This Is Lynching

[RealDave]

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

Obama did not interfere. You continue to lie to support the criminality of your orange buddy.

The fact is that a radio station that receives US funding came out against certain Israeli politicians. You really need to quit lying.

As for the phone call, rent a few mob movies.

 

[RealDave]

They're also not following the rules regarding impeachment inquiries, so it doesn't qualify as "justice."

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

If Republicans aren't leaking, how do you know that Taylor got a new one ripped?

Investigations against Clinton & Nixon were behind closed doors.

Quit whining.

 

[RealDave]

Look, Trump Boy, Drumpf has the opportunity to defend himself. Just tell the House that he will testify under oath.

In America one has to be proven guilty. Americans don't have to prove their innocence.

Sorry, your dream of a Fascist America isn't happening.

Innocent before proven guilty is a court thiong.

This is not a trial.

 

[Correll]

Trump's white nationalist brand is losing steam. he will get shellacked in 2020, and the GOP will never recover.

RIP GOP!

White nationalism my ass.


You are a race baiting asshole.

Name-calling

Accurately calling our his behavior.


You are a fucking moron.

 

[Third Party]

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Your're looking up history, I lived thru it. I hated Nixon and hoped they would treat him the way Trump is being treated now. But they didn't, the press and the Democrats were fair. I understand you hate Trump and feel the way I felt-but it wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Open the hearings to the public-we have a right to see what our government is doing.

Nixon did not act like a spoiled 5 year old, did not lie every day, was not scamming the office for personal gain, did not assault women, Did not call people childish names, acted like an adult.

All that is irrelevant-you see that because you hate him-I see the anti-politician I waited decades for. The only real question is, do you think Trump is being treated fairly? Is that how YOU would want to be treated?

 

[Third Party]

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

There is a big difference between secret hearings and this leak a day game Schiff is playing. Take off your orange colored glasses and you will see it.

Nope. No different from other hearings.

Clinton & Nixon were investigated behind closed doors .

You really need to get better informed & quit whining.

Uh, you are the whiner-I hate Trump, I hate Trump, no secrets no secrets. There is no use talking to you.

 

[Third Party]

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

Obama did not interfere. You continue to lie to support the criminality of your orange buddy.

The fact is that a radio station that receives US funding came out against certain Israeli politicians. You really need to quit lying.

As for the phone call, rent a few mob movies.

You are starting to lose it. He did not say anything inflammatory. Calm down.

 

[Third Party]

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

If Republicans aren't leaking, how do you know that Taylor got a new one ripped?

Investigations against Clinton & Nixon were behind closed doors.

Quit whining.

They interviewed Meadows and he said that-no leak. Why are you hung up on whining? Is someone telling you that at home? The last time I heard it used that much, it was workers to 18 year olds-"So what if you can't vote, go to Viet Nam and shut up". Were you one of them?

 

[iceberg]

There are no set rules.

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

If Republicans aren't leaking, how do you know that Taylor got a new one ripped?

Investigations against Clinton & Nixon were behind closed doors.

Quit whining.

lets see far your own advice goes:

Trump is President.

Quit whining.

i'm betting you still don't shut the fuck up.

 

[iceberg]

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

1. Putin orders interference into election, to have Trump win
   
   
2. Russians hack DNC email (not RNC)
   
   
3. Russian hacks gets on Wikileaks's
   
   
4. Trump talks about Wikileaks all the time "what about her emails"
   
   
5. The campaigns are all about emails, no real issue matters
   
   
6. A week before election Wikileaks is pushed by Trump and public again
   
   
7. Trump narrowly wins even if still losing popular vote
   
   
8. Trump becomes president

For the ukraine call transcript, it is not complete. Its a memo from the white house.

As for obstruction, its detailed here.

and what exactly was said interference?

as for hacking, meta data doesn't like. the data was copied off, not downloaded.

 

[iceberg]

Merriam Webster says differently. I posted the definition and link twice in this topic already.

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

how CNN defines it?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

holyhell son you're a freak.

lynch

• transitive verb
  To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
• n.
  See linch.
• 
  To punish by lynch-law; punish summarily, for a crime or public offense of any kind, without authority of law; specifically, to punish with death in this manner. See lynch-law.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhhmmmmm yeah sure you did.

