Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Casual Observer 597]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about 

How can you tell that?  You lack even basic trial knowledge, you donk.  Next time, keep your mouth shut and you won't make a fool out of yourself.

[Casual Observer 597]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

He did not say they should impeach.

Makes no difference to dishonest Worms.  He thinks we're not paying attention.

[The Observer 641]

29 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No you didn't. You were just being wormy with your statement. Everyone knows what you were saying. 

Ahh, so wormy is the new term when you make a claim and I prove you wrong.  Got it.  Lol  Still learning Hardcore-asscovering 101

[The Observer 641]

22 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

So Newbie and Old Maid................you're asserting because the Office of the I.C. IG released a statement saying this change was under review and was changed in August it must be true. Do you believe criminals when they say they're innocent?

Please tell me you're being ironic here.  You've spent the last three years believing a criminal because he says he's innocent.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

How can you tell that?  You lack even basic trial knowledge, you donk.  Next time, keep your mouth shut and you won't make a fool out of yourself.

Because you’re wrong. You CAN subpoena witnesses for trial but often times you don’t unless you really have to — I.e. they won’t appear voluntarily. And it’s even less likely that you’d actually subpoena a witness for a deposition and that’s what we’re really talking about here. I know you’ve probably heard subpoenas mentioned on law and order or something but the real world is a little different than TV, pal.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Ahh, so wormy is the new term when you make a claim and I prove you wrong.  Got it.  Lol  Still learning Hardcore-asscovering 101

Yeah, you're not getting away with that grimey nonsense. You know what you were saying. Nice try meathead. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t think they’re going for an obstruction charge here. It may be included in the articles of impeachment but the main charge will be much meatier. It has to be.

And your narrative is false since they could have gone with obstruction from the mueller inquiry. Mueller found like 15 possible instances of it and basically said congress could or should impeach. But they didn’t. So in fact the truth is exactly opposite of what you said, but that’s hardly a shocker.

As Barr stated, you can't obstruct when there was no basis for a crime.

And the obstruction has always been the key to getting rid of Trump. Rosenstein targeted Trump with Mueller so any effort by Trump to declassify stuff related to Russia investigation could be construed as impeding the investigation. THAT is why he handed off any decision to declassify documents to Barr. 

[The Observer 641]

15 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about 

Don't feel bad. I'm unemployed and don't own a house with an in ground pool.  It somehow makes them feel better. Just go with it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

Just now, The Observer said:

Don't feel bad. I'm unemployed and don't own a house with an in ground pool.  It somehow makes them feel better. Just go with it.

You definetly don't have a pool. You know nothing about them. 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, you're not getting away with that grimey nonsense. You know what you were saying. Nice try meathead. 

Just take the loss.  No need to make a two day beating out of it.  lol

[IGotWorms 3,315]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

He did not say they should impeach.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587509/

It was right there in the report. You can’t indict a sitting president (or so mueller believes) but you can impeach him

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I know lots of people with pools. In some cities they’re damn-near standard.

Must be pretty pathetic when you think that’s some huge achievement

[Mr. Hand 482]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587509/

It was right there in the report. You can’t indict a sitting president (or so mueller believes) but you can impeach him

I don't see in the report where Mueller said Congress should impeach as you claim.  That is spin. And you said 15 examples. The report had 10.

[The Observer 641]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I know lots of people with pools. In some cities they’re damn-near standard.

Must be pretty pathetic when you think that’s some huge achievement

It's not a huge achievement in my mind. Had a pool the entire time my daughter was a child.  But Hardcore thought he was the cat's meow when he had an in ground pool and I was living in an apartment complex. When I bought the house, he no longer could throw the apartment thing at me (although the complex I lived in was newer and nicer than his house) so he had a fit that I had a pool. Very fragile ego that boy has.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

1 minute ago, Mr. Hand said:

I don't see in the report where Mueller said Congress should impeach as you claim.  That is spin. And you said 15 examples. The report had 10.

15 was an estimate, turns out it was a little high. A bunch, was the point.

There was also mueller’s testimony where he very pointedly said that Trump was NOT exonerated.

But whatever, that’s all immaterial now.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

It's not a huge achievement in my mind. Had a pool the entire time my daughter was a child.  But Hardcore thought he was the cat's meow when he had an in ground pool and I was living in an apartment complex. When I bought the house, he no longer could throw the apartment thing at me (although the complex I lived in was newer and nicer than his house) so he had a fit that I had a pool. Very fragile ego that boy has.

Yeah, thats how it happened. Lol. 

