Repubs haven't just crossed the Rubicon, they've built a bridge over it.

[Jitss617]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[berg80]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

What's ironic about this, that the person making the referral is a trump appointee?

CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call
Experts are raising questions about why the Justice Department did not open an investigation.
CIA top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump call

 

[blackhawk]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

What's ironic about this, that the person making the referral is a trump appointee?

CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call
Experts are raising questions about why the Justice Department did not open an investigation.
CIA top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump call

All you do is go around cherry picking things that support whatever narrative you want to push the very thing you and the rest of the far left accuse Trump supporters of doing. That is the irony it is also something you will never admit and it has become increasingly stale and boring.

 

[whitehall]

Republicans full tilt Orwell? You gotta be kidding. At first democrats claimed that there was "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia and when that turned out to be laughable they found a "whistle blower" who remains anonymous who was supposed to have knowledge about a freaking phone call. When that didn't work out they decided that Trump's election victory constituted an abuse of power. In the mean time the Obama administration used a foreign operative with ties to Russia to concoct a fake dossier in order to obtain a surveillance warrant on a political opponent. The former CIA director lied under oath and the FBI leadership falsified information. Even though the whole thing is falling apart it seems that the democrat leadership is still committed to making fools of themselves while their constituents suffer and the Country suffers under a do-nothing congress.

 

[g5000]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. That's the argument I actually saw them making the other day.

Basically, "If Horowitz doesn't find anything wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished. If Horowitz does find something wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished."


The poor dumb rubes are in a real fit that their FISA hoax didn't pan out.

 

[g5000]

Repubs haven't just crossed the Rubicon, they've built a bridge over it.

I frequently warn the pseudocons about the benchmarks they set. The standards they make up and apply to others INVARIABLY come back to bitch slap them in their slack stupid faces.

Every time.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

There is no evidence to match anything. Just hearsay, hate for trump, and emotional rants. No substance or evidence.

That's the ticket! Overwhelming evidence is no evidence. You catch on fast.

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion? Democrats spent weeks talking them up as the crimes of Trump’s Ukraine interventions. They had turned to those words after focus groups with voters found them more compelling than “quid pro quo.” Yet suddenly they’re gone. Have Democrats concluded that Trump’s actions aren’t illegal under statutes that have specific meaning?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. That's the argument I actually saw them making the other day.

Basically, "If Horowitz doesn't find anything wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished. If Horowitz does find something wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished."


The poor dumb rubes are in a real fit that their FISA hoax didn't pan out.

Unblock me, coward.

 

[Seawytch]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. That's the argument I actually saw them making the other day.

Basically, "If Horowitz doesn't find anything wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished. If Horowitz does find something wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished."


The poor dumb rubes are in a real fit that their FISA hoax didn't pan out.

But wont we all be better off if FISA is scrapped? I remember arguing with Bush supporters after 9/11. They were all like "why do you care if anyone is listening if you aren't doing anything wrong?" Guess those now Trump supporters have changed their tune?

 

[berg80]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

What's ironic about this, that the person making the referral is a trump appointee?

CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call
Experts are raising questions about why the Justice Department did not open an investigation.
CIA top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump call

All you do is go around cherry picking things that support whatever narrative you want to push the very thing you and the rest of the far left accuse Trump supporters of doing. That is the irony it is also something you will never admit and it has become increasingly stale and boring.

So..........because you have no cogent reply for this...................................

CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump Ukraine call
Experts are raising questions about why the Justice Department did not open an investigation.
CIA top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on complaint about Trump call

....................it's cherry picking. How pathetic of you.

 

[berg80]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

 

[blastoff]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

There is no help for your mental delusion

And that’s a very very very good thing!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. That's the argument I actually saw them making the other day.

Basically, "If Horowitz doesn't find anything wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished. If Horowitz does find something wrong, then the FISA system is broken and it needs to be abolished."


The poor dumb rubes are in a real fit that their FISA hoax didn't pan out.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, that sounds like doublethink.

 

[berg80]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

 

[depotoo]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

What don’t you get. No one from his campaign was charged or convicted for working with Russia. Period.

 

[berg80]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Whatever happened to bribery and extortion?

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

I am. Are you a Jew? Read and educate yourself.

Opinion | The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

What don’t you get. No one from his campaign was charged or convicted for working with Russia. Period.

And...............................?