TripleSec said:

---

Agree, but she hasn't yet. So what do y'all think about his suspicions.? She's schedule another hearing for Monday... What in the world will they actually talk about?

No vote yet. He also said she's losing the votes because she's trying to tie Russia obstruction to an article of impeachment.

---

Mueller was a disaster as a witness the first time. He's not cheese or wine that improves over time.

Side note: Hoping it is a cold but I got a flu shot Wednesday and I don't have the best history with those. Hoping this is just a blip reaction and nothing worse. I am doing very poorly now. Will take some meds and hopefully sleep all night.

If you are stupid enough to believe Trump posts his own tweets, you should lose your "industry" job, have your CPA license revoked and send your degree back to wherever you ordered it from.

It's well known he doesn't type, he dictates. It's what dictators do. But back on point, there was a tweet this week that was posted in the middle of a live press conference.

He also doesn't pick up a phone and call people, nor does anyone just call him. Refer to testimony from the "overheard" call when ambassador very clearly says he had to hold for president when president called him.

But yeah, you got him using his iPhone and lying about it. If you think his calls aren't triple cleared to ensure he knows who and where he is speaking to a person, that his tweets are off the cuff and not reviewed by lawyers and advisors, you are just again... stupid.

Meant to quote Jimmy the Dumb post.

TripleSec said:

---

So let's get back to real discussion. Heard on Rush today that he thinks Pelosi no longer has the votes. What do you think?

---

Yep, I heard that too. It's a disaster for them. Just keep feeding the rope.

When it's said that they do not have the votes, is it intending that they do not have a majority of votes or that they do not have basically unanimous dem votes? In other words, will they back away from a vote if let's say more than 5 to 10 dems vote no, effectively sending the opposite signal that the no side is bipartisan and the yes said is only clearly partisan? Seems like a lower and more probable bar that could be met.

Quote:

---

Side note: Hoping it is a cold but I got a flu shot Wednesday and I don't have the best history with those. Hoping this is just a blip reaction and nothing worse. I am doing very poorly now. Will take some meds and hopefully sleep all night.

---

The flu shot can't give you the flu (it's a dead virus) but it can make you feel lousy for a few days as it triggers an immune response, especially the high dose version.

Hopefully you didn't actually pick up a flu virus from someone because the vaccine takes 2 weeks to provide protection. If you still feel bad tomorrow, get to the doctor right away for a prescription of Tamiflu or Xofluza before the 48 hour window passes, assuming a flu test comes back positive.

Rush doesn't think Pelosi has the votes. Well take that to the bank.

flown-the-coop said:

---

When it's said that they do not have the votes, is it intending that they do not have a majority of votes or that they do not have basically unanimous dem votes? In other words, will they back away from a vote if let's say more than 5 to 10 dems vote no, effectively sending the opposite signal that the no side is bipartisan and the yes said is only clearly partisan? Seems like a lower and more probable bar that could be met.

---

They don't unanimous support. At least two Democrats are a firm no, and another seems to be a likely no at this point.

They do have one independent who hates Trump who will vote yes, but no Republican voters.

The real question is how many of the Democrats in districts which are majority Republican are willing to lose their seat in 2020 by voting yes and no one except Pelosi really knows the answer.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

---

part of the problem.

Not a real Ag, just an employee

Fire her.

---

You are calling for the firing of a Texas A&M professor because she has a different viewpoint than you?

---

No, he's calling for her firing because she is deranged. Something you may be to familiar with too recognize.

flown-the-coop said:

---

When it's said that they do not have the votes, is it intending that they do not have a majority of votes or that they do not have basically unanimous dem votes? In other words, will they back away from a vote if let's say more than 5 to 10 dems vote no, effectively sending the opposite signal that the no side is bipartisan and the yes said is only clearly partisan? Seems like a lower and more probable bar that could be met.

---

If the "Yes" vote to impeach went straight down party lines, it would be considered a partisan or political impeachment. If a few dems cross over and vote "No" with the Republicans, the "No" vote would be considered bipartisan.

TripleSec said:

---

So let's get back to real discussion. Heard on Rush today that he thinks Pelosi no longer has the votes. What do you think?

---

I heard him say either last week or early this week that his sources tell him she only has 218 (the exact minimum number she needs). I'm betting that number is a few less by today.

LoL!

Sine poena nulla lex.

Sine poena nulla lex.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Y'all are very obsessed with socks

---

No it's just a chicken **** way to post. Make a bunch of claims and when it doesn't happen change usernames so the poster doesn't have to face how wrong they were.

Read pre-election threads or Blow Job Ford threads. Hell read the mueller threads where people were sure Trump was getting arrested.

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you are stupid enough to believe Trump posts his own tweets, you should lose your "industry" job, have your CPA license revoked and send your degree back to wherever you ordered it from.

It's well known he doesn't type, he dictates. It's what dictators do. But back on point, there was a tweet this week that was posted in the middle of a live press conference.

He also doesn't pick up a phone and call people, nor does anyone just call him. Refer to testimony from the "overheard" call when ambassador very clearly says he had to hold for president when president called him.

But yeah, you got him using his iPhone and lying about it. If you think his calls aren't triple cleared to ensure he knows who and where he is speaking to a person, that his tweets are off the cuff and not reviewed by lawyers and advisors, you are just again... stupid.

