Nature and Extent of Misconduct

You're going conspiracy theory crazy. Take a break and just watch C-SPAN.

The minority counsel is now bringing up Burisma. Putin sends his praises.

Thank You - TWK - the only response the quoted poster has - "little, little - etc,.

Nothing but demeaning a valid and reasonable post is what the DPST's consider a reasonable response.

DPST's are Experts in name-calling and scatology .

You're going conspiracy theory crazy. Take a break and just watch C-SPAN.

The minority counsel is now bringing up Burisma. Putin sends his praises.


Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if you say so.

Be careful DPST's - the Senate is not the slanted, hyper-partisan House that has longed for Impeachment since nov 2016.

Be careful what you wish for - those with no clue to the fact that actions have consequences
Typical of DPST mentality! Originally Posted by oeb11

What exactly are you trying to imply with your vail threats?

Consequences can be suffered by all. Make yourself clear tough guy.

if you say so. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, if you say so.

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Apparently other world leaders were laughing at this bafoon. I missed it while watching C-SPAN. I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND IT. It's best to watch C-SPAN and listen to NPR for the ambiance and little, little side conversations. I heard somebody mention Larry David. And I saw a member of the committee staring at his phone while "hearing" testimony.

What exactly are you trying to imply with your vail threats?

Consequences can be suffered by all. Make yourself clear tough guy. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

He's just a little, little showman. Probably under thirty years old. I take no threat from him. I swear he implies the POTUS to retaliate in the Senate. That's all.

No, if you say so.




Apparently other world leaders were laughing at this bafoon. I missed it while watching C-SPAN. I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND IT. It's best to watch C-SPAN and listen to NPR for the ambiance and little, little side conversations. I heard somebody mention Larry David. And I saw a member of the committee staring at his phone while "hearing" testimony. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if you say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
Be careful DPST's - the Senate is not the slanted, hyper-partisan House that has longed for Impeachment since nov 2016.

Be careful what you wish for - those with no clue to the fact that actions have consequences
Typical of DPST mentality!

j666 - What exactly are you trying to imply with your vail threats?

Consequences can be suffered by all. Make yourself clear tough guy.



oeb11- Response- first - it is "veiled" - and Foolish DPST is trying to insinuate a personal threat to their precious little persons.

It is clear that the consequence is an open, fair, non-partisan Senate trial - which is far from the hyper-partisan Schiff show in the House - and Now nadler confirmation hearings to the pre-determined outcome decided by DPST's in nov, 2016.

Go ahead and Impeach - it is time the smoke and mirrors see the light of day, and partisan DPST cockroaches run from the light.

Now - j666- if you feel "threatened" - or "triggered" - by that post of mine -please push the RTM button
ASAP, call your therapist for some needed help, and find the Koolaid narrative - lollipop in your refrigerator and do what you do with it to assuage your poor little "violated" feelings.



I thought Schiff and Nadler were "reaching" for an interpretation to pose as a reason for Articles of Impeachment, until I read the "reaching" to a false conclusion in your foolish, foolish little DPST post.



Push the RTM button, Please!!!
Perhaps 9500 can help - between the two of you - the RTM button might be achieveable.

That’s right this isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process under the authority of the Constitution of the United States Of America to reign in a lawless president and his mob. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

But it will be in the Senate with Federal rules of evidence in play and the Chief Justice of the SC sitting at the head of the "court". If it isn't a court of law, why is the Chief Justice presiding?

You call him a lawless President out of one side of your mouth and say this isn't a court of law and shouldn't be out of the other. Democrats say "no one is above the law" but don't want the actual law considered.

But you are right in one respect, that the Democrats in the House don't give a shit about the law, they made that very clear today with their Constitutional experts who were there to explain THE LAW! in only the terms they wanted it explained and weren't interested at all in hearing a different opinion of the law that they don't care about because it isn't a court of law after all.Head spinning yet?

A couple of things I found amusing with one of the Democrat lawyers was him saying "we have to look to the original intent in the Constitution". For the first time in history, Democrats became "originalist". Up until today they called "originalist" archaic.

Then when the subject of the original meaning of bribery came up, it was back to original intent because according to the experts, that favored more the 1792 version they liked than the federal laws that define bribery today, today where most Democrats live when it comes to the law. Pretty sure you can't use original intent when it comes to transgender's.

I think Johnathon Turley wiped the floor with the other 3 all of which donated to Hillary and one who wrote a blog 3 months after Trump was elected calling for Trumps impeachment who later said Trump could be impeached because of his tweets disparaging others. I guess he has no understanding of how the founding fathers disparaged each other. The female Professor was quoted as once saying she crossed the street rather than walk in front of Trump Tower because it so offended her. Nice to find such un-biased experts. Surprised they didn't call Peter Strzok.

