy that Yovanovitch told him there were Americans and Ukrainian businessmen with American connections who were off-limits for him to investigate or prosecute.YouBet said:
I'm sure y'all covered this, but I listened to the former ambassador quite a bit on Friday and I'm confused as to why she was testifying?
All I heard was a bunch of pissing and moaning about the lack of respect she seems to think she's getting? I heard nothing at all about the issue at hand.
DukeMu said:Sondland can't find the volume button?Gary Johnson said:
WTF
I saw that. It was an eyeroll. But there is plenty of mis-information being passed around by tweets on both sides. I am aware there is an off-the rails element on the right too. Looking currently more at the macro picture.MetoliusAg said:
Titan: btw, here's a twitter thread you **might** find [alarming / educational / revealing] in regard to the mentality and deductive capabilities of the pro-Trump "Deep State Coup" conspiracy-believing rightwing.
So, your point? There is no law, statute or constitutional implication that these numbers any sort of quota has to be maintained. Again please state the law or statuate that says a President cannot remove an ambassador or any other head of an EXECUTIVE BRANCH dept at 'their pleasure'?Quote:
Historically since WW2 about 30% of US ambassadors usually are political appointees in each administration. The other 70% are chosen from career professional State Dept. employees, people like Taylor and Yovanovitch.
MetoliusAg said:
Titan: btw, here's a twitter thread you **might** find [alarming / educational / revealing] in regard to the mentality and deductive capabilities of the pro-Trump "Deep State Coup" conspiracy-believing rightwing.
He also had just stated the President couldn't hire and fire who every he wants constitutionally. This was part of his answer. Again, no law, statuate or constitutional implication that the president does not have absolute authority to pick or remover any Executive branch dept head as they so see fit.Quote:
Historically since WW2 about 30% of US ambassadors usually are political appointees in each administration. The other 70% are chosen from career professional State Dept. employees, people like Taylor and Yovanovitch.
Quote:
There's a recording of this, right? Or Sondland will confirm what the aide said, right?
You morons do see how this falls apart because it's both hearsay and he said/he said...
Gary Johnson said:Quote:
There's a recording of this, right? Or Sondland will confirm what the aide said, right?
You morons do see how this falls apart because it's both hearsay and he said/he said...
Two direct witnesses, not hearsay. I bet Sondland gets his memory "jogged" again on Wednesday. The only morons here are the ones sticking their head in the sand.
What about the one's *****ing, crying, and calling for impeachment because Trump tried investigating the extreme corruption and election interference committed by Democrats?Gary Johnson said:Quote:
There's a recording of this, right? Or Sondland will confirm what the aide said, right?
You morons do see how this falls apart because it's both hearsay and he said/he said...
Two direct witnesses, not hearsay. I bet Sondland gets his memory "jogged" again on Wednesday. The only morons here are the ones sticking their head in the sand.