Meant to quote Jimmy the Dumb post.

---

No reason to argue. I pointed out how his post proved nothing and bad in turn ignored it.

Quote:

---

It's what dictators do.

---

Trump is a dictator?

SMH...

Just so folks know, the posted on "Twitter for iPhone" is meaningless. That can easily be faked. Developers fake their devices all the time to bug test stuff. There's a Chrome extension that lets you load web pages as different devices, iPhone being one of the options.

Point being, Trump could be using a secure phone that's faking being an iPhone (maybe even a special iPhone made for the POTUS) . He could have someone else posting tweets for him. He could be posting from a custom PC based web browser made to look like an iPhone.

Do you really think trump just walked into the store and picked an iPhone off the rack? Plus the previously posted article said Trump was fond of Android, so he is obviously doing something different, and most likely secure.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Just so folks know, the posted on "Twitter for iPhone" is meaningless. That can easily be faked. Developers fake their devices all the time to bug test stuff. There's a Chrome extension that lets you load web pages as different devices, iPhone being one of the options.

Point being, Trump could be using a secure phone that's faking being an iPhone (maybe even a special iPhone made for the POTUS) . He could have someone else posting tweets for him. He could be posting from a custom PC based web browser made to look like an iPhone.

Do you really think trump just walked into the store and picked an iPhone off the rack? Plus the previously posted article said Trump was fond of Android, so he is obviously doing something different, and most likely secure.

---

Good post.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/for-national-security-trump-trades-in-phone-for-secret-service-approved-device/

---

Given what has happened over the course of the past three years, including Spygate, do you really think Trump is running around with an unsecured phone?? Has it occurred to you that he may have more than one phone?

MaroonStain said:

---

Quote:

---

It's what dictators do.

---

Trump is a dictator?

SMH...

---

If he becomes a dictator, I would still vote for him and contribute to his re-election. Just sayin...

Is it possible to have an iPhone to tweet with and call friends and family AND have a secure government phone?

flown-the-coop said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

Quote:

---

It's what dictators do.

---

Trump is a dictator?

SMH...

---

If he becomes a dictator, I would still vote for him and contribute to his re-election. Just sayin...

---

Also dictators are always pretty fond of having democratic elections. Just saying.

Austin Ag said:

---

Is it possible to have an iPhone to tweet with and call friends and family AND have a secure government phone?

---

I would hope that if Trump talks to himself on the poop throne it would be considered secure and put on the code word server. Dems have put the Miranda on him with anything he says can and will be used against him in the court of fakenews.

Reminds of LBJ? Who essentially conducted staff meetings while having his daily constitutional.

I work for a government agency. We all have secure iPhones given to us on that run on FirstNet and have a special vpn to protect sensitive information. I am sure Trump has something similar.

You can have Twitter downloaded on it as well.

will25u said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

Quote:

---

It's what dictators do.

---

Trump is a dictator?

SMH...

---

If he becomes a dictator, I would still vote for him and contribute to his re-election. Just sayin...

---

Also dictators are always pretty fond of having democratic elections. Just saying.

---

Oh just stop... You two sound like complete fools with the dictator schtick. Wow...

MaroonStain said:

---

will25u said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

Quote:

---

It's what dictators do.

---

Trump is a dictator?

SMH...

---

If he becomes a dictator, I would still vote for him and contribute to his re-election. Just sayin...

---

Also dictators are always pretty fond of having democratic elections. Just saying.

---

Oh just stop... You two sound like complete fools with the dictator schtick. Wow...

---

Aww... We're just trying to have a little FUN!

This thread has almost completely gone off the rails.

will25u said:

---

---

Shokin has access to the transcripts of calls between Biden and Poroshenko?

Knowing how Biden speaks off the cuff so much of the time, there could be some unmined gold in those.

If any of this was true Shokin would have saved his job with it 4 years ago. All of you getting your hopes up are getting played by Giuliani/Solomon who are getting played by the Russian mob and KGB. Have fun with it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

If any of this was true Shokin would have saved his job with it 4 years ago. All of you getting your hopes up are getting played by Giuliani/Solomon who are getting played by the Russian mob and KGB. Have fun with it.

---

LOL. That is quite comical. Shokin couldn't save his job no matter how egregious Biden's conduct was. If all that was standing between Poroshenko and a billion dollars was Shokin, Shokin gets sacked every time.

---

Another clue is the fact that Rudy is prosecuting these alleged crimes on Social Media instead of, you know, in our justice system. He's a former US Attorney that knows doing this could impact an actual case against them. Real crimes are usually addressed by saying, "sorry I can't comment about the details of an ongoing investigation."

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Another clue is the fact that Rudy is prosecuting these alleged crimes on Social Media instead of, you know, in our justice system. He's a former US Attorney that knows doing this could impact an actual case against them. Real crimes are usually addressed by saying, "sorry I can't comment about the details of an ongoing investigation."

---

Wrong. It is DOJ policy to not comment. Rudy is not with DOJ. He's a private attorney with a client. In the absence of a judicial gag order, he can say what he wants.

Just like Sidney Powell is doing on the Flynn case.

---

Sydney Powell is a defense attorney. Rudy Giuliani is the personal attorney of the man who oversees the DOJ.