[Casual Observer 597]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Because you’re wrong. You CAN subpoena witnesses for trial but often times you don’t unless you really have to — I.e. they won’t appear voluntarily. And it’s even less likely that you’d actually subpoena a witness for a deposition and that’s what we’re really talking about here. I know you’ve probably heard subpoenas mentioned on law and order or something but the real world is a little different than TV, pal.

You're such a clueless fool.  Subpoenas are issued to take testimony before trial (a deposition) all the time.  I'm wrangling over one right now.  Strike, as a non-lawyer, is a better lawyer than you.

If subpoenas aren't important here, then why are you talking about the house whatever subcommittee issuing one?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

It's not a huge achievement in my mind. Had a pool the entire time my daughter was a child.  But Hardcore thought he was the cat's meow when he had an in ground pool and I was living in an apartment complex. When I bought the house, he no longer could throw the apartment thing at me (although the complex I lived in was newer and nicer than his house) so he had a fit that I had a pool. Very fragile ego that boy has.

I wasn’t aiming that at you but rather people questioning if you really have a pool, like that’s some huge thing. It’s like they’re shocked if maybe someone doesn’t live in a double-wide

[Mr. Hand 482]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

15 was an estimate, turns out it was a little high. A bunch, was the point.

There was also mueller’s testimony where he very pointedly said that Trump was NOT exonerated.

But whatever, that’s all immaterial now.

And he also said there was not enough evidence of a crime. He job was not to exonerate him.

[Casual Observer 597]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I wasn’t aiming that at you but rather people questioning if you really have a pool, like that’s some huge thing. It’s like they’re shocked if maybe someone doesn’t live in a double-wide

I question whether he actually has a job.  I also question whether you went law school in Tierra Del Fuego or something like that.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

You're such a clueless fool.  Subpoenas are issued to take testimony before trial (a deposition) all the time.  I'm wrangling over one right now.  Strike, as a non-lawyer, is a better lawyer than you.

If subpoenas aren't important here, then why are you talking about the house whatever subcommittee issuing one?

Dude, do you ever make a post without attacking and insulting?  Is this to make up for real life where you cower around afraid of everyone?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I wasn’t aiming that at you but rather people questioning if you really have a pool, like that’s some huge thing. It’s like they’re shocked if maybe someone doesn’t live in a double-wide

I don't care about his pool or his Trans-Am. I was just pointing out another one of his lies and look at me deals. It's similar to when MDC claimed his wife was hourglass when he had earlier said she was tall and slender. These guys can't keep up with their own BS. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

4 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

You're such a clueless fool.  Subpoenas are issued to take testimony before trial (a deposition) all the time.  I'm wrangling over one right now.  Strike, as a non-lawyer, is a better lawyer than you.

If subpoenas aren't important here, then why are you talking about the house whatever subcommittee issuing one?

What do you mean before trial (a deposition)? Those aren’t the same thing you know

And like I said, yes sometimes they are issued. If you’ve got a non-cooperative witness or a witness who would prefer the cover of having to testify pursuant to a subpoena, then yes by all means. But if you subpoena every single witness for a deposition then you’re a dumbass, because nobody likes being forced to do something they could’ve just done voluntarily, and a witness who’s pissed at you isn’t going to be very helpful. You do seem like the kind of guy that’s too thick to understand that.

[The Observer 641]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I wasn’t aiming that at you but rather people questioning if you really have a pool, like that’s some huge thing. It’s like they’re shocked if maybe someone doesn’t live in a double-wide

You're trying to figure out the mental state of an ex-cop who now drives Uber. He went from a position of power to a..well, an Uber driver. So he needs to try to get that power elsewhere. I guess creating a mental image that all of his board enemies are struggling in life just makes his balls feel a little more plump. I feel bad for him, actually.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

You're trying to figure out the mental state of an ex-cop who now drives Uber. He went from a position of power to a..well, an Uber driver. So he needs to try to get that power elsewhere. I guess creating a mental image that all of his board enemies are struggling in life just makes his balls feel a little more plump. I feel bad for him, actually.

I don't drive Uber. Never have. Not that theres anything wrong with it, it's honest work. And who the Fock are you to look down on how anyone makes a living? If someone didn't give you your job you would be doing what exactly with your no education and no skills? 

[Casual Observer 597]

3 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Dude, do you ever make a post without attacking and insulting?  Is this to make up for real life where you cower around afraid of everyone?

You get treated exactly as you deserve to be treated, which is with contempt.

[Mr. Hand 482]

5 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Dude, do you ever make a post without attacking and insulting?  Is this to make up for real life where you cower around afraid of everyone?

You do this all the time and it's resulted in you being banned multiple times.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

You get treated exactly as you deserve to be treated, which is with contempt.