This female Professor also ruffled the ire of one Republican Senator when she made a joke bringing Trump's youngest son into the conversation when she was comparing Trump to a King and said Kings can make a person a baron but Trump can only name a child baron. Funny huh?

Interesting day to people like me but didn't change the mind of a single American I'm betting and a complete waste of time since the President will not be removed.

Just an FYI, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for having inappropriate sex and lying about it. Don't you have to lie about inappropriate sex?

But it will be in the Senate with Federal rules of evidence in play and the Chief Justice of the SC sitting at the head of the "court". If it isn't a court of law, why is the Chief Justice presiding?

To make sure the rules are followed. Period!


You call him a lawless President out of one side of your mouth and say this isn't a court of law and shouldn't be out of the other. Democrats say "no one is above the law" but don't want the actual law considered.

But you are right in one respect, that the Democrats in the House don't give a shit about the law, they made that very clear today with their Constitutional experts who were there to explain THE LAW! in only the terms they wanted it explained and weren't interested at all in hearing a different opinion of the law that they don't care about because it isn't a court of law after all.Head spinning yet?

A couple of things I found amusing with one of the Democrat lawyers was him saying "we have to look to the original intent in the Constitution". For the first time in history, Democrats became "originalist". Up until today they called "originalist" archaic.

Then when the subject of the original meaning of bribery came up, it was back to original intent because according to the experts, that favored more the 1792 version they liked than the federal laws that define bribery today, today where most Democrats live when it comes to the law. Pretty sure you can't use original intent when it comes to transgender's.

I think Johnathon Turley wiped the floor with the other 3 all of which donated to Hillary and one who wrote a blog 3 months after Trump was elected calling for Trumps impeachment who later said Trump could be impeached because of his tweets disparaging others. I guess he has no understanding of how the founding fathers disparaged each other. The female Professor was quoted as once saying she crossed the street rather than walk in front of Trump Tower because it so offended her. Nice to find such un-biased experts. Surprised they didn't call Peter Strzok.

This female Professor also ruffled the ire of one Republican Senator when she made a joke bringing Trump's youngest son into the conversation when she was comparing Trump to a King and said Kings can make a person a baron but Trump can only name a child baron. Funny huh?

Funnier yet was when she addressed ranking member Collins directly at the beginning of her opening statement. He got so pissed off he sat up and motioned to turn on his microphone.


Interesting day to people like me but didn't change the mind of a single American I'm betting and a complete waste of time since the President will not be removed.

Very interesting to mee too.


Just an FYI, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for having inappropriate sex and lying about it. Don't you have to lie about inappropriate sex? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thanks for more DPST nonsense.
characteristic when they have nothing in reasonable response other than name-calling and scatology.

Yup just more distortion and ignorance

Just an FYI, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for having inappropriate sex and lying about it. Don't you have to lie about inappropriate sex? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

a lot of americans, especially the undecided, agreed with you here

but as you know, clinton didn't just lie, he lied under oath, and it was proved with completed record, lied while being the chief law enforcement officer

a law was broken which is a difference with the instant case

a lot of americans, especially the undecided, agreed with you here

but as you know, clinton didn't just lie, he lied under oath, and it was proved with completed record, lied while being the chief law enforcement officer

a law was broken which is a difference with the instant case Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

that's correct. if Clinton hadn't committed perjury while president it wouldn't have mattered. but he was president so it did matter. he should have just owned up to it and that would have been the end of it. it also cost him his law license but he was never a private practice attorney before he got into politics. he was a law professor ... sound familiar? did he do any community organizing too? bhahaaa


i find it amusing that people make such a big deal over Trump and Stormy tits. and that playboy bimbo. many famous people settle these issues just to make them go away. nothing illegal about it and it was not a campaign violation no matter what that tard Cohen claims.


Trump haters also jack themselves off over this emoluments bullshit. (here's poking a stick in yer eye ecky9.5k). ah yes .. Benji's snuff box. nothing burger. making a profit in commerce is not a gift as defined by the emoluments clause, which has never been tested to begin with. let these Trump haters try it in court. that dog won't hunt.


let's say Bloomberg got elected. Bloomberg press is international. so some raghead in buttfukistan buys a copy? is that a violation of the emoluments clause? nope. of course the mad dogs on the left would be defending Bloomerpants to the end of time if anyone claimed it was.

Valid points about DPST hypocrisy, TWK!