Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans want to do nothing but turn the hearings into a circus.If Trump is innocent, why wouldn’t they want the public to see first hand?Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!
House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.
They voted against the impeachment hearings in general, not any specifics about it.
What a fucking hack you are.
if Dems have enough evidence to impeach, why limit Republicans in who they can bring in to testify at the hearings?
No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.No, it's actually witness testimony.Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.
That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.
They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.
"Witness"
I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"
A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.
Bullshit. State that rule with a link
Republicans want to do nothing but turn the hearings into a circus.If Trump is innocent, why wouldn’t they want the public to see first hand?Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!
House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.
They voted against the impeachment hearings in general, not any specifics about it.
What a fucking hack you are.
if Dems have enough evidence to impeach, why limit Republicans in who they can bring in to testify at the hearings?
The Senate Tril will allow them to do anything they feel necessary.
Facts are facts. Republicans don't actually want public hearings (in fact those will destroy their narrative). They just want to whine about it...obviously
That may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.It's testimony given under oath.
Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.
I'll wait.
He testified under oath.
Get over it.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.
Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.
Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.There are generally reasons for rules.BZZZT!
I'm sorry, that is incorrect.
I said they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories.
The rules let Dems decide who can appear as a witness, and what questions can be asked.
You are the one bringing up some bullshit justification, I am telling you the rules.
hacks wanna hack.
All I'm doing is pointing them out.
Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.
Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
First, I'mma hafta call bullshit on that.No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.No, it's actually witness testimony.Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.
There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.
Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.
That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.
They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.
"Witness"
I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"
A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.
Look out guys!No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.No, it's actually witness testimony.
"Witness"
I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"
A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.
Bullshit. State that rule with a link
I have to modify my statement, it's not about the rules (which I read in an earlier now deleted reference) but that he doesn't wear the uniform when he is at work, but showed up in it for his testimony.
NSC Official Alex Vindman Shows Up to Capitol in Full Military Uniform
Still a political operative, and he wore the uniform as a dog and pony show.
Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.There are generally reasons for rules.The rules let Dems decide who can appear as a witness, and what questions can be asked.
You are the one bringing up some bullshit justification, I am telling you the rules.
hacks wanna hack.
All I'm doing is pointing them out.
Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.
Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
Nice try tho.
Kid?That may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.
I'll wait.
He testified under oath.
Get over it.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.
Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.
Seriously kid, did you even think about that shit before you said it?
View attachment 288262
Look out guys!No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person."Witness"
I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"
A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.
Bullshit. State that rule with a link
I have to modify my statement, it's not about the rules (which I read in an earlier now deleted reference) but that he doesn't wear the uniform when he is at work, but showed up in it for his testimony.
NSC Official Alex Vindman Shows Up to Capitol in Full Military Uniform
Still a political operative, and he wore the uniform as a dog and pony show.
He's backing up!
Nope, 'fraid not.Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.There are generally reasons for rules.
All I'm doing is pointing them out.
Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.
Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
Nice try tho.
No, you just throw the term around to disparage opposing opinion.
Then act like it.Kid?That may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.
I'll wait.
He testified under oath.
Get over it.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.
Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.
Seriously kid, did you even think about that shit before you said it?
View attachment 288262
I'm 63 motherfucker.
Of course they did. Trump has turned them into shamelessly lying bootlickers.Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!
House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.
They were always shameless lying scum just trump brought them into the sun so everyone can see them for what they areOf course they did. Trump has turned them into shamelessly lying bootlickers.Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!
House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.
Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.There are generally reasons for rules.
All I'm doing is pointing them out.
Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.
Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
Nice try tho.
No, you just throw the term around to disparage opposing opinion.
Knocking down your childish Democrat BS is.Then act like it.Kid?That may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.
He testified under oath.
Get over it.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.
Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.
Seriously kid, did you even think about that shit before you said it?
View attachment 288262
I'm 63 motherfucker.
One of the motions Stalinist democrats will ever fileEvery Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!
House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.
Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
Nice try tho.
No, you just throw the term around to disparage opposing opinion.
No, a "conspiracy theory" is a false narrative based on actual events:
For example the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to stop an investigation against his son, is a conspiracy theory because:
1. Hunter Biden wasn't under investigation. The President of Burisma was already under investigation when Hunter Biden was hired, so the investigation had nothing to do with the Bidens.
2. The investigation of Burisma was "stalled" when the prosecutor was fired. He wasn\t fired because he was investigating Burisma. He was fired beause he WASN'T investigating Burisma.
3. Joe Biden didn't make the decision to have the guy fired. That decision was made by the IMF, NATO, and the Obama Administration. Joe was just the messenger.
Trump consistly rejects facts, like the "birther information", and seized up ridiculous shit like the Bidens should be investigated for the corrupt firing of this prosecutor.
Here, you left this in the other thread this morning.Knocking down your childish Democrat BS is.Then act like it.Kid?That may be the single stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?
He testified under oath.
Get over it.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.
Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.
Seriously kid, did you even think about that shit before you said it?
View attachment 288262
I'm 63 motherfucker.
Nobody but you is saying that Son.Sorry kid, I reserve the tag "conspiracy theory" for actual conspiracy theories.No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.
Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"
Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.
Nice try tho.
No, you just throw the term around to disparage opposing opinion.
No, a "conspiracy theory" is a false narrative based on actual events:
For example the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to stop an investigation against his son, is a conspiracy theory because:
1. Hunter Biden wasn't under investigation. The President of Burisma was already under investigation when Hunter Biden was hired, so the investigation had nothing to do with the Bidens.
2. The investigation of Burisma was "stalled" when the prosecutor was fired. He wasn\t fired because he was investigating Burisma. He was fired beause he WASN'T investigating Burisma.
3. Joe Biden didn't make the decision to have the guy fired. That decision was made by the IMF, NATO, and the Obama Administration. Joe was just the messenger.
Trump consistly rejects facts, like the "birther information", and seized up ridiculous shit like the Bidens should be investigated for the corrupt firing of this prosecutor.
Progressives tell us that Trump's tone of voice scared the Ukrianians into quid pro quo arrangement, but Biden telling the Ukrianians to fire the SOB investigating my son had no effect whatsoever
