Jump to content
Alias Detective

Official Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I think they should vote.....of course way back when they did not have it most of them did not WANT it, only a small set of women actually wanted it....you see, the vote exposed one to things like the draft... and most women understand that to me a male means you have to face death, they were not really interested in that...

You see they want all the benefits of society, along with the arcane gender roles that benefit THEM, but none of the negatives.... if that sounds selfish, immature and one-sided that is because it is.....

Like Bill Burr said, there ain't no feminists in a house fire or when a boat is sinking.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is the IG report coming out? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Like Bill Burr said, there ain't no feminists in a house fire or when a boat is sinking.  :lol:

Damb skippy...oh you need something from the top shelf?   is that really heavy and needs to be moved?   Sorry, that seems like something for a male gender role, now give me your focking job you disgusting white male....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More bombshells today :shocking:

 

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council staffer responsible for Russia and Ukraine, told lawmakers during her testimony that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said.

She said the suggestion alarmed then-national security adviser John Bolton, who “immediately stiffened” and ended the meeting.

Separately, Top White House expert on Ukraine Alexander Vindman testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland characterized the request for investigations by Ukraine — or a “deliverable” — as coordinated with Mulvaney, according to the transcript of his testimony released today.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that smart people are willing to testify on what they believe the intent was.  That should scare all of us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

It amazes me that smart people are willing to testify on what they believe the intent was.  That should scare all of us. 

Correct.   It should be pretty obvious that we have a section of people tilting hard left, and I mean Stalinist left.....scary sh!t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Correct.   It should be pretty obvious that we have a section of people tilting hard left, and I mean Stalinist left.....scary sh!t

Neo-fascists.  I had no idea how important the Ukraine was to them.  No one did.  I have to go re-examine the Russian incursion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former national security adviser John Bolton has significant insights into matters being probed by the impeachment investigators, his lawyer said in a letter to congressional leaders today. 

But Bolton’s attorney said his client will not testify until a court resolves whether a subpoena to him must be adhered to.

In a letter, lawyer Charles Cooper said, “Ambassador Bolton, who was the National Security Advisor to the President, and who was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

More bombshells today :shocking:

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council staffer responsible for Russia and Ukraine, told lawmakers during her testimony that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said.

She said the suggestion alarmed then-national security adviser John Bolton, who “immediately stiffened” and ended the meeting.

Separately, Top White House expert on Ukraine Alexander Vindman testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland characterized the request for investigations by Ukraine — or a “deliverable” — as coordinated with Mulvaney, according to the transcript of his testimony released today.

Sure, another 'bombshell".  :lol:

This is like, what?  The 20th or 30th "bombshell" we've had in 3 years that is going to take out Trump?  You lemmings are all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sure, another 'bombshell".  :lol:

This is like, what?  The 20th or 30th "bombshell" we've had in 3 years that is going to take out Trump?  You lemmings are all the same.

If the people who are manufacturing all of  these "Trump bombshells" were the ones building our weapons in WWII, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese now. . .  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

More bombshells today :shocking:

 

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council staffer responsible for Russia and Ukraine, told lawmakers during her testimony that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said.

She said the suggestion alarmed then-national security adviser John Bolton, who “immediately stiffened” and ended the meeting.

Separately, Top White House expert on Ukraine Alexander Vindman testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland characterized the request for investigations by Ukraine — or a “deliverable” — as coordinated with Mulvaney, according to the transcript of his testimony released today.

Another Obama holdover trying to prevent sunlight on the Obama administration/Ukraine money and laundering program ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Masshole said:

If the people who are manufacturing all of  these "Trump bombshells" were the ones building our weapons in WWII, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese now. . .  

If I had a $1 for every time some lemming on the left declared they had another Trump "bombshell" I'd be a millionaire by now.  Seriously, do they not get it?  Not a single one of their "witnesses" has said they had direct evidence of Trump asking for a quid-pro-quo. These are the same people that have ignored Biden's quid-pro-quo ON VIDEOTAPE nonetheless.

What a bunch of slaves to the DNC.  It's like the Plantations the Democrats ran back in the day, except today's it's just a virtual plantation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

 

What a bunch of slaves to the DNC.  It's like the Plantations the Democrats ran back in the day, except today's it's just a virtual plantation.

They are pathetic,  none of them admit to supporting Hillary (liars) yet they dont care and even defend the cover up (not exposing the emails) of the DNC shitting down their throats by forcing Hillary on them. Nope they're more concerned that trump wanted to see the emails that prove they were getting focked in the mouth by the DNC and Hillary. 

:doh:

losers!

