This Is Lynching

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, the current red faced Democrat gaggle does resemble a mob-so lynching it is!

They're also not following the rules regarding impeachment inquiries, so it doesn't qualify as "justice."

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

McCain was a Democrat in the Republican party. He broke Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment repeatedly. Poor McCain? Do you know what he was wroth upon death? The guy married into money, just like John Kerry.

Honestly, no, I do not know what he was wroth because I have no idea what wroth is. (sorry, I couldn't help myself - it was too funny).

Kidding aside. The term poor wasn't in reference to wealth but in regards to how the republican party abandoned John McCain for Donald Trump. I agree McCain became more democratic in his later years and there were certainly issues that he promoted that I thought were nutso but I never questioned his dedication and love of country. And I never felt he was a liar.

McCain was never looked on favorably by any real Republican. Even when we voted for him for President against Ears, we did so holding our noses.

Yes, McCain was a liar. He promised that if the opportunity presented itself, he would vote to get rid of Commie Care. Because Trump got in and led the charge, he did the exact opposite. He was a man that held a terrible grudge, and took his bitter hatred to his grave with him.

Now it's one thing if he had a personal vendetta with Trump. But it's another thing to lie to all your constituents to settle that vendetta. And in the same move, he screwed over all Republican voters at the same time.

So you still believe the job of a Senator elected by the voters of AridZona is to represent a political party, do you.

View attachment 286161​

Partly, yes I do. Especially when many of those same people voted for that Senator for President.

You know who that image is, right?

"Nun so blind".

Go check your Constitution. And yes you can borrow my copy. Show the class where it says anything about Senators representing political parties. Bernie Sanders and Angus King need to know what the hell they're supposed to be doing.

So where did I say it was a Constitutional requirement?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Donald Trump uses another racially insensitive word to demonstrate his inbred racism.

He compared the impeachment process to a lynching.

Trump calls impeachment inquiry a 'lynching' - CNNPolitics

He was correct

Nope, he was wrong as usual. Actual lynchings involve mobs, never a justice system. Impeachment involves the exact opposite.

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

 

[dudmuck]

They're also not following the rules regarding impeachment inquiries, so it doesn't qualify as "justice."

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

 

[Pogo]

Honestly, no, I do not know what he was wroth because I have no idea what wroth is. (sorry, I couldn't help myself - it was too funny).

Kidding aside. The term poor wasn't in reference to wealth but in regards to how the republican party abandoned John McCain for Donald Trump. I agree McCain became more democratic in his later years and there were certainly issues that he promoted that I thought were nutso but I never questioned his dedication and love of country. And I never felt he was a liar.

McCain was never looked on favorably by any real Republican. Even when we voted for him for President against Ears, we did so holding our noses.

Yes, McCain was a liar. He promised that if the opportunity presented itself, he would vote to get rid of Commie Care. Because Trump got in and led the charge, he did the exact opposite. He was a man that held a terrible grudge, and took his bitter hatred to his grave with him.

Now it's one thing if he had a personal vendetta with Trump. But it's another thing to lie to all your constituents to settle that vendetta. And in the same move, he screwed over all Republican voters at the same time.

So you still believe the job of a Senator elected by the voters of AridZona is to represent a political party, do you.

View attachment 286161​

Partly, yes I do. Especially when many of those same people voted for that Senator for President.

You know who that image is, right?

"Nun so blind".

Go check your Constitution. And yes you can borrow my copy. Show the class where it says anything about Senators representing political parties. Bernie Sanders and Angus King need to know what the hell they're supposed to be doing.

So where did I say it was a Constitutional requirement?

So where did I say "requirement"?

The COTUS spells out what the roles of the various offices are. The role of the Senator is to represent his state, and a Representative his district. NEITHER of them is there to represent political parties. They stand in for the citizenry of that state/district and their interests -- not those of a party.

That's why Bernie Sanders and Angus King show up for work. If they were there to represent a party they'd have nothing to do.

That's what I keep trying to tell y'all "RINO" heads. There's no such thing. Everybody has his or her own two Senators; it's not your place or mine to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator has to do. It's theirs -- the constituents. That's who hires them --- not a 'party'. This "RINO" robotic crapola is the tribalism that's poisoning the system.

I'd like you to meet a friend of mine, his name's E Pluribus Unum. Guess what his name means.

