The Impeachment Thread

Happen to join a few days ago. Already making his way on far right media sites. 2400 followers 4 tweets and 8 likes. I CALL BS.
Happen to join a few days ago, when the impeachment started? And his tweet is complaining about? That's right, impeachment.

You're a regular Inspector Clouseau.
 
The issue is that this guy was new to Twitter. Gets on and posts his open letter. Does not "@" Gorka, yet Gorka is nearly the first one to see it. Gorka then retweets and it catches fire. Sounds gorky.
 
The issue is that this guy was new to Twitter. Gets on and posts his open letter. Does not "@" Gorka, yet Gorka is nearly the first one to see it. Gorka then retweets and it catches fire. Sounds gorky.
Simple but transparently obvious, worked like a charm.
 
The issue is that this guy was new to Twitter. Gets on and posts his open letter. Does not "@" Gorka, yet Gorka is nearly the first one to see it. Gorka then retweets and it catches fire. Sounds gorky.
You have been busted posting crap like this before. Defend yourself if you must.
You all knew making up lies to impeach Trump was going to cause defections. Just think how many millions have done the same as this guy.
 
To all the Trump supporters who said there was "no first hand testimony" during the House Inquiry, you now support hearing from those first hand witnesses during the Senate trial... right?

I mean, you can't on the one hand complain that the process has been unfair, and that all testimony was "hearsay" up to this point, but then reject actually hearing from those who were directly involved... right?

Surely, if you support Trump and truly believe that his call with Ukraine was "perfect" and that he's done nothing wrong, calling such witnesses will clearly prove his innocence... right?

Plus, calling such witnesses opens the door to allow Republicans to call witnesses including Hunter Biden, the WB, Shiff, the Kool Aid man, whoever they want.

So, you support this... right?

I mean, more transparency is a good thing... right?

The intriguing question about the ongoing debate between McConnell and Shumer to set the rules of the Senate trial is what if they don't reach an agreement on this and other matters? Does SCOTUS CJ Roberts opine on procedural issues ad hoc along the way? Does the GOP simply try to shut down the entire process without witnesses? It's not a question as to whether or not these first hand witnesses have salient testimony to share - Bolton has already said he does, for instance. Rather, the question now is whether the GOP will allow factual witnesses to be heard.

If not, clearly the facts are not with the GOP.

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Sunday night that he prefers a Senate impeachment trial with witness testimony and new documents, a direct rebuttal to top Republicans who have argued in recent days that a shorter trial without witnesses would spare the Senate from becoming a partisan circus. In the letter obtained by CNN, Schumer, a New York Democrat, called for at least four witnesses to testify, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and Septic
He's a line straddler...he'll cross over to the winning team just in time to try and convince you he was there all along!

Haha, is that what I am?

Though it'd certainly be easier, I pity you and those like you who live in black and white worlds. It humours me to watch the smoke come out of the ears of the intellectually lazy when they realize people can simultaneously hold views that are both liberal and conservative.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top