Well, you’ve been expressing what you want on a daily bases here.
And you are more focused on process than you are testimony…
There’s been a lot of that going on, both sides of the isle of late.
Here, I’ll quote you.
“Like I said, even after giving the red hatter what he wants, they will continue to bitch and complain.”
You whine about my alleged reaction after getting what I want but refuse to discuss the Democrats perverse impeachment investigation. It’s apparent you don’t understand what I want, a fair process, and worse refuse to even attempt to understand anything beyond your vapid talking points.
1 Like
It’s not perverse. When are you going to point out how they are in violation of the constitution or any other law?
The point at issue is the process. The complaint illustrates how detached you are
Are you familiar with the legal concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree? How’s that treated in court? But since it’s the bad Orange man anything goes.
Yeah, I’ve been listening to your process complaints for a couple weeks. But you can’t point to any constitutional or other law violations.
You are finally coming around.
1 Like
Monte is now an expert of the law. In fact, he is an around expert of knowing everything. Haven’t you figured that out by now? 
He told me that he knew everything. He doesn’t need google.
Ahh! Well then, that settles it!
I’m sure that that happens once depositions are complete…
Oh ok, let’s apply your “no violation of the law or Constitution” standard to Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian President. We have the transcript of the call and public statements of both principles neither shows a violation of the law or the Constitution. Applying your standard, this whole ersatz impeachment inquiry shouldn’t have happened, it ought to be off limits for discussion. After all, the inquiry is just baseless complaints. 
Oh but wait, the Mueller investigation delivered no indictments of any American for colluding or conspiring with the Russians to interfere in our elections. There was no violation of the law or the Constitution, yet the other track of the track of the impeachment cabal, led by hanging judge Nadler, insists on reiterating the investigation which applying your standard ought to be off limits to discussion.
Start a thread and we can go down that trail.
There were plenty of indictments and people went to prison. There was also ten examples of obstruction on Trump’s part. But due to a stupid DOJ policy, we don’t indict setting presidents.
Now you deceitfully edit my comment. I wrote Nancy Pelosi applying the same dishonest tactics to the so-called impeachment inquiry she used for Obamacare including we have to pass the bill to find out all the good things inside. Bit just like lying Adam Schiff trying to pass off his false version of the telephone conversation you edited my comment to what you wanted it to say. But hey, dishonesty is acceptable because Orange man bad.
I am supposed to start a thread to discuss your standard? Is it fear or laziness that prevents you from discussing your own remarks?
I didn’t deceitfully edit anything, I responded to the part of your post that I wanted to.
You wanted to talk about Trump’s Ukrainian phone call and the transcript, there’s already a thread for that I believe. This thread is about Mulvaney’s admission.
And now, multiple others have testified that there was a QPQ.