A little help from my fellow progressives on the board.

[CowboyTed]

regardless how wrong the RW idiot collective may be, they will never allow you or anyone else to point it out.

F'em and feed em fish heads.

You're an idiot, just as stupid as the OP

you're a Russian,

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I don't agree with you and I don't think you are a Russian Bot...

You apart of a group of people here who don't care about truth, you only care about winning. Think is Russians know that and they know you will sell out America to get one over the Democrats... To them you are an asset...

Rather than be embarrassed about this you choose to ignore it...

The main thing you and others are banking on, when Democrats are in charge they wont sell out America like you would.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have told about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Will this help you sleep nights as you face a CERTAIN loss?

 

[berg80]

Calling witnesses
The House resolution says requests from members to call witnesses to provide testimony must be submitted in writing to Schiff. They have three days to do that after a hearing is announced. But the Facebook post overreaches in saying that the rules "do not allow any witness to be called" without his approval.

Here’s what the resolution says about the power of members in the minority:

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."

That means any request from Nunes for additional testimony must go through Schiff.

 

[Siete]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have told about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Will this help you sleep nights as you face a CERTAIN loss?[/QUOTE



no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle t

fake impeachment trial -

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable stir when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.” He added, “There will be

fake impeachment trial -

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable stir when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.” He added, “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

 

[pknopp]

Oddly I always have to note this. I do NOT support Trump.

I've asked this over and over without an answer. When Clinton was impeached Robert Byrd came out and stated that what Clinton did reached the level of impeachment but he still would not vote to convict.

Why do the (D)'s expect the (R)'s to do what they would not?

 

[jknowgood]

I wonder if Russian bots are behind some of the lies?

Says House Democrats passed impeachment rules that "do not allow any witness to be called unless the witness is approved by Adam Schiff," "do not allow involvement of the President’s legal counsel" and "do not allow any witness to be questioned unless the question is approved by Adam Schiff."

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Politifact? Lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

regardless how wrong the RW idiot collective may be, they will never allow you or anyone else to point it out.

F'em and feed em fish heads.

You're an idiot, just as stupid as the OP

you're a Russian,

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I don't agree with you and I don't think you are a Russian Bot...

You apart of a group of people here who don't care about truth, you only care about winning. Think is Russians know that and they know you will sell out America to get one over the Democrats... To them you are an asset...

Rather than be embarrassed about this you choose to ignore it...

The main thing you and others are banking on, when Democrats are in charge they wont sell out America like you would.

Thankfully, Stalinist democrats will never be in charge again

 

[Olde Europe]

Oddly I always have to note this. I do NOT support Trump.

I've asked this over and over without an answer. When Clinton was impeached Robert Byrd came out and stated that what Clinton did reached the level of impeachment but he still would not vote to convict.

Why do the (D)'s expect the (R)'s to do what they would not?

Several points here. Byrd is not "Democrats." Second, I see no Republican willing to impeach (yet not convict). Third, Byrd's argument is a bit more nuanced than you let on, boiling down to, "What the heck did Starr, Kavanaugh and the House do, investigate a consensual blow job?" Or, way more eloquently put:

The American people deeply believe in fairness, and they have come to view the President as having 'been put upon' for politically partisan reasons. They think that the House proceedings were unfair. History, too, will see it that way. The people believe that the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, had motivations which went beyond the duties strictly assigned to him.

In the end, the people's perception of this entire matter as being driven by political agendas all around, and the resulting lack of support for the President's removal, tip the scales for allowing this President to serve out the remaining 22 months of his term, as he was elected to do. When the people believe that we who have been entrusted with their proxies, have been motivated mostly or solely by political partisanship on a matter of such momentous import as the removal from office of a twice-elected President, wisdom dictates that we turn away from that dramatic step. To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already. Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.​

There was no unfair investigation into an irrelevancy in Trump's case - it was abuse of office in the most glaring way possible. Hence, there is a majority, at least a plurality, of Americans for impeachment and removal, which was never the case in Clinton's case. I'd say, your equivalence is faulty to the point of being decrepit.

Byrd's statement is well worth a read in full.

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats never expected the former Republicans to vote against the Trumpybear.

They called his bluff. See the people liked Clinton and didn't think he should be removed from office for lying about an extra marital blowjob. The people don't like ol'Trumpybear and they are not impressed with the corruption the former Republicans are seemingly willing to embrace The worst thing for the Democrats right now would be a vote to convict President Trumpybear while the GOP still has time to regroup for 2020.

 

[berg80]

Oddly I always have to note this. I do NOT support Trump.

I've asked this over and over without an answer. When Clinton was impeached Robert Byrd came out and stated that what Clinton did reached the level of impeachment but he still would not vote to convict.

Why do the (D)'s expect the (R)'s to do what they would not?

My guess is because the underlying offense over which Clinton perjured himself was a sexual affair having no impact on the country. Trump, on the other hand, compromised national security by withholding military aid to an ally who was is in a conflict (and still is) with our enemy, Russia.

