Let’s see what the courts have to say…
1 Like
The trolling here is really something ain’t it?
It’s telling that so many have scant ability to refute anything that goes against their world views. All they can do is fling poo because they’re incapable of honest discourse. It’s the heart and soul of being willfully ignorant.
"Believe what you’ve experienced…not what you’ve been told" Something to live a life of integrity.
So sad ™
However I’m starting to find folks here who are willing to discuss issue honestly. I appreciate their honesty and integrity.
These people make it worthwhile to ignore the IgnoreAnuses.
.
Yeah you define the meaning of Troll which is all to funny that your most common supporter here is another troll named Monte! You are pathetic!
3 Likes
Yeah, holding a person in contempt of congress is really bad.
ROTFLMAO.
1 Like
And you refuse to go beyond what you believe is the truth.
Because you think it’s true means absolutely squat.
As they said in the past, question authority.
Why is it Shifty refuses to allow the GOP minority in the secret meetings to call witnesses? Why is it Shifty stops questioning of witnesses when he doesn’t want the answer? Why is it shifty leaks only information he wants in the media?
ROTFLMAO but you think it’s all the truth which some may be but only half the truth.
Can’t wait for the dems to vote on impeachment and pass it to th senate where the other half of the story will come out. But to you that will b disregards as lies.
1 Like
- Schiff, unilaterally, decides “witness testimony relevant to the investigation.”
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls subpoena authority.
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls record production and evidence designation.
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls written interrogatories.
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls the outcome of Minority referrals to the Committee for reconsideration.
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls all transcripts, to include: release, redactions and edits.
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls “custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry.”
- Schiff, unilaterally, controls the final report.
“Open and transparent” – right.
2 Likes
Excellent job of exposing the Democrats decision to invest virtually unlimited power in Commissar Schiff. Truely a Soviet style arrangement.
It’s worth a quick review of who the Democrats have invested so heavily in to impeach Trump.
For literally years, Schiff proclaimed he had seen secret evidence Trump had colluded with the Russians. All the while Schiff knew no such evidence existed, he lied.
At the opening hearing supposedly to investigate the President’s phone call with the Ukrainian President despite the publicly available transcript Schiff delivered another lie claiming he “knew” what President Trump meant in the conversation. Delivered as the chairman’s opening remarks Schiff’s lie set the toxic atmosphere for the rest of the hearing.
There is no reason to expect Schiff to change from his dishonesty as he leads the sham impeachment. That is exactly why Democrats have invested him with dictatorial powers in the effort to overturn election results they don’t like.
3 Likes
No, for it to be obstruction they have to take it to a federal court. If the court orders them to testify and they refuse it can then be obstruction an/or contempt of court.
3 Likes
If you are looking for reasoned discussion, I am your huckleberry.
Limiting yourself to your direct experiences as you advise is a sure means of staying ignorant and closed minded. We need to apply logic to the facts of an issue rather than rely on rhetoric or specious talking points.
1 Like
How is this any different from Boehner or Ryans control during the Benghazi hearings?
How is it any different over Mitch deciding which bills make it to the Senate Floor?
It’s not.
Thanks, I’ll look forward to your reasonable and well founded discussion points.
That might be true if I was able to limit my life experiences to only those that met my biases, which are fairly few.
For instance I’m good with people of all races and religions. As long as they’re people of honor and good will. I draw the line at people who want to force their beliefs on others. This includes the brother of a neighbor from Libya who cannot engage with me with out talking up his beliefs as well as “conservative christians”
I stand firmly against both Arugula and Cilantro as well as jerks who insist on riding their bikes on the sidewalk when there is a bike lane available.
So it goes
Here’s an axiom I live by. It’ll serve others well to do so.
Life is just 5% about me and 95% about how I respond to events life throws at me.
Obviously you are willing to impeach Trump with incomplete biased information.
Terrific
I’ve stated my views on other threads here. I’m opposed. Better to let the voters speak next November but do what we can to straight jacket him as best we can until then so no further damage is done to foreign relations and national security.
I could easily say that you were willing to indict Clinton over Benghazi with incomplete biased information also. But I won’t. 
How many investigations were there? I forget. How long did they play out and at what cost. And to what end?
My apologies to the OP for this brief threadjack of your topic.
Let’s try and stay on topic.
The investigations to Benghazi were not about locking up Hillary they were about finding out what happened.
The reason it took multiple investigations over the course of several years was the fact the DOS and CIA refused to produce documents and Hillary hiding her emails on a private server.
2 Likes
It is the difference between oversight and impeachment. Oversight is a routine Congressional function. Impeachment nullifies the Presidential election. It is the extraordinary process of the Congress replacing the head of the Executive branch.
Nancy Pelosi just a few months ago specified that impeachment must receive bipartisan support to be considered legitimate. But the current exercise has stripped the minority party and the President of all protections against the process becoming blatantly partisan by first conducting secret hearings with no formal authorization or rules. Then, adopting rules so partisan only Democrats could vote for them, with 2 Democrats dissenting. That fails the bipartisan support requirement laid down by Pelosi.
1 Like
Well there are obvious differences. But I get your general point. In the end however, eight incarnations of Benghazi investigations netted zero.
We’ve already got a whole lot more in the very early stages of this investigation and now Sondland just changed his testimony and now admits that there was a QPQ. 
1 Like
They accomplished exactly what they were supposed to by exposing the gross malfeasance and lies of Hillary and her accomplices.
1 Like
Ignore the trolls and talk to those who understand the importance of the debate and civility.
1 Like
Not to mention the personal who returned where put on a NDA gag order! Still to this day even!
1 Like