-
Posts
47516 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by jimmyjazz
-
-
3 minutes ago, Cosimo de' Medici said:
I love this circle jerk thread of loudmouth fucktards who enjoy spending the middle of a workday bitching and moaning. Know the silent majority is laughing at you. Silent only because we are busy contributing to the economy and society.
I don't know if it's a majority, but I'm damned glad modern conservatives laugh at me. It reaffirms that I'm on the right side of history.
-
Lesko going strong with the "Nadler said these were the standards required for impeachment and I don't think they have been met therefore he is a charlatan" accusation is some bold, 3rd-grade logic.
-
Jesus Christ, "raise your hands if you supported Trump".
The implication being that not raising one's hand, one didn't support Trump -- even though 2 of 4 verbally said they won't answer the question.
I really hate people sometimes.
-
Man, how many brown people?
-
Biggs going in big with the accusation that the witness panel came in with preconceived notions of impeachable offenses. Uh, that covers Turley too, you twat.
-
Turley looks like he just vomited.
-
Just now, GRHorn said:
Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?
I'm homeless and on the dole. You?
-
6
-
-
Karlan is gonna beat the shit out of Gaetz behind the dumpster.
EDIT: that said, the rest of the Dems need to direct questioning to diffuse this bullshit and slay Turley while they're at it.
-
"Process is essential to the institution."
So, for instance, the process of considering a duly nominated judge for SCOTUS? The process of issuing Congressional subpoenas and having them honored? Those kind of processes?
Fuck off, Rep Roby.
-
1
-
-
Oh snap, Karlan puts it right back on the Republican committee members.
-
Man, there are just way too many brown people asking questions for the Dems.
-
Why are Texas Republicans so fucking stupid?
-
A ha! Hearsay!
Dumbass Aggie. Holmes heard the phone call. Sondland was in the meetings. Fuck you, you stupid Aggie (redundant).
-
1
-
-
Ooh! Louie's up! And he's talking about indecency!
-
Chabot and Trump have the same barber.
-
1
-
-
Just now, DixonHur said:
Give this guy a lozenge
And maybe one without the vodka charge.
-
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:
The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected. Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim.
Not that facts matter, but Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform. If ANYTHING, less scrutiny would be warranted, not more.
-
Just now, jimmyjazz said:
I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.
This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency. Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017. If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?
Government data is fun, for those who want to dig in:
-
1
-
-
I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.
This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency. Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017. If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?
-
I remain flabbergasted that a professor at an elite law school is saying this procedure is invalid because it has gone too fast and the reports aren't long enough.
Let's take the former: impeachment proceedings must take a long time. This flies in the face of logic. It basically asserts that POTUS could not be impeached for heinous crimes committed in, say his 3rd year of office. There's just not enough time.
Let's take the latter: impeachment proceedings must generate a massive amount of documentation. Now, I am friends with many lawyers, and lord knows they love their word counts, but come on. A video of Donald Trump murdering someone on 5th Avenue in NYC would be sufficient for impeachment. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.
Justice is not measured with a stopwatch, a calendar, or a scale. Ironically, the Republicans currently have their thumb on the scales of Justice, and yet they're crying "foul".
-
2
-
-
But OBAMA!
Everybody drink.
-
I don't know why I ask this question over and over, but why would someone who has clearly risen to the upper echelons of his profession gaslight like Turley is doing?
He's making all kinds of specious claims. "Impeachment requires proof". No, REMOVAL requires proof, at least if people are acting honestly.
He's saying exactly NONE of Trump's actions as POTUS constitute obstruction of justice. He knows that's not true -- why die on this hill?
Asshat.
-
Apropos of nothing, Professor Karlan considers herself bisexual. Let's take bets on whether or not Trump will say something in that regard.
-
I find it embarrassing that these legal scholars have to provide mundane examples of solicitation, etc. in order to make it blindingly obvious why Trump's actions are impeachable.
I fully expect Gym and the boys to attempt to get Turley to somehow muddy that picture.
-
1
-
impeachment inquiry hearings thread
in Cloak Room
Posted
Gah, back to Ukraine interfering in 2016 elections.
I have a fundamental desire for the truth to be known. The same cannot be said of these fuckers.