Tough words from a soft boy

[Casual Observer 597]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What do you mean before trial (a deposition)? Those aren’t the same thing you know

And like I said, yes sometimes they are issued. If you’ve got a non-cooperative witness or a witness who would prefer the cover of having to testify pursuant to a subpoena, then yes by all means. But if you subpoena every single witness for a deposition then you’re a dumbass, because nobody likes being forced to do something they could’ve just done voluntarily, and a witness who’s pissed at you isn’t going to be very helpful. You do seem like the kind of guy that’s too thick to understand that.

Taking testimony before trial is called a deposition, dummy.  Go back and re-take Civil Procedure.  Who said anything subpoenaing all witnesses?  More conflation from dishonest Worms, who doesn't know basic civil procedure.

[MDC 5,893]

14 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I know lots of people with pools. In some cities they’re damn-near standard.

Must be pretty pathetic when you think that’s some huge achievement

Member when HT said he had to go wash the pool deck, and Sho Nuff reminded him that his pool was in ground, and HT said lots of in ground pools have pool decks and there are pics on Google Inages if you doubt him... proving that he went onto Google images to confirm that his story was plausible?

That was funny.  

[Casual Observer 597]

Just now, The Observer said:

Tough words from a soft boy

Those aren't even tough words and you don't know anything about me, except what you project, Baron Munchausen.

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Mr. Hand said:

You do this all the time and it's resulted in you being banned multiple times.

I get banned for owning people like you so often that they report me.  Can you imagine if I reported people? I make one post stating a fact about Rudy and I'm a cuck. I have never attacked anyone who hasn't attacked me first.  I just do it better.  hth

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Casual Observer said:

Those aren't even tough words and you don't know anything about me, except what you project, Baron Munchausen.

Oh really?  You must really hate projections. That's why you say I'm unemployed (I made more money by Tuesday afternoon than you will all week, by the way) and that Worms isn't really a lawyer. LOL  Practice what you preach, precious.

[Mr. Hand 482]

Just now, The Observer said:

I get banned for owning people like you so often that they report me.  Can you imagine if I reported people? I make one post stating a fact about Rudy and I'm a cuck. I have never attacked anyone who hasn't attacked me first.  I just do it better.  hth

You get banned because you get off on being nasty to people and stop with your delusions that you don't attack first.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Mr. Hand said:

You get banned because you get off on being nasty to people and stop with your delusions that you don't attack first.

Going forward, I'm going to make you responsible for pointing out any time that I attack or insult anyone (members, not politicians), unprovoked. 

Part of the job also requires you pointing out every time someone attacks me, unprovoked. 

I look forward to working with you.

[Casual Observer 597]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Oh really?  You must really hate projections. That's why you say I'm unemployed (I made more money by Tuesday afternoon than you will all week, by the way) and that Worms isn't really a lawyer. LOL  Practice what you preach, precious.

Worms is an idiot.  He's proven that time and time and again.  You are some weird unemployed guy with narcissistic tendencies and delusions of grandeur.  You can't even tell us what you do for a living.  You made more money than me by Tuesday afternoon than I did this week if you work commissioned sales and your commission checks were held for the entire year and paid on Tuesday.  Other than that you dreamt it and in your delusional state can't distinguish between a dream and reality.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

And he also said there was not enough evidence of a crime. He job was not to exonerate him.

I read it to say there wasn't enough evidence to prove anything one way or the other.  He made it sound like there was obstruction but not enough evidence to prove it.  I don't think he said there was never ANY evidence, just not enough.

It doesn't really matter though because since there there wasn't enough evidence to prove anything either way, both side have found a way to spin it so that it favors their opinion.  I think both have some legitimate points but neither can prove themselves right.  Just a big ol' pissing match.

[Strike 3,979]

This will be my one post to Observer Newbie, and I still wish you all would just ignore him.  But anyways.  ObserverNewbie, you don't get banned for constantly owning people.  If that were the case, I'd have been banned a bunch of times for the way I've owned you over the years. 

[The Observer 641]

9 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

Worms is an idiot.  He's proven that time and time and again.  You are some weird unemployed guy with narcissistic tendencies and delusions of grandeur.  You can't even tell us what you do for a living.  You made more money than me by Tuesday afternoon than I did this week if you work commissioned sales and your commission checks were held for the entire year and paid on Tuesday.  Other than that you dreamt it and in your delusional state can't distinguish between a dream and reality.

Don't let your jealousy turn to hatred.  That sh*t''ll tear you up inside.

[The Observer 641]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

This will be my one post to Observer Newbie, and I still wish you all would just ignore him.  But anyways.  ObserverNewbie, you don't get banned for constantly owning people.  If that were the case, I'd have been banned a bunch of times for the way I've owned you over the years. 

Wicked burn