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 3:49 PM, drobeski said:

They are pathetic,  none of them admit to supporting Hillary (liars) yet they dont care and even defend the cover up (not exposing the emails) of the DNC shitting down their throats by forcing Hillary on them. Nope they're more concerned that trump wanted to see the emails that prove they were getting focked in the mouth by the DNC and Hillary. 

:doh:

losers!

DNC didn't force Hillary. They were broke, Hillary lent them money on the agreement that she would be the candidate. Even worse IMO.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

DNC didn't force Hillary. They were broke, Hillary lent them money on the agreement that she would be the candidate. Even worse IMO.

Quid pro quo!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

Quid pro quo!

It was. All over the place. The superdelegates had to give Hillary their vote to get money from her for their local races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 1:47 PM, IGotWorms said:

More bombshells today :shocking:

 

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council staffer responsible for Russia and Ukraine, told lawmakers during her testimony that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said.

She said the suggestion alarmed then-national security adviser John Bolton, who “immediately stiffened” and ended the meeting.

Separately, Top White House expert on Ukraine Alexander Vindman testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland characterized the request for investigations by Ukraine — or a “deliverable” — as coordinated with Mulvaney, according to the transcript of his testimony released today.

1. It's okay for the president of the United States to work with our allies to look into corruption. 

2. Biden is NOT a political rival to Trump. He holds no office and is not the Democrats nominee. He's just a guy.

3. There is absolutely zero proof of quid pro quo. The only evidence put forth by democRATs are people who read a NYT article and make-believe intent.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lickin_starfish said:

Schiff won't let the meatwhistle blower testify in public. He's a shady weasel.

American/democracy/rule of law hating scumbags will be ok with this.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you figure this wraps up sometime in January/ February. Then there has to be a sexual assault allegation scheduled for next October.  What are they going  to do in between? I hope it's not just more racism BS. Played out. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Friday Nunes released a list of witnesses that the Republicans plan on calling in the impeachment hearing.

https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rm_letter_to_chm_re_witness_request.pdf

(Warning: link is PDF, depending on your browser or may try to auto download)

On the list:

1. Devon Archer, partner of Hunter Biden, also on board of Burisma collecting dat Ukraine cash

2. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, the central figure in the quid pro quo case against Biden, he received millions on and off the books while sitting on the board of Burisma collecting dat Ukraine cash

3. Alexandra Chalupa (real name) was the DNC employee who worked with Ukraine officials to get dirt on Trump campaign in 2016, in particular Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager at the time, currently rotting in prison for undisclosed business dealings with Ukraine (interesting as this is what the Biden's are allegedly guilty of and what Trump wanted investigated)

4. David Hale, directly involved with US foreign assistance, the expert on the alleged quid (allegedly withholding aid unless Ukraine "dug up dirt on Biden")

5. Tim Morrison, Lite Colonel Vindman's boss, was also on the "call"

6. Nellie Ohr, contractor with FusionGPS (funded by DNC, HRC, and FBI) and wife of top DOJ official, she collected dirt from Ukraine to add to the dossier to interfere with the 2016 election.

7. Kurt Volker, the centerpiece of the Sondland, Taylor, Giuliani love triangle

8. Eric Ciaramella, the "anonymous" "whistleblower" who filed the initial complaint based on 2nd hand heresay that Trump did something that some people thought might be maybe bad

9. All persons who aided Ciaramella in crafting the complaint based on 2nd person heresay that has mostly been contradicted in private testimony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sunday Schittforbrains released a statement saying tough tittay, he would not allow Republicans to call witnesses on the Nunes list related to Biden corruption in Ukraine or meddling in the 2016 election by Ukraine (ya know, the underlying quo of the fake qpq impeachment "matter")

https://m.theepochtimes.com/adam-schiff-responds-to-house-republicans-witness-list-request_3141966.html

He then warned that the impeachment inquiry will not be used to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, or allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

 

“This inquiry is not, and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or to facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intense Observer said:

On Sunday Schittforbrains released a statement saying tough tittay, he would not allow Republicans to call witnesses on the Nunes list related to Biden corruption in Ukraine or meddling in the 2016 election by Ukraine (ya know, the underlying quo of the fake qpq impeachment "matter")

https://m.theepochtimes.com/adam-schiff-responds-to-house-republicans-witness-list-request_3141966.html

He then warned that the impeachment inquiry will not be used to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, or allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

 

“This inquiry is not, and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or to facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said.

Oh, the irony of Schiff saying "sham investigations"!  🤣

FFS, this guy is a f#cking corrupt, lying POS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intense Observer said:

On Sunday Schittforbrains released a statement saying tough tittay, he would not allow Republicans to call witnesses on the Nunes list related to Biden corruption in Ukraine or meddling in the 2016 election by Ukraine (ya know, the underlying quo of the fake qpq impeachment "matter")

https://m.theepochtimes.com/adam-schiff-responds-to-house-republicans-witness-list-request_3141966.html

He then warned that the impeachment inquiry will not be used to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, or allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

 

“This inquiry is not, and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or to facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said.