 

[dudmuck]

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

 

[Pogo]

Donald Trump uses another racially insensitive word to demonstrate his inbred racism.

He compared the impeachment process to a lynching.

Trump calls impeachment inquiry a 'lynching' - CNNPolitics

He was correct

Nope, he was wrong as usual. Actual lynchings involve mobs, never a justice system. Impeachment involves the exact opposite.

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He was correct

Nope, he was wrong as usual. Actual lynchings involve mobs, never a justice system. Impeachment involves the exact opposite.

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

 

[Pogo]

Nope, he was wrong as usual. Actual lynchings involve mobs, never a justice system. Impeachment involves the exact opposite.

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

Cherrypicking I see. Typical for a leftist. I bet you didn't think I remember what it said, like this part:

Lynch and lynching may occasionally be found used in a figurative or hyperbolic manner (describing a situation in which no one is actually put to death). It has also been used in reference to a president who is, or has been, close to impeachment.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

Cherrypicking I see. Typical for a leftist. I bet you didn't think I remember what it said, like this part:

Lynch and lynching may occasionally be found used in a figurative or hyperbolic manner (describing a situation in which no one is actually put to death). It has also been used in reference to a president who is, or has been, close to impeachment.

---- which is a direct reference to what I just posted, which by the way is not only your own link but right at the TOP of it.

And in spite of your puerile attempt at logical fallacy my reading ability has nothing to do with "leftism"; it has to do with "literacy".

 

[Third Party]

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

There is a big difference between secret hearings and this leak a day game Schiff is playing. Take off your orange colored glasses and you will see it.

 

[dudmuck]

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

1. Putin orders interference into election, to have Trump win
   
   
2. Russians hack DNC email (not RNC)
   
   
3. Russian hacks gets on Wikileaks's
   
   
4. Trump talks about Wikileaks all the time "what about her emails"
   
   
5. The campaigns are all about emails, no real issue matters
   
   
6. A week before election Wikileaks is pushed by Trump and public again
   
   
7. Trump narrowly wins even if still losing popular vote
   
   
8. Trump becomes president

For the ukraine call transcript, it is not complete. Its a memo from the white house.

As for obstruction, its detailed here.

 

[Third Party]

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Your're looking up history, I lived thru it. I hated Nixon and hoped they would treat him the way Trump is being treated now. But they didn't, the press and the Democrats were fair. I understand you hate Trump and feel the way I felt-but it wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Open the hearings to the public-we have a right to see what our government is doing.

 

[Third Party]

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

1. Putin orders interference into election, to have Trump win
   
   
2. Russians hack DNC email (not RNC)
   
   
3. Russian hacks gets on Wikileaks's
   
   
4. Trump talks about Wikileaks all the time "what about her emails"
   
   
5. The campaigns are all about emails, no real issue matters
   
   
6. A week before election Wikileaks is pushed by Trump and public again
   
   
7. Trump narrowly wins even if still losing popular vote
   
   
8. Trump becomes president

For the ukraine call transcript, it is not complete. Its a memo from the white house.

As for obstruction, its detailed here.

Poorly laid out points-Ray from Cleveland did a much better job.

 

[RealDave]

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Your're looking up history, I lived thru it. I hated Nixon and hoped they would treat him the way Trump is being treated now. But they didn't, the press and the Democrats were fair. I understand you hate Trump and feel the way I felt-but it wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Open the hearings to the public-we have a right to see what our government is doing.

Nixon did not act like a spoiled 5 year old, did not lie every day, was not scamming the office for personal gain, did not assault women, Did not call people childish names, acted like an adult.

 

[RealDave]

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

There is a big difference between secret hearings and this leak a day game Schiff is playing. Take off your orange colored glasses and you will see it.

Nope. No different from other hearings.

Clinton & Nixon were investigated behind closed doors .

You really need to get better informed & quit whining.

 

[RealDave]

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

Cherrypicking I see. Typical for a leftist. I bet you didn't think I remember what it said, like this part:

Lynch and lynching may occasionally be found used in a figurative or hyperbolic manner (describing a situation in which no one is actually put to death). It has also been used in reference to a president who is, or has been, close to impeachment.

The term has racial connotations. Trump should not have used it.

The idea this is his second such use of racial terminology, it says either he did it on purpose or his racism is so inbred that he can;t help himself.