Jan 6th Commission About To Issue Invitations To Get Down!

[ThisIsMe]

I'm sure you would...

So would I.

But since you are relying exclusively on assertion, don't ask for anything more in return.

You are the one that alleged they started talking impeachment because intelligence services thought he was a problem. I want to see links to that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

PRIOR to his presidency.


How is it that you are unaware of this fact?

Again, post some links. I want to see where us intelligence services said Trump was a concern before his presidency, and what level of threat he was that had dems talking impeachment

 

[Indeependent]

You are the one that alleged they started talking impeachment because intelligence services thought he was a problem. I want to see links to that.

Horse is an ad hominem bot.

 

[Winco]

An ad hominem…how expected.

You whining again.....
You adding NOTHING to a conversation.......again

You crying about an "ad hominem". .......... how expected.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You are the one that alleged they started talking impeachment because intelligence services thought he was a problem. I want to see links to that.

I don't know if you were in a coma, but the issues with Grifty and the Russians surfaced BEFORE the election.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Horse is an ad hominem bot.

Nahhh...but you're a 3rd rate troll.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Again, post some links. I want to see where us intelligence services said Trump was a concern before his presidency, and what level of threat he was that had dems talking impeachment

Why must I respond to more assertions with links?

 

[jc456]

Horse is an ad hominem bot.

He’s a propaganda king

 

[ThisIsMe]

You have yet to offer proof insupport of a single assertion.

And you're demanding proof of what you never bothered to learn.

Go review the events then come back.

Proof that they were talking impeachment early in his presidency? Ok:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/kfile-democrats-impeach-trump/index.html

that article is in may of 2017, in that article we have:

California Rep. Maxine Waters: Waters has been talking about impeachment for months,

so, an article posted in may of 2017 says waters had been talking about impeachment "for months" meaning, they were thinking impeachment nearly as soon as Trump was elected.

‘Impeach Trump’ preceded even Donald Trump’s nomination

Democrats, along with others, have been talking about impeaching Donald Trump since before he even took office. Before he was ever the American people’s elected one. And curiously enough, shockingly enough, before he was even the Republican Party’s chosen one.

m.washingtontimes.com

they talked about impeachment even before he was nominated.

Democratic lawmaker admits efforts to impeach Trump began before he was elected

Fox News contributor and former congressman Trey Gowdy reacts and looks ahead to the impeachment trial.

news.yahoo.com

you know this already its not an empty asserrtion, its fact.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why must I respond to more assertions with links?

....you were the one who made the claim, I'm asking you to post some links so we can see what you are referring to

 

[The5thHorseman]

Proof that they were talking impeachment early in his presidency? Ok:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/kfile-democrats-impeach-trump/index.html

that article is in may of 2017, in that article we have:



so, an article posted in may of 2017 says waters had been talking about impeachment "for months" meaning, they were thinking impeachment nearly as soon as Trump was elected.

‘Impeach Trump’ preceded even Donald Trump’s nomination

Democrats, along with others, have been talking about impeaching Donald Trump since before he even took office. Before he was ever the American people’s elected one. And curiously enough, shockingly enough, before he was even the Republican Party’s chosen one.

m.washingtontimes.com

they talked about impeachment even before he was nominated.

Democratic lawmaker admits efforts to impeach Trump began before he was elected

Fox News contributor and former congressman Trey Gowdy reacts and looks ahead to the impeachment trial.

news.yahoo.com

you know this already its not an empty asserrtion, its fact.

I wasted the time to look.


The CNN piece deals with responses to the firing of Comey, whom Grifty couldn't fire unless he was already POTUS.

Trey is yapping about Green trying to impeach Grifty, not pre-2016, but in the event he runs again

 

[The5thHorseman]

....you were the one who made the claim, I'm asking you to post some links so we can see what you are referring to

You completely misrepresented your own citations.

 

[jc456]

You whining again.....
You adding NOTHING to a conversation.......again

You crying about an "ad hominem". .......... how expected.

Ohhhhh the irony

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't know if you were in a coma, but the issues with Grifty and the Russians surfaced BEFORE the election.

Uh huh, and without nary a question asked, dems were so sure he was guilty thag they started talking impeachment. Yet another example of the pre determined nature of their impeachment thought process.

The way its supposed to work:

Accusation >investigstion>impeachment

The way the dems wanted it:

Accusations>impeachment>investigation

Which is exactly what is happening. In regards to the J6 committee. They've already impeached him for it...so why the 2 year investigation? If they had enough to impeach, there would be no need for additional investigations. The fact that the J6 committee was even formed shows that they had no proof to impeach him.

They HAD to have thsg second impeachment before the election, so much so that they rushed it without proper investigation, and then decided to do an actual investigation afterwards.

Same thing with the first impeachment. As soon as the accusations came out, dems never said "well, let's investigate and see what happened, and then we'll impeach if necessary", no, their first thought was impeach!

 

[ThisIsMe]

I wasted the time to look.


The CNN piece deals with responses to the firing of Comey, whom Grifty couldn't fire unless he was already POTUS.

Trey is yapping about Green trying to impeach Grifty, not pre-2016, but in the event he runs again

the article shows that they were discussing impeachment as early as April-may of 2017 and that waters had talked about it "months" before that.

 

[Indeependent]

You whining again.....
You adding NOTHING to a conversation.......again

You crying about an "ad hominem". .......... how expected.

You're trying to put as many ad hominems as you can between my kicking your ass and your ad hominems.

 

[Indeependent]

He’s a propaganda king

I think he's just an idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

Big Tech censors Trump prior to 1/6.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Uh huh, and without nary a question asked, dems were so sure he was guilty thag they started talking impeachment. Yet another example of the pre determined nature of their impeachment thought process.

The way its supposed to work:

Accusation >investigstion>impeachment

The way the dems wanted it:

Accusations>impeachment>investigation

Which is exactly what is happening. In regards to the J6 committee. They've already impeached him for it...so why the 2 year investigation? If they had enough to impeach, there would be no need for additional investigations. The fact that the J6 committee was even formed shows that they had no proof to impeach him.

They HAD to have thsg second impeachment before the election, so much so that they rushed it without proper investigation, and then decided to do an actual investigation afterwards.

Same thing with the first impeachment. As soon as the accusations came out, dems never said "well, let's investigate and see what happened, and then we'll impeach if necessary", no, their first thought was impeach!

Fab...back to uninformed narrative.

 

[The5thHorseman]

the article shows that they were discussing impeachment as early as April-may of 2017 and that waters had talked about it "months" before that.

Stop the fucking retelling.