(12-17-2019 08:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 04:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Stinkfist interpreted this thread very differently.

nay nay nannette....my version swings both ways...order matters naught...

ver1: ******** nan.....what the ******* ***** ****** **** *** ******** doing now....is that botox ******** ewe up ewe're soylent soiled ********* fat ********** ***?

it's time to do what the ********* ************ any grown adult would do ewe ******** ******* ********* ****!

ver2 dessert delight:

negative pressure can be applied in a variety of ways and means.....

(12-18-2019 01:50 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:29 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:27 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

It's not that's the point.

but the accusation is at least an impeachable offense.

That is incorrect. Accusations is not an impeachable offense.

Apologies for not being super duper specific.

The substance of the accusations, if true, could very likely rise to an impeachable offense.

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

(12-18-2019 04:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

But, you're not the president and you aren't subjected to impeachment per the constitution. The penalty is removal from office, not jail or a fine.

I have always advised clients to reveal nothing to a grand jury. It's a kangaroo court. Fortunately, I've had clients where that has seldom been a problem.

The house proceeding, we keep being told, is analogous to a grand jury. Republicans have been making this big deal about how it was unfair. Of course it is, it's designed to be. Grand juries are inherently unfair. You don't get to have a lawyer, you don't get to question witnesses, you don't even get to be present to hear what other witnesses say. So don't show your cards. If there were some person who could provide testimony that would cause the impeachment not to proceed, then maybe you put him/her on. But who could that possibly be, and what could he/she possibly say, that would cause the house not to impeach? I can't think of anybody or anyone. This is a lynch mob witch hunt, not an evidentiary proceeding. So why show your case, if it can't possibly do any good?

(12-18-2019 11:51 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

That sentence makes no sense.

thank you 'jaun'....it's past post 420....maybe I'll figure it out after reviewing ewe're postpartum chart....

(12-18-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 04:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

But, you're not the president and you aren't subjected to impeachment per the constitution. The penalty is removal from office, not jail or a fine.

Actually there is no penalty for impeachment. Impeachment basically equals an indictment, except indictments require evidence and impeachments do not, they merely require an up or down vote. After the "indictment" which really isn't, it THEN goes in front of a judge and actually said judge can through it out for merit, which is also possible, but unlikely. An impeachment can occur anytime and it is now being shown to not be that important due to the Democrat party.

(12-18-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 04:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

But, you're not the president and you aren't subjected to impeachment per the constitution. The penalty is removal from office, not jail or a fine.

True, but I also don't have Executive Privilege.

(12-18-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 04:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

But, you're not the president and you aren't subjected to impeachment per the constitution. The penalty is removal from office, not jail or a fine.

And it still doesn't work that way.

(12-18-2019 05:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 04:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 04:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

Years ago in my youth I used to believe the "if you have nothing to hide" reason.

Then I realized that's not the way it works.

I don't have to defend myself one way or the other over accusations. If there's sufficient evidence then get a warrant, a subpoena, whatever. Until then, I'm innocent -- period.

But, you're not the president and you aren't subjected to impeachment per the constitution. The penalty is removal from office, not jail or a fine.

True, but I also don't have Executive Privilege.

it's that simple....well done!

wood(way)ward and the peckers that pickle the pepper is quite a different sponge in the arena of 'absorb'....

the point of annoyance is long gone in the 'passe'.....in nuts zongo's mind, it was always going be A fonzie 'ride'...

from dumpster fire to the shark......here's a simple reminder....

just to prove bipartisan "blunt"???

would someone please break out the tomahawk or pick-ax, and clock the gentleman from ND (little kinky kelly andy that can barely read a script)....

here's that porch monkey bison ledger from meh-hee-kowtow....

Piers Morgan is blunt too. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...crats.html

"They couldn’t beat him at the ballot box in 2016 and fear they won’t be able to beat him at the ballot box in 2020.

So, they’ve concluded impeachment may be their only route to stop him.

Yet as I have repeatedly said, it is an act of extraordinary stupidity and self-harm....

This was a 100% partisan pleasure-dome, though the only people deriving any actual pleasure from the unedifying spectacle were the politicians lapping up TV exposure to tens of millions of Americans like ravenous parched camels arriving at an oasis after weeks of traipsing across the Sahara Desert.

Meanwhile, their supposed victim was at a rally chuckling to his base: ‘This doesn’t feel like an impeachment to me, does it to you?’

No, frankly.

It feels like a pathetic joke at America’s expense.

A pantomime, in fact....

Yet that hasn’t stopped all the usual half-witted bunch of obsessive Trump-loathing celebrities exploding with false dawn ecstasy as they proclaim it as the end of their nemesis.

From Bette Midler and Cher to John Legend and Amber Tamblyn, they raced to spew their glee all over Twitter.

To which my response is this: what are you clueless clowns all celebrating?

Are you just too dumb to see what’s actually happening here?

Do you not understand it all ends in a big loss for Trump-haters and a big win for Trump?...

That’s why Nancy Pelosi will need to keep that black dress and mournful face for next November.

And that’s why Trump’s laughing all the way to re-election.

As he’ll be saying to himself today: Merry Impeachmas!"

Who cares what some British clown thinks?

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

(12-19-2019 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

Would anyone listen to the rantings of someone in Scandinavia regarding impeachment and our electoral process?

I think not.

(12-19-2019 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

Would anyone listen to the rantings of someone in Scandinavia regarding impeachment and our electoral process?

I think not.

Except that this guy has more of a grasp on things than most dems.

(12-19-2019 03:47 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

Would anyone listen to the rantings of someone in Scandinavia regarding impeachment and our electoral process?

I think not.

Except that this guy has more of a grasp on things than most dems.

Sure.

(12-19-2019 03:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:47 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

Would anyone listen to the rantings of someone in Scandinavia regarding impeachment and our electoral process?

I think not.

Except that this guy has more of a grasp on things than most dems.

Sure.

Absolutely he does.

(12-19-2019 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who cares what some British clown thinks?

Shoot the messenger.

Would anyone listen to the rantings of someone in Scandinavia regarding impeachment and our electoral process?

I think not.

Why not? Dems listen to -- and drool over -- the sounds of socialism from all parts of Europe.

(12-19-2019 03:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sure.

Ignore all the warning signs. It will make a repeat of this a little more enjoyable: