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.
I’ve already explained it.Such as?
Oh, okay. Pausing too long to answer a question is now impeachable.I’ve already explained it.
Why do you always seek to waste time and electrons?
Tel me, you simp: can you hear an inflection on a transcript? Can you challenge the accuracy of a transcript (even as to one word or sentence) without the audio? Does a transcript tell you the length of a pause between the end of the asking of a question and the beginning of the answer?
Didn’t say shit about impeachability, you lying twat.Oh, okay. Pausing too long to answer a question is now impeachable.
Fucking lunatics.
Why are you so scared of the audio coming out, Simp?Oh, okay. Pausing too long to answer a question is now impeachable.
Fucking lunatics.
LOL Because classified documents related to Ukraine were some the documents he stole.I'm going off the contempt report you provided. This is what Republicans claimed they needed the audio for.
The Republicans are claiming they need the audio to determine if they were going to impeach it.Didn’t say shit about impeachability, you lying twat.
You idiotically and incorrectly claimed that the audio wouldn’t provide any information not contained within the transcript.
I refuted that moronic claim with several points. And you can’t address the refutation in any way.
He already admitted - becasue it would be embarrassing to the PresidentWhy are you so scared of the audio coming out, Simp?
Then stop claiming "I'm pulling stuff out of my ass", because I was right.LOL Because classified documents related to Ukraine were some the documents he stole.
And for legislative purposes.The Republicans are claiming they need the audio to determine if they were going to impeach it.
No you weren't. It was about documents Biden stoleThen stop claiming "I'm pulling stuff out of my ass", because I was right.
LOLThe interview had nothing to do with their little witch hunt.
What legislation required the audio that could not be written based on the written transcript?And for legislative purposes.
You said you were confused as to why I brought up Ukraine. Now you are acting like it's obvious.No you weren't. It was about documents Biden stole
LOL
LOL That horse, like your others, is long dead.What legislation required the audio that could not be written based on the written transcript?
I already answered this question. Perhaps your memory is poor. It was just a few minutes ago.LOL That horse, like your others, is long dead.
If you won't fess up, be honest, and admit why you believe the audio would be embarrassing, you are just going to continue with these absurd "legal" arguments and wasting our time.
We're done. Have a blessed day,
They can slice and dice the audio recording to use to portray Biden as inept. Obviously.
So? I’d want to know if the transcript is accurate or not, too. And I sure as fuck n would subpoena the audio recording for that purpose.The Republicans are claiming they need the audio to determine if they were going to impeach it.
Your guesswork doesn’t supersede the foregoing argument. You remain wrong.It wouldn't contain any information relevant to their impeachment inquiry.
That’s the way you wish to frame it. But application rejected.That's the context of the discussion.
You shouldn’t engage in such sophistry. But, there you are.I shouldn't have to keep reminding you of this basic shit.
Hur also claimed the reason he was recommending against prosecution was that a jury would find Biden to be a doddering old man. The public should hear the audio to see if that is true.So? I’d want to know if the transcript is accurate or not, too. And I sure as fuck n would subpoena the audio recording for that purpose.
No reason for the public not to hear it. Certainly no valid reason to warrant the invocation of a claim of executive privilege.Hur also claimed the reason we was recommending against prosecution was that a jury would find Biden tobe a doddering old man. The public should hear the audio to see if that is true.
The claim is patently absurd. On all levels.No reason for the public not to hear it. Certainly no valid reason to warrant the invocation of a claim of executive privilege.
Apparently Garland had been an okay judge--nominated by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals. So he was nominated for the Supreme Court by Barack Obama but the fact that Obama nominated him strongly suggests Garland holds some Marxist opinions and ideas about things. Then Biden tapped him for Attorney General pretty much underscoring my opinion about that.
If Mitch had not prevented a hearing and vote on Garland's nomination to the high court, he would surely be on the Supreme Court now. We can debate the merits of the situation, but Mitch in my opinion rightfully argued that a lame duck President in the waning months of his administration should not nominate a justice of the Supreme Court but should leave that to the incoming President. (Which of course most at that time, all the polls, even Las Vegas assumed would be Hillary.)