If Republicans can't call the witness WTF is the point of this whole thing? Does Sh1tforbrains have the power to decide that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

If Republicans can't call the witness WTF is the point of this whole thing? Does Sh1tforbrains have the power to decide that?

Yes, unfortunately, he does as the chairman of the committee.  I'm not sure how the rules work in Congress, but the fact that you can't confront your witness or call your own witnesses seems to be a huge deal for due process.

Maybe when the trial starts in the Senate they'll be able to call witnesses they want?  I'm not sure about that, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yes, unfortunately, he does as the chairman of the committee.  I'm not sure how the rules work in Congress, but the fact that you can't confront your witness or call your own witnesses seems to be a huge deal for due process.

Maybe when the trial starts in the Senate they'll be able to call witnesses they want?  I'm not sure about that, though.

I don't think it will make it to the senate. There is no way they bring this up for an actual vote. They can't be that stupid. There plan is to keep doing inquires into the start of the process to establish a committee for the investigation into the crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

I don't think it will make it to the senate. There is no way they bring this up for an actual vote. They can't be that stupid. There plan is to keep doing inquires into the start of the process to establish a committee for the investigation into the crimes.

So, basically, the plan is to keep this "inquiry" as long as they can into election season so it stays fresh on voter's minds?  And if this doesn't work, make something else up to investigate to extend it into voting season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

So, basically, the plan is to keep this "inquiry" as long as they can into election season so it stays fresh on voter's minds?  And if this doesn't work, make something else up to investigate to extend it into voting season?

Pretty much.

They know a conviction in the Senate has zero chance of success.

If they vote to impeach in the House and the Senate doesn't convict they look bad. If it goes to the Senate they run the risk of Trump being able to call his own witnesses to testify. The Dems would never risk that because then the public would see what the actual crimes were in relation to Biden/Ukraine/2016 election meddling.

That leaves them with one option. An "impeachment inquiry" which is literally a made up focking investigation where Schittforbrains decides the rules and has no subpoena power.

The sole purpose is too create sound bytes from secret testimony, then create enough smoke that retards like Worms and FBgays think something must be there.

And possibly catch a few people lying so they can get some bullshit conviction unrelated to the actual alleged crime.

Russiagate 2.0

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Intense Observer said:

Pretty much.

They know a conviction in the Senate has zero chance of success.

If they vote to impeach in the House and the Senate doesn't convict they look bad. If it goes to the Senate they run the risk of Trump being able to call his own witnesses to testify. The Dems would never risk that because then the public would see what the actual crimes were in relation to Biden/Ukraine/2016 election meddling.

That leaves them with one option. An "impeachment inquiry" which is literally a made up focking investigation where Schittforbrains decides the rules and has no subpoena power.

The sole purpose is too create sound bytes from secret testimony, then create enough smoke that retards like Worms and FBgays think something must be there.

And possibly catch a few people lying so they can get some bullshit conviction unrelated to the actual alleged crime.

Russiagate 2.0

Can't the GOP sue in court over this "inquiry"?  The Dems seem to be treating it as an official investigation when it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 11:23 AM, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Oh, the irony of Schiff saying "sham investigations"!  🤣

FFS, this guy is a f#cking corrupt, lying POS.

All of this makes perfect sense.   It's actually to be expected:

If the R's are able to establish that there was corruption with Bidens, even if it's just implicit (Ukraine hoping throwing $ at Hunter would = more juice w/ Obama admin) then a huge piece of the D's case falls apart.   Your gonna impeach a guy for asking for assistance with an investigation with actual corruption and influence peddling involving US citizens?    Is it really even in doubt that there is something there?    Hunter getting a 80K/month job in an industry he doesn't know, a country he's never been to, and a language he cannot speak?  Really?

And if the R's can prove that there are legitimate reasons to at least consider the Biden mess in conjunction with the Ukraine stuff that's swirling around; Crowdstrike,  Steele dossier stuff, etc. (the Chulupa lady is in deep with the "etc." in Ukraine) and about to break - the dem's case and image completely implodes.     

Combine that with an impending criminal investigation thats about to break that may result in Comey and a few others getting rung up on charges and the entire setup/frame job of the Russia collusion thing comes apart and is open for all to see.  The really crazy thing is that all of this stuff is actually kind of tied together with a couple of different threads running thru the Russia collusion, 2016 election, Ukraine, Obama sr admin member deep state stuff, etc.   It all comes together at certain points.   