Gosh darn, here I thought I was going to bullshit you, and you busted me.

Gotta wake up PRETTY early in the morning to fool ole Prego.

This Is Lynching

PFFFFFFFFFT. I did see that actually, and dismissed it immediately. It's not a "definition": -- it's "trend watch". That means how did somebody use it in the last 24 hours regardless of whether they used it correctly or not.

I'm afraid all you did here was monkey up the definition, if you catch my drift.

No, the trend is in search for a full explanation of the term.....you know....like the way Joe Biden among other Democrats used it?

It's likely that Merriam got that definition partly based on the Clinton impeachment. It didn't say "Trump" it sad "A President."

This is from YOUR OWN LINK.

>>
Trending: ‘lynch’
Lookups spiked 17,400% on October 22, 2019


Why are people looking up lynch?
Lynch was among our top lookups on October 22nd, 2019, after President Trump described his impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "lynching," employing a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans while calling on Republicans to aid his political defense.
— Betsy Klein, CNN (cnn.com), 22 Oct. 2019 <<​

Did you think nobody would check your source?

Oh, and notice how they define it right there:

"a term associated with the extrajudicial killings of African-Americans"

how CNN defines it?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

holyhell son you're a freak.

lynch

• transitive verb
  To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
• n.
  See linch.
• 
  To punish by lynch-law; punish summarily, for a crime or public offense of any kind, without authority of law; specifically, to punish with death in this manner. See lynch-law.

That's Ray's Merriam-Webster link actually. Go lurn too reed.

 

[RealDave]

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

1. Putin orders interference into election, to have Trump win
   
   
2. Russians hack DNC email (not RNC)
   
   
3. Russian hacks gets on Wikileaks's
   
   
4. Trump talks about Wikileaks all the time "what about her emails"
   
   
5. The campaigns are all about emails, no real issue matters
   
   
6. A week before election Wikileaks is pushed by Trump and public again
   
   
7. Trump narrowly wins even if still losing popular vote
   
   
8. Trump becomes president

For the ukraine call transcript, it is not complete. Its a memo from the white house.

As for obstruction, its detailed here.

and what exactly was said interference?

as for hacking, meta data doesn't like. the data was copied off, not downloaded.

Still denying the Russians interfered despite every intel agency saying it did.

 

[RealDave]

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

If Republicans aren't leaking, how do you know that Taylor got a new one ripped?

Investigations against Clinton & Nixon were behind closed doors.

Quit whining.

lets see far your own advice goes:

Trump is President.

Quit whining.

i'm betting you still don't shut the fuck up.

You are whining based on lies.

I am against Trump for the actual shit he did.

 

[RealDave]

The House Democrats have abandoned the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in their impeachment inquiry. They are holding secret hearings behind closed doors and are not providing Republicans the right to question witnesses who show up in the secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public, and the full transcripts have not been released.

This is a far different procedure than the accord both parties arranged when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The whole thing is a lynching, like Trump has said.

No they have not. When the fuck are you going to quit your lying about this?

Bill Clinton had a special prosecutor (been investigating Clinton for 5 fucking years).

Long standing tradition.....of impeachment proceedings? Really?

REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEES CAN QUESTION THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY,

Jesus fuck, how God damn stupid are you people.

He is not stupid or lying. Forgive me, I want to see the hearings for myself. Apparently those Republicans have caught Taylor in some contradictions, but we hear very little about it-I want to see it!

That's the entire idea behind this thing, to keep the public from hearing about it.

You only get Schiff Face's word on this, that's who the media is going to amplify. For example I heard today that the Republicans really ripped Taylor a new asshole, but you won't hear that in the media. You'll hear how the Democrats got sooooooo much damning evidence against Trump.

So why do this and why lie? Because they have to build up public support in order to impeach Trump. So they are going to put guilt in the minds of the public before they proceed. If they impeach Trump with little support, they not only lose the White House, but likely the Congress as well.

That's why they are keeping these testimonies away from the public. Because if we actually seen them, or got transcripts of what was said, they wouldn't have any support to proceed with their commie plot.

If Republicans aren't leaking, how do you know that Taylor got a new one