RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:16 PM)TripleA Wrote: You can't see the clock on TV. What you can see is that all the Dems talked until they said "I yield back my time," or finished their last question. Several of the Pubs got the time gavel. I'm sure only the Pubs overran the clock, right?.
And you still never answered my question about what you thought of Taylor's 4th or 5th or 6th hand knowledge of the phone call, and him being the prime witness on the first day.
I saw it on several occasions, but not all the time. But trust me, if Schiff cut off GYM or that Ratcliffe clown before their 5 minutes or before they yielded, you would have certainly heard them scream.
Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
Don't plan on ever getting an answer. He only comments on, or replies to, those things which he thinks will advance whatever the talking points he has been fed for that day.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2019 07:47 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
word up. the fact that he would be investigating a political "rival" is inconsequential
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
Radcliffe did ask this question. They both sat there and stared rather vacantly.
The question I wanted ask was “did you two meet at any time to coordinate your stories?” Those two acted a little to ‘friendly’ in my opinion. Taylor looking at Kent for approval several times made me feel ‘creepy’.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
I'm unsure why that isn't the current state of process...
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-13-2019 04:33 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)usmbacker Wrote: This clown show is proving to all of those that don't gulp the liberal kool aid what a bunch of absolute clueless idiots the Dems are in Congress. Proving they are doing nothing for the American people outside of trying to railroad a successful President. Like I said earlier, this circus is guaranteeing Trump a victory in the next election.
Right, GYM JORDAN came off as a bastion of democracy.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 06:59 AM)appst89 Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: I saw it on several occasions, but not all the time. But trust me, if Schiff cut off GYM or that Ratcliffe clown before their 5 minutes or before they yielded, you would have certainly heard them scream.
Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
Don't plan on ever getting an answer. He only comments on, or replies to, those things which he thinks will advance whatever the talking points he has been fed for that day.
Thanks for your concern, but I already answered, See Post #101.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 08:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:33 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)usmbacker Wrote: This clown show is proving to all of those that don't gulp the liberal kool aid what a bunch of absolute clueless idiots the Dems are in Congress. Proving they are doing nothing for the American people outside of trying to railroad a successful President. Like I said earlier, this circus is guaranteeing Trump a victory in the next election.
Right, GYM JORDAN came off as a bastion of democracy.
Better than the liar Adam Schiff.
So he's the skinniest kid at fat camp. Congrats!
wrong again....he's the shiTTTiest lawyer running the shifTTTy sham-a-bam....
it has to suck getting your arse kicked on a daily basis, eh?
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-13-2019 09:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: I saw it on several occasions, but not all the time. But trust me, if Schiff cut off GYM or that Ratcliffe clown before their 5 minutes or before they yielded, you would have certainly heard them scream.
Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
you're going to learn he only punched the gubberment teat and trolls....have fun with that moving forward trying in 'earnest'....you'll lose that battle every single time....he doesn't care....he's a paid operative....
I don't have anything to learn. I'm not trying to get him to answer. I don't care about the answer.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who takes one side in every battle, regardless of the issue.
Anybody who supports Taylor's 4th hand opinion of a phone call as being an impeachable offense is simply cheering for the side he likes, and not using reason. Which invalidates most of his other arguments.
Of course, there are some on the other side who do the same thing. That's one of my complaints with political parties. People take a side and entrench themselves for no good reason, other than it's their side.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 07:59 AM)Lush Wrote:
(11-14-2019 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
word up. the fact that he would be investigating a political "rival" is inconsequential
Was Biden even entered as a candidate at that point in time?
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 08:01 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:
(11-14-2019 07:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The question I wish someone had asked, "Do either one of you have any first-and, direct, factual evidence of any wrongful act committed by Donald Trump?"
I heard an interview with Lindsey Graham where he made an interesting point. Suppose the senate adopts rules that the federal rules of evidence will govern any senate trial. Going to be hard to make a case.
I still have two overriding questions. If a president has reason to believe that an American citizen may have committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country, does such president have both the right and the duty to cause that situation to be investigated, and to request the assistance of the law enforcement of such country in such investigation? And how does that duty and that obligation change if the target of such investigation might possibly be a future political opponent?
My answers are yes and yes to the two parts of the first question, and not at all to the second. And the amount of compensation paid to totally unqualified Hunter Biden lays an ample predicate for such investigation.
Radcliffe did ask this question. They both sat there and stared rather vacantly.
