It's not a crime to be as dumb as he is, I agree. But he ignores the people who know better telling him to stop embarrassing himself.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Got caught? Lol. How are you gonna make it after he gets re-elected?

---

Doubt it happens but I'll be fine. Here's a nugget you won't be able to process. If Warren is the dem nominee I'll vote for Trump and post proof.

---

Looks more like it will happen, but don't blame you about Warren. Just can't see her making it to nominee.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Right....... Forget about 2017 and 2018.

Here's some more dates.

September 9th Trump gets caught
September 10th Bolton resigns
September 11th aid released
September 12th Zelensky cancels CNN interview


No mention of rada elections, no mention of legislative reforms, no mention of the 20 or 30 cases of greater importance than Burisma. He was only interested in a fictional piece of computer hardware and his perceived political opponent.

---

False, him and zelensky talk about "draining the swamp" and general corruption.

The dems also haven't cracked into the actual "unofficial" back channel to prove the intent of trump. They are working on the speculation of tangential witnesses that can't even say with confidence the Burisma/Crowdstrike was directly tied to military aid in conversations with Ukraine.

So you have speculation and press releases. Strong case.

TDS is the great equalizer. It makes it difficult for even the most moderate of moderates to have a grasp on common sense.

Gary has been pretending to be a "libertarian" while consistently maintaining a hard left profile on this forum. He pretends to be for free trade but only to the extent his positions are always 100% anti-trump, so he thinks (or his handlers think) it gives him street cred.

He will either not post or post mild support for hardcore socialist or communist ideas to hide his true identity. Not sure if he's a paid troll or not, but sure seems that way.

GCP12 said:

---

Obstruction is the new go to, apparently

Step 1: open investigation into Trump over BS
Step 2: Trump fights back against BS investigation
Step 3: "OBSTRUCTION!"

---

God so much this........

With Mueller, he was apparently obstructing special counsels ability to find evidence of a crime that even they say did not exist. Now with this impeachment crap he is obstructing a branch of government trying to (1) criminalize how he executed an Article II power* and (2) while violating 4th amendment rights afforded to an average citizen.

This is what the judiciary branch is for. Send it to the supreme court, if they see it as obstruction, he would be forced to comply. If he didn't, then you have your obstruction. At this point, Trump and his lawyers are doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD. Trying to protect the Office of the President and stand up for the separation of powers. The congress doesn't get to rule all.....co-equal branches of government.

* based on their "story" of what his motives were regardless of any direct evidence of the fact. Funny how the US and Ukraine Presidents both say it wasn't true, but by damn it was, yet we see Peter ****ing Strzok says he wasn't lead by political bias and there was no bias. Give me a break.

FriscoKid said:

---

Someone is going to look really silly when all the facts come out.

---

I pointed out some facts to you and you said you didn't care.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Someone is going to look really silly when all the facts come out.

---

I pointed out some facts to you and you said you didn't care.

---

The sun is shining on my house right now. That's a fact. It's also as irrelevant as your Google facts were.

Seem to have missed your thoughts on the IG report and spying. Just curious if your political interest is only impeachment

Quote:

---

The first signs of trouble ahead for newly elected so-called moderate representatives in swing districts are being felt here in Virginia's 7th District.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger hopped on the moderate train in 2018, touting her CIA background ad nauseam to the people of the traditionally Republican 7th District. With the help of millions of dollars from pro-abortion PACs and Soros-funded outfits, volunteers from Northern Virginia spread out over the western and southwestern suburbs of Richmond to give her a slim margin of victory over Republican Dave Brat. But Spanberger's cover as an across-the-aisle moderate is not holding up well under the pressure of an impeachment hoax and a newly elected majority-Democrat Legislature.

Up until this past weekend, Spanberger's numerous town halls have been generally peaceful Q&As.

That all changed during Sunday's gathering at a middle school gym in Spotsylvania County.

---

Quote:

---

In one exchange with a member of the audience, Spanberger, the CIA officer, apparently didn't understand that here in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty.
"No one has dispelled or attempted to dispel or provide evidence that would exonerate the president," she said.

"Did you really say that? You have to prove you're innocent?" someone else responded.

---

LINK

This impeachment folly is not playing well.