If that stuff is hanging in the balance or about to break, the dems are going to thrash around and fight with anything they've got like a Titanic passenger who just hit the water.  If you think about it  -  It doesn't even matter if what they are thrashing around and doing makes any sense or is provable.   Just keep the noise & headlines blaring at people.   

These dem maneuvers mean that there's some big stuff coming.   And of course an election in a year.   The impeachment is a joke anyway, best case for dems is that it will get voted down in the senate.   The dems only strategy is to create such a firestorm of BS/litgation/draggin it out that it will obscure and confuse the public's view when all of this stuff breaks.   They are trying to create such weariness, anger, and confusion about this stuff that people will be too shell shocked to react to anything anymore.  If you have one bomb go off near you that's startling and scary.    If you've been shelled for weeks and are just trying to hunker down in your trench & ride it out - a couple more bombs landing nearby aren't going to get much of a reaction from you.     The dems are "shelling" the population in anticipation of the coming counterattack & election.   The more they do it, the more you know they are in trouble.   

As painful as it is to watch and infuriating to endure, it's actually a good sign. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yes, unfortunately, he does as the chairman of the committee.  I'm not sure how the rules work in Congress, but the fact that you can't confront your witness or call your own witnesses seems to be a huge deal for due process.

Maybe when the trial starts in the Senate they'll be able to call witnesses they want?  I'm not sure about that, though.

I would imagine they could call anyone they want in the senate. That is the trial and you have the right to do so at that time. This right now is the investigation and you don’t.

I mean imagine you were being investigated for fraud or something and you demanded that the cops / prosecutors / grand jury hear from your witnesses before making a charging decision. Good focking luck, they don’t have to do sh1t but build their own case at that point. Then at trial you can try rolling out your best buddy who swears you’d never do anything wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

I would imagine they could call anyone they want in the senate. That is the trial and you have the right to do so at that time. This right now is the investigation and you don’t.

I mean imagine you were being investigated for fraud or something and you demanded that the cops / prosecutors / grand jury hear from your witnesses before making a charging decision. Good focking luck, they don’t have to do sh1t but build their own case at that point. Then at trial you can try rolling out your best buddy who swears you’d never do anything wrong

I suppose.  Although, it's NOT an investigation, but a "inquiry".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I would imagine they could call anyone they want in the senate. That is the trial and you have the right to do so at that time. This right now is the investigation and you don’t.

I mean imagine you were being investigated for fraud or something and you demanded that the cops / prosecutors / grand jury hear from your witnesses before making a charging decision. Good focking luck, they don’t have to do sh1t but build their own case at that point. Then at trial you can try rolling out your best buddy who swears you’d never do anything wrong

Clinton got to cross and call witnesses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership, a lawyer for the associate said.

The associate, Lev Parnas, told a representative of the incoming government that it had to announce an investigation into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid, the lawyer said. 

The claim by Mr. Parnas, who is preparing to share his account with impeachment investigators, challenges the narrative of events from Mr. Trump and Ukrainian officials that is at the core of the congressional inquiry. It also directly links Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to threats of repercussions made to the Ukrainians, something he has strenuously denied. 

But Mr. Parnas’s account, while potentially significant, is being contradicted on several fronts. None of the people involved dispute that the meeting occurred, but Mr. Parnas stands alone in saying the intention was to present an ultimatum to the Ukrainian leadership.

Another participant in the meeting, Mr. Parnas’s business partner, Igor Fruman, said Mr. Parnas’s claim was false; the men never raised the issues of aid or the vice president’s attendance at the inauguration, lawyers for Mr. Fruman said. 

Mr. Giuliani denied Mr. Parnas’s contention that he had delivered the warning at the direction of Mr. Giuliani. “Categorically, I did not tell him to say that,” Mr. Giuliani said. 

The dispute represents the clearest indication yet that Mr. Parnas, who was indicted along with Mr. Fruman last month on campaign finance charges, has turned on Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, both Soviet-born businessmen from Florida, worked with Mr. Giuliani for months in Ukraine outside normal diplomatic channels to further Mr. Trump’s interests. The men have been subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and Mr. Parnas’s lawyer has said his client will comply to the extent he can without incriminating himself. It is unclear if Mr. Parnas will ultimately be called to testify.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Clinton got to cross and call witnesses. 

In his impeachment TRIAL? Of course he did 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like there is a rock solid case for impeachment. Makes you wonder why they won't let the accused mount a defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think worms keeps posting articles because there's a chance shiitforbrains might call him as a star witness. Reading a NYT or CNN article is literally all it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

I think worms keeps posting articles because there's a chance shiitforbrains might call him as a star witness. Reading a NYT or CNN article is literally all it takes.

I chuckled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×