The question I wanted ask was “did you two meet at any time to coordinate your stories?” Those two acted a little to ‘friendly’ in my opinion. Taylor looking at Kent for approval several times made me feel ‘creepy’.
I believe that was when he finally said, paraphrasing, "I'll take that as a no."
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 06:59 AM)appst89 Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: I saw it on several occasions, but not all the time. But trust me, if Schiff cut off GYM or that Ratcliffe clown before their 5 minutes or before they yielded, you would have certainly heard them scream.
Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
Don't plan on ever getting an answer. He only comments on, or replies to, those things which he thinks will advance whatever the talking points he has been fed for that day.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-13-2019 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)usmbacker Wrote: This clown show is proving to all of those that don't gulp the liberal kool aid what a bunch of absolute clueless idiots the Dems are in Congress. Proving they are doing nothing for the American people outside of trying to railroad a successful President. Like I said earlier, this circus is guaranteeing Trump a victory in the next election.
Right, GYM JORDAN came off as a bastion of democracy.
He kicked your sides azz yesterday, as he usually does.
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 08:56 AM)450bench Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)usmbacker Wrote: This clown show is proving to all of those that don't gulp the liberal kool aid what a bunch of absolute clueless idiots the Dems are in Congress. Proving they are doing nothing for the American people outside of trying to railroad a successful President. Like I said earlier, this circus is guaranteeing Trump a victory in the next election.
Right, GYM JORDAN came off as a bastion of democracy.
He kicked your sides azz yesterday, as he usually does.
not wearing the coat for emphasis was classic 'double hooks' (that's JJ for the dense)....
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 08:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote: Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
you're going to learn he only punched the gubberment teat and trolls....have fun with that moving forward trying in 'earnest'....you'll lose that battle every single time....he doesn't care....he's a paid operative....
I don't have anything to learn. I'm not trying to get him to answer. I don't care about the answer.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who takes one side in every battle, regardless of the issue.
Anybody who supports Taylor's 4th hand opinion of a phone call as being an impeachable offense is simply cheering for the side he likes, and not using reason. Which invalidates most of his other arguments.
Of course, there are some on the other side who do the same thing. That's one of my complaints with political parties. People take a side and entrench themselves for no good reason, other than it's their side.
I wasn't chiding you....my response was only an effort in support....
I roasted Taylor early in this thread when that bs came out of his mouth and defined beforehand how the outlets would pounce on it moving forward....
and yes, it's unfortunate how the two sides are more divided than any in my lifetime....
it would be safe to say I'm one of the more liberal cons on this board....however, the tards offer nothing in the current schema that I am willing to support....
therefore, it's ® or nothing....and "nothing" was my mantra for the majority during my tenure to legally vote...
RE: "The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
(11-14-2019 08:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:
(11-13-2019 09:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(11-13-2019 04:28 PM)TripleA Wrote: Couldn't always see it, and he most definitely cut off Ratcliffe, and brought the gavel down on others, all on the Pub side.
And you still didn't answer my question.
He didn't cut off Radcliffe's time, he stopped him because he was questioning Schiff and not the witnesses. Then he said Ratcliffe's time was running out and he should continue with his questioning and Radcliffe ran out of time. He didn't just cut off his 5 minutes for nothing. He wasn't following rules of order or the resolution the proceeding was being held under.
You never answered my question. What did you think about Taylor's 4th hand impression of the Ukraine phone call and quid pro quo situation?
you're going to learn he only punched the gubberment teat and trolls....have fun with that moving forward trying in 'earnest'....you'll lose that battle every single time....he doesn't care....he's a paid operative....
I don't have anything to learn. I'm not trying to get him to answer. I don't care about the answer.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who takes one side in every battle, regardless of the issue.
Anybody who supports Taylor's 4th hand opinion of a phone call as being an impeachable offense is simply cheering for the side he likes, and not using reason. Which invalidates most of his other arguments.
Of course, there are some on the other side who do the same thing. That's one of my complaints with political parties. People take a side and entrench themselves for no good reason, other than it's their side.
You do realize you just indicted about 95% of the posters on the right side of the aisle in this forum as well, right?
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2019 09:30 AM by Redwingtom.)
/
"The clown show known as an “impeachment inquiry” is getting more comical"
![[Image: EJQu-z6UwAAm5SE?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJQu-z6UwAAm5SE?format=jpg&name=small)
