Shit...Fox's legal analyst Napolitano has been stating outright that Trump should be impeached for the better part of a month now. He literally has to 'correct' the Yahoos on the morning shows on points of fact to do it.
Yet, they ignore it all.
3 left wing intellectuals call for impeachment...SHOCKING!!
- Thread starter Roy L Fuchs
- Start date
Shit...Fox's legal analyst Napolitano has been stating outright that Trump should be impeached for the better part of a month now. He literally has to 'correct' the Yahoos on the morning shows on points of fact to do it.
Yet, they ignore it all.
Honestly, with today's media frenzies and active disinformation campaigns, it would have been quite useful for the House committees to post these basic steps of the process up for every hearing, and which step was being addressed, because it seems it is far too easy to flummox people like Lone Clone into the "No New Facts Were Presented Today", because that part of the process is essentially finished.
Likewise important to understand, that new facts keep coming up, connecting more dots - like the fact Nunes was in repeated communication with Rudy G and his buddies who have both been indicted as part of this scheme. It gets hard to keep up on what's going on, when new, impeachable actions continue to surface, because those elements fall back into Steps 1 and 2, when we already have ample information to move forward on the facts already acquired and substantiated.
I'm having a hard time understanding why all those Democratic " donor - constitutional scholars " weren't wearing their " pink pussyhats ". Were they not allowed in chambers?
Dude, look at their past writing and videos. The lady wont even walk in front of his hotel.
The dems are basically handing the election to Trump. Most people understand fairness issues and are growing tired of the impeachment drum beat.
I am all for them moving forward
I'm having a hard time understanding why all those Democratic " donor - constitutional scholars " weren't wearing their " pink pussyhats ". Were they not allowed in chambers?
And I wonder why all the republicans weren't wearing their Russian traitor hats.
I'm having a hard time understanding why all those Democratic " donor - constitutional scholars " weren't wearing their " pink pussyhats ". Were they not allowed in chambers?
I realize this gets difficult for you, but perhaps those wearing the hats aren't actually "constitutional scholars".
Meanwhile, a constitutional scholar from Antonin Scalia Law School (well known bastion for liberal thought, I'm sure) and Judge Napolitano have both stated outright that the facts indicate a clear, slam-dunk case for impeachment. Maybe you can send both of them some "pussy hats" to show your respects.
How are the dems handing the election to Trump? They would be handing it to him if they allowed him to control the election, but that's what they're fighting against. The impeachment isn't handing the election to either side. The election is going to come down to the people in the middle and who they like better between the candidates.
If you think Pamela Karlan doesn't own a " pink pussyhat " then you're not the self appointed board intellectual you think you are...
**Illegally influence the election using foreign governments to interfere. Important to be clear on this.
He got the "green light" from Barr on the Mueller Report that this was 'ok', so immediately after that was brushed aside by DOJ, he literally 'did it again'. If they let this go, does anyone rationally think he's not going to continue?
The excuse with Russia was "they didn't know any better". What's the excuse now? They knew better, but didn't think they'd get caught? They knew better, but did it anyway? They knew better, but no one's going to hold them to account?
Can you provide citations to the works that you've read that show a bias? Thanks in advance.
And if you've gone to the trouble of watching the "hotel" video, which I doubt you have, you see it was an obvious joke. To not see that is to be purposefully blind.
That lady disqualified herself from being taken seriously when she cited Trump's joke about Hillary's emails as evidence of collusion. That's a dead giveaway that whoever does it should not be taken seriously.
FUNFACT: It wasn't merely a "joke", and there is substantial additional evidence of Trump's buddies (e.g. Stone) working to assist with this as well.
Of course, if you read all about this in the Mueller Report, and in subsequent trial records, you'd know this.
You already weren't being taken seriously, Joe. You didn't need to reinforce anything.
Dude all you have to do is look at who they are giving money too. C'mon man, the bias was obvious
Interesting that you bring up the subject about being taken serious. You've been a joke on HROT for a long time. At least Joe doesn't make statements defending a position and then follow it up with, "I'm neutral".
Just as you ignore what another Fox legal analyst -- who actually has experience as a U.S. attorney -- says.
Hint: He probably didn't say what you thought he said.
Much like all the Op Eds you link that you claim "nailed it", then you back away, incapable of deciding what they 'nailed'.
So...not their writing, as you claimed twice? Talk about showing your own bias...
Hell at least us am willing to admit it. I used us because that really means I because I know you think I am a king.
Similar threads
