Schitt Gives Up

[WillPower]

Adam Ant, despite having secret evidence that Trump "colluded with Russia" for over two years without showing it to anybody, has thrown in the towel. He and Nadler can't even convince the sane democrats in the House to try it, and know it would be laughed out of the Senate. It's not like he wants to quit, his fantasies are still quite vivid...especially concerning Comey:

Schiff says impeachment 'is destined for failure,' calls GOP 'cult of the president's personality'

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

 

[OKTexas]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

And for good reason, the commies got nothing.

.

 

[Crepitus]

Adam Ant, despite having secret evidence that Trump "colluded with Russia" for over two years without showing it to anybody, has thrown in the towel. He and Nadler can't even convince the sane democrats in the House to try it, and know it would be laughed out of the Senate. It's not like he wants to quit, his fantasies are still quite vivid...especially concerning Comey:

Schiff says impeachment 'is destined for failure,' calls GOP 'cult of the president's personality'

He's only saying what I've been telling you for months. There is no way the the wholly owned republicans in the Senate will vote to impeach tRump. They aren't allowed to think in their own and neither tRump nor McConnell will let them even consider it.

 

[Crepitus]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

And for good reason, the commies got nothing.

.

No, because the drones in the Senate will not act without approval.

 

[WillPower]

No, because the drones in the Senate will not act without approval.

Horseshit...the GOPer Senators would impeach Trump in a heartbeat if he'd committed the treason he's been accused of....The "drones" are the Rats who march lockstep with Schumer....they have no concept of dignity or honor....much like you.

 

[OKTexas]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

And for good reason, the commies got nothing.

.

No, because the drones in the Senate will not act without approval.

Like a good little commie, you're always ready with the party talking points. Do you ever have an original thought?

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Adam Ant, despite having secret evidence that Trump "colluded with Russia" for over two years without showing it to anybody, has thrown in the towel. He and Nadler can't even convince the sane democrats in the House to try it, and know it would be laughed out of the Senate. It's not like he wants to quit, his fantasies are still quite vivid...especially concerning Comey:

Schiff says impeachment 'is destined for failure,' calls GOP 'cult of the president's personality'

He's only saying what I've been telling you for months. There is no way the the wholly owned republicans in the Senate will vote to impeach tRump. They aren't allowed to think in their own and neither tRump nor McConnell will let them even consider it.

Those of sound mind do not by default consider such things where no evidence exists.

 

[WillPower]

Dershowitz says any attempt at impeachment would be answered by an immediate request to the USSC to issue an injunction against it...and he says they would. Presidents don't get impeached unless they've broken the law and Trump hasn't.

 

[miketx]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking about.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

 

[WillPower]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking abouzxt.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

No, what's dishonest is your failure to admit this HOAX was anything more than revenge for whipping Hillary's fat ass.....and is the most disgraceful attempted overthrow of a sitting president in our history. Trump could have fired every one of them but didn't....stick your "obstruction" jive where the sun don't shine, boy.

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking abouzxt.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

No, what's dishonest is your failure to admit this HOAX was anything more than revenge for whipping Hillary's fat ass.....and is the most disgraceful attempted overthrow of a sitting president in our history. Trump could have fired every one of them but didn't....stick your "obstruction" jive where the sun don't shine, boy.

Deflection noted.

Standard talk radio remarks.
.

 

[MarathonMike]

Impeachment makes sense only in Libtardia, where the skies are purple with Unicorn farts and the streams flow with bubbling yellow Kool-Aid.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking about.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

Can't be intellectually dishonest if they're not intellectual in the first place.

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking about.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

Can't be intellectually dishonest if they're not intellectual in the first place.

Okay, fair point.
.

 

[bripat9643]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

And for good reason, the commies got nothing.

.

No, because the drones in the Senate will not act without approval.

Don't attribute Dim behavior traits to Republicans.

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

And for good reason, the commies got nothing.

.

No, because the drones in the Senate will not act without approval.

Don't attribute Dim behavior traits to Republicans.

There are many similarities.
.

 

[OKTexas]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking about.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

The AG and former AAG disagree.

.

 

[Mac1958]

In the interview, he simply pointed out the obvious - that it wouldn't get past the Senate.

Show us the proof. We'll wait, but we'll never see it because there is none.

You already know what the Dems would try to prove, and that's obstruction. You know that, right?

If you read the report, you know what I'm talking about.

The validity of the charge would be debatable, but to say there is nothing is intellectually dishonest.
.

The AG and former AAG disagree.

.

Of course.
.