Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.
a mere 20 sec video.oh the hypocrisy.
Did the Constitution change since 1998?
He is representing President Trump
Being a hypocritical ass and supporting things you once opposed is a virtue
What’s your point ? Trump hasn’t abused anything.. he was taking about abuse Joe Biden’s Brother Bagged $54,000,000 in Taxpayer Loans
This is not about Joe Biden or his brother, we are having a trial on tramps impeachment, because he was impeached by the House.
Trump wasn't impeached, he was barely half-peached you fools couldn't even get all the Dem's to vote yes let alone a single Republican. We will laugh you idiots out of the Senate chamber in a couple of weeks just relax.
Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.
For doing nothing lol it will be talking about for years how insane democrats got and lost it all lolWhat’s your point ? Trump hasn’t abused anything.. he was taking about abuse Joe Biden’s Brother Bagged $54,000,000 in Taxpayer Loans
This is not about Joe Biden or his brother, we are having a trial on tramps impeachment, because he was impeached by the House.
Trump wasn't impeached, he was barely half-peached you fools couldn't even get all the Dem's to vote yes let alone a single Republican. We will laugh you idiots out of the Senate chamber in a couple of weeks just relax.
He was the third Potus impeached, he will go down in history as impeached. The second one was for lying about an affair.
Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.
a mere 20 sec video.
Uh, News Flash, every damn day the media shows contradictory shit Trump said a few years ago, vs today...with that Iran war shit about Obama to name a few....so we are being fair, its just that you losely corrosive nuts don't pay attention.Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.
Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.
a mere 20 sec video.
Not just The Bidens. He exposed all this corruption on The Left who have totally sold out to Russians, The Chinese, Iran and many many others.Because he blew the whistle on the bidens lol helloooooo mcfly LolWhat’s your point ? Trump hasn’t abused anything.. he was taking about abuse Joe Biden’s Brother Bagged $54,000,000 in Taxpayer Loans
This is not about Joe Biden or his brother, we are having a trial on tramps impeachment, because he was impeached by the House.
Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side
1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.
Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side
1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.
I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.
Didn’t Trump blow the whistle on Joe BidenI thought you wanted to protect whistleblowersNo hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.
Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".
Dershowitz now claims that abuse of power (regardless of how egregious) is not a crime and not impeachable.
What are you on about?
Nope. Trump doesn’t have any information against Biden. He’s just using the power of the government to persecute a private citizen who threatens him.
Real Soviet style corruption.
Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.
a mere 20 sec video.
Did the Constitution change since 1998?
He is representing President Trump
Being a hypocritical ass and supporting things you once opposed is a virtue
It would seem Nadless' legitimacy is in question.Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
The second one was for multiple crimes, something lacking in this farce.What’s your point ? Trump hasn’t abused anything.. he was taking about abuse Joe Biden’s Brother Bagged $54,000,000 in Taxpayer Loans
This is not about Joe Biden or his brother, we are having a trial on tramps impeachment, because he was impeached by the House.
Trump wasn't impeached, he was barely half-peached you fools couldn't even get all the Dem's to vote yes let alone a single Republican. We will laugh you idiots out of the Senate chamber in a couple of weeks just relax.
He was the third Potus impeached, he will go down in history as impeached. The second one was for lying about an affair.
Dershowitz will defend anyone that pays his very hefty legal fees. Doesn’t matter if they’re a pedophile, murderer or corrupt president. His legal opinions should be considered in this context.Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.
Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side
1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.
I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.
Wow so the left is upset with Dershowitz for doing what you hire a lawyer to do I would say shocking but it’s not.Dershowitz will defend anyone that pays his very hefty legal fees. Doesn’t matter if they’re a pedophile, murderer or corrupt president. His legal opinions should be considered in this context.Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.
Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.
no crime is outlined in either article. funny huh?What’s your point ? Trump hasn’t abused anything.. he was taking about abuse Joe Biden’s Brother Bagged $54,000,000 in Taxpayer Loans
This is not about Joe Biden or his brother, we are having a trial on tramps impeachment, because he was impeached by the House.