And, there's the matter of obstruction. Clinton testified..........Trump is making a bogus claim of blanket immunity for all the witnesses called to testify and for all documents he chooses to illegally withhold.

 

[berg80]

Bottom line, Trump was afforded the opportunity to present a defense and declined because there is no defense.

 

[pknopp]

Oddly I always have to note this. I do NOT support Trump.

I've asked this over and over without an answer. When Clinton was impeached Robert Byrd came out and stated that what Clinton did reached the level of impeachment but he still would not vote to convict.

Why do the (D)'s expect the (R)'s to do what they would not?

Several points here. Byrd is not "Democrats." Second, I see no Republican willing to impeach (yet not convict). Third, Byrd's argument is a bit more nuanced than you let on, boiling down to, "What the heck did Starr, Kavanaugh and the House do, investigate a consensual blow job?"

Nope, the testimony was brought up during a sexual assault case. That you are willing to dismiss that proves my point.

 

[pknopp]

Oddly I always have to note this. I do NOT support Trump.

I've asked this over and over without an answer. When Clinton was impeached Robert Byrd came out and stated that what Clinton did reached the level of impeachment but he still would not vote to convict.

Why do the (D)'s expect the (R)'s to do what they would not?

My guess is because the underlying offense over which Clinton perjured himself was a sexual affair having no impact on the country. Trump, on the other hand, compromised national security by withholding military aid to an ally who was is in a conflict (and still is) with our enemy, Russia.

And, there's the matter of obstruction. Clinton testified..........Trump is making a bogus claim of blanket immunity for all the witnesses called to testify and for all documents he chooses to illegally withhold.

It was about a sexual assault.

 

[easyt65]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have to ld about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Poor desperate snowflake....

The US IG and FISA Court has proven almost EVERYTHING the Democrats have said the last 3 years are lies...and you need help from fellow snowflakes to distract from this....

 

[berg80]

I wonder if Russian bots are behind some of the lies?

Says House Democrats passed impeachment rules that "do not allow any witness to be called unless the witness is approved by Adam Schiff," "do not allow involvement of the President’s legal counsel" and "do not allow any witness to be questioned unless the question is approved by Adam Schiff."

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Politifact? Lol

Why is it you folks who disparage a source of info I provide do a drive by hit but never, NEVER, even try to refute what the source reports. Cowardice, an inability to refute the reporting, or both?

 

[berg80]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have to ld about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Poor desperate snowflake....

The US IG and FISA Court has proven almost EVERYTHING the Democrats have said the last 3 years are lies...and you need help from fellow snowflakes to distract from this....

You get today's prize for the biggest lie. It's a t-shirt with Trump's face on it with the caption.........."I'm in it for me."

 

[bluzman61]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have told about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Damn, bergy, you are a brainwashed moron. Congratulations.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have told about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

View attachment 295396

Your Grandkid?

Nope, the op between posting sessions.

 

[jknowgood]

I wonder if Russian bots are behind some of the lies?

Says House Democrats passed impeachment rules that "do not allow any witness to be called unless the witness is approved by Adam Schiff," "do not allow involvement of the President’s legal counsel" and "do not allow any witness to be questioned unless the question is approved by Adam Schiff."

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Politifact? Lol

Why is it you folks who disparage a source of info I provide do a drive by hit but never, NEVER, even try to refute what the source reports. Cowardice, an inability to refute the reporting, or both?

Politifact is owned by liberals. Schiff would not allow the republicans to ask the witnesses questions. Did you not listen to the hearings?

 

[berg80]

I'd like to begin compiling a list of all the lies Repubs have told about the House impeachment inquiry. But I can't keep track of all of them.

There are some easy ones to start with.

1. Repubs say the depositions were held in secret. Not true. While they were held behind closed doors, Repubs were allowed to attended, ask questions of the witnesses, and had equal time to do so. Also, the transcripts of those depositions were made public.
Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public
2. Trump claims he was not allowed to defend himself. Not true. He was invited to have an attorney present at the Judiciary Committee hearing but chose not to.
Trump and counsel invited to take part in upcoming impeachment hearings - CNNPolitics
3. Repubs claim they were not allowed to have their witnesses testify. Not true.
Democrats Say Republican Impeachment Witnesses May Testify
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Democrats signaled their willingness to let some witnesses requested by Republicans testify as the House starts public impeachment hearings of Donald Trump this week, but only those people with knowledge of the president’s actions. And not Hunter Biden or the whistle-blower.
Ahead of the first session on Wednesday, Republicans gave the committee a list of witnesses they want called -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint sparked the inquiry."

Anyone not a member of the Trump cult is encouraged to add to the list.

Damn, bergy, you are a brainwashed moron. Congratulations.

Why is it you folks who disparage me do a drive by hit but never, even try to factually refute what I write. Cowardice, an inability to refute the facts, or both?