How much impeachment have you watched?

blackhawk

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2012
34,121
16,493
1,590
Deep in the heart of Texas.
Just curious has anyone watched every day of this impeachment stuff so far from start to finish? I switch over to it now and then and can only take about thirty seconds of it in the spirit of bipartisanship I don't expect this to change when the Republicans take their turn.
 
I watched Live PD instead and saw lots of liberals being arrested.

Far more entertaining than the circus in DC.
 
Zero. Watching that fucking spectacle Adam Shitt would not be something I could stomach for more than 3 or 4 seconds. Shitt is that little sissy we literally thrashed in high school. We smacked him around, threw him into the girl's bathroom headfirst, locked him in his locker, took his lunch money and generally showed our contempt for his effeminate ways. Now he's back to haunt us forever. Which includes shitting the bed in front of the whole world for 4 days.

Goddammit we're sorry Widdle Adam! You win! Now go away! We promise not to beat you down in front of your boyfriend again! Now STFU!
 
I watched about 20 minutes the first day and then they started repeating themselves over and over so that was it for me.
Just curious has anyone watched every day of this impeachment stuff so far from start to finish? I switch over to it now and then and can only take about thirty seconds of it in the spirit of bipartisanship I don't expect this to change when the Republicans take their turn.
 
Just curious has anyone watched every day of this impeachment stuff so far from start to finish? I switch over to it now and then and can only take about thirty seconds of it in the spirit of bipartisanship I don't expect this to change when the Republicans take their turn.
Not a nanosecond. Having too much fun watching Leftard heads pop here.
 
I've seen about a minute's worth of snippets. It was Bug Eyes talking about Russia, conspiracies and stuff. He should have to give up his salary to help pay back the tax money he's wasted.
 
I watched Live PD instead and saw lots of liberals being arrested.

Far more entertaining than the circus in DC.
^
idiocracy-ow-my-balls.jpg
 
Just curious has anyone watched every day of this impeachment stuff so far from start to finish? I switch over to it now and then and can only take about thirty seconds of it in the spirit of bipartisanship I don't expect this to change when the Republicans take their turn.
Watching the Democrats is like sticking ice picks in your eyes as they try to kill you with boring repetition.

The Tune in factor should see a sharp pick up once Trump's A-Team takes the floor.

congratostr.jpg
 
Washington Post Columnist: The Democrat Case for Impeachment Is Kind of a Huge Joke, Isn't It?

I was not expecting this from Jeff Bezos' Corporate Newsletter.

Summing up the glaring internal contradiction of the Democrats' "case:" That the "case" is simultaneously "overwhelming" and beyond disputation, and also, this is precisely why Republican Senators must help the House actually do the investigation and establish the case in the first place.

And here we have the basic contradiction of the House Democrats’ case for more witnesses. If it's "overwhelming" as is, then there is no need for more witnesses.

If it's "uncontested," which it most certainly is not, then there’s no need for a trial.

Schiff likes to throw these words around as though uttering them out loud turns them from argument into fact, but that’s not how argument works, outside of court and especially inside of court. The problem for Schiff is that the House impeachment consists entirely of argument, and entirely lacks direct evidence and direct testimony. That is why Democrats are so desperate to get a handful of Senate Republicans to do the work that Schiff and Jerrold Nadler refused to do, simply because the timing didn’t suit their tastes.

Harry Olsen rips Adam Schiff for pretending that he's a prosecutor.

The House's articles have been analogized to an indictment, but indictments can only be brought if they are sanctioned by a neutral, disinterested party. A prosecutor must persuade either a judge or a grand jury that there is probable cause a defendant committed a crime to initiate a case. No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral, disinterested party.

Nor can a prosecutor obtain evidence under subpoena on their whim. Anyone with a subpoena to provide testimony or written evidence can challenge that in court, as many recipients of such subpoenas in investigations supervised by the office of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did. That is exactly what the president has tried to do in many instances with respect to subpoenas issued by committees controlled by House Democrats. But Schiff and his colleagues not only chose not to permit the judicial process to play out with respect to those subpoenas; they chose to call the president’s attempt to avail himself of his rights "obstruction of Congress" and an impeachable offense itself. How Orwellian.

The list goes on. A defendant can file a motion to suppress any evidence obtained during an investigation that she believes was illegally obtained. That motion is heard by a disinterested party -- a federal judge -- and that judge's opinion can be appealed to an appellate court before the trial ever begins. Again, the House procedure denied the president that basic right by making the prosecutor, Schiff, the judge.
 
Pretty impressive. never thought I would hear many of the purveyors of truth, supposedly of the president's conduct, come right out and say they had actually not watched any of it, as if not having a clue was a badge of honor. Congratulations. You are really fine American citizens, in you own minds, that is. Well, whatever it takes to make you feel safe.
 

Forum List

Back
Top