Quote:

---

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that party leaders will apply no pressure on rank-and-file members to support the articles of impeachment against President Trump that are expected to hit the House floor next week.
While the Democratic Caucus is overwhelmingly supportive of the impeachment effort, several moderate Democrats are holding out ahead of the votes amid concerns that backing the effort might alienate voters in their battleground districts heading into the 2020 election.
Pelosi maintained on Thursday that the choice is entirely theirs to make.

"I have no message to them. We are not whipping this legislation, nor would we ever with something like this," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "They'll make their own decisions. I don't say anything to them."

---

LINK

First she's lying about not whipping the vote. She has 233 members. She needs 218 to pass impeachment. She has 31 members in red districts. She can't afford too many more defections besides the four or five already on record and still have it pass.

Only if he grabs the sky by the *****

It's 4:54 PM on December 12, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL your POTUS!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that party leaders will apply no pressure on rank-and-file members to support the articles of impeachment against President Trump that are expected to hit the House floor next week.
While the Democratic Caucus is overwhelmingly supportive of the impeachment effort, several moderate Democrats are holding out ahead of the votes amid concerns that backing the effort might alienate voters in their battleground districts heading into the 2020 election.
Pelosi maintained on Thursday that the choice is entirely theirs to make.

"I have no message to them. We are not whipping this legislation, nor would we ever with something like this," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "They'll make their own decisions. I don't say anything to them."

---

LINK

First she's lying about not whipping the vote. She has 233 members. She needs 218 to pass impeachment. She has 31 members in red districts. She can't afford too many more defections besides the four or five already on record and still have it pass.

---

It will be a bipartisan vote



To not impeach

I agree Rapier, but I'm more concerned about Policywonk98 considering throwing old men in prison or off a cliff due to lack of technological prowess! I'm glad "wonk" is tech skilled, because he's close to being an "old man", certainly an Old Ag!

I'm in REALLY big trouble!

ETA: Nadler pushed committee vote to Friday.

Guess they don't have the numbers

Haven't followed in a few days other than sniping texags. Just pulled up fox and they were talking about Britain's election, so I went to CNN. Don Lemon was railing on Republicans for stonewalling, trying to hide the vote in the middle of the night so nobody would ever hear about it, and insisted "black women... (and as an aside) and white women... they won't stand for this (aka implies sexist Trump)!"

They really are insane.

Meanwhile:

Swooosh.

After all this, they do not have the votes. It will be interesting to see if Pelosi can strong arm the reluctant Dems.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Meanwhile:

Swooosh.

---

Where were you when Obama did the Iranian deal? C'mon man. Have some integrity.

dermdoc said:

---

After all this, they do not have the votes. It will be interesting to see if Pelosi can strong arm the reluctant Dems.

---

What makes you think that?

A vote is never delayed when you have the votes.

dermdoc said:

---

After all this, they do not have the votes. It will be interesting to see if Pelosi can strong arm the reluctant Dems.

---

They have the votes to get it out of committee. All of the roll call votes show they are in lock step.

The question moves to whether Nancy is feeling the heat from her 31 members in Trump districts being hounded by their constituents. She can allow a few of them to vote no to impeachment on the House floor but not all of them. If she can't mollify enough of them to keep the number needed for the floor vote, does she then tell Nadler to nix it in committee?

Seriously doubt that she would but that might be her best play here. And by "best" I mean out of other crappy choices.

dermdoc said:

---

A vote is never delayed when you have the votes.

---

I sounds like he just wants more eyeballs on the vote. The networks can interrupt morning shows and cover it live and then talk about how bad this is for the president.

aggiehawg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

After all this, they do not have the votes. It will be interesting to see if Pelosi can strong arm the reluctant Dems.

---

They have the votes to get it out of committee. All of the roll call votes show they are in lock step.

The question moves to whether Nancy is feeling the heat from her 31 members in Trump districts being hounded by their constituents. She can allow a few of them to vote no to impeachment on the House floor but not all of them. If she can't mollify enough of them to keep the number needed for the floor vote, does she then tell Nadler to nix it in committee?

Seriously doubt that she would but that might be her best play here. And by "best" I mean out of other crappy choices.

---

Completely agree and was actually what I meant.

As Collins said, nadler and pelosi want a prime time "hit". Scum.