(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? You do know we have a constitution that lays out the specifics of impeachment, right? You do know there are laws and procedures that have been set forth for all of this, right? You know they don't need any type of vote before they draw up articles, right? Ergo, you know damned well this is not a kangaroo court. So why are you falling in line with hacks like Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the GOP you claim are stupid?

Sad.

#ETTD

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? You do know we have a constitution that lays out the specifics of impeachment, right? You do know there are laws and procedures that have been set forth for all of this, right? You know they don't need any type of vote before they draw up articles, right? Ergo, you know damned well this is not a kangaroo court. So why are you falling in line with hacks like Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the GOP you claim are stupid?

Sad.

#ETTD

(10-15-2019 04:09 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? You do know we have a constitution that lays out the specifics of impeachment, right? You do know there are laws and procedures that have been set forth for all of this, right? You know they don't need any type of vote before they draw up articles, right? Ergo, you know damned well this is not a kangaroo court. So why are you falling in line with hacks like Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the GOP you claim are stupid?

Sad.

#ETTD

This has nothing to do with Russian interference in our last election, or the Mueller probe for that matter, other than the two guys indicted being born there. It's another lame talking point. Do better, think for yourself.

(10-15-2019 04:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:09 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? You do know we have a constitution that lays out the specifics of impeachment, right? You do know there are laws and procedures that have been set forth for all of this, right? You know they don't need any type of vote before they draw up articles, right? Ergo, you know damned well this is not a kangaroo court. So why are you falling in line with hacks like Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the GOP you claim are stupid?

Sad.

#ETTD

This has nothing to do with Russian interference in our last election, or the Mueller probe for that matter, other than the two guys indicted being born there. It's another lame talking point. Do better, think for yourself.

That is Candace's point. And she can run circles around any of those clowns in the House of Representatives.

(10-15-2019 04:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:09 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? You do know we have a constitution that lays out the specifics of impeachment, right? You do know there are laws and procedures that have been set forth for all of this, right? You know they don't need any type of vote before they draw up articles, right? Ergo, you know damned well this is not a kangaroo court. So why are you falling in line with hacks like Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the GOP you claim are stupid?

Sad.

#ETTD

This has nothing to do with Russian interference in our last election, or the Mueller probe for that matter, other than the two guys indicted being born there. It's another lame talking point. Do better, think for yourself.

You spew MSNBC & CNN(Zucker) talking points all the time. When was the last time you thought for yourself? I bet your head hurt. As Candace says "Hang in there".

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is obviously a high-stakes game on both sides.

I think the democrats risk considerable backlash if they keep doing things that look like a kangaroo court without coming up with something concrete. They need to just have an impeachment vote and be done with it.

Problem is, they can’t even find a damn real kangaroo, they’re all a hologram or mirage..

Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

(10-16-2019 09:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

(10-16-2019 09:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

Get the House to vote for doing that, and I'm ok with that. But you don't have that vote.

(10-16-2019 11:21 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

Get the House to vote for doing that, and I'm ok with that. But you don't have that vote.

Because they don't have to! Granted, it's most likely a political decision, but it's the sound one to make.

(10-16-2019 12:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 11:21 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

Get the House to vote for doing that, and I'm ok with that. But you don't have that vote.

Because they don't have to! Granted, it's most likely a political decision, but it's the sound one to make.

It would be interesting to see the takes on this had the republicans went with this approach with Clinton. Something tells me the media and leftists would have a different view.

Question: Don't schools teach its students when to use gone instead of went? I've actually heard pols misusing it too. It's mind boggling to an OCD sufferer like me. LOL

(10-16-2019 12:46 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 12:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 11:21 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand instead of Candace Owens, whoever the **** that even is , the main reason this testimony is held behind close doors it two-fold. First, some of the testimony is about classified stuff. Second, and most important, having these people testify in public lets the WH know what they're saying and it also let's other witnesses know that they're saying which could be an issue if any witnesses think of lying or making their testimonies match. Although I'm pretty sure much of this testimony is still getting back to the WH from the GOP members on the committees.

Think of this as the equivalent of the grand jury phase of normal legal proceedings. It's being handled much the same way, and for good reason.

Get the House to vote for doing that, and I'm ok with that. But you don't have that vote.

Because they don't have to! Granted, it's most likely a political decision, but it's the sound one to make.

It would be interesting to see the takes on this had the republicans went with this approach with Clinton. Something tells me the media and leftists would have a different view.

But the situations are not even remotely similar. There are way more tentacles to this situation with myriad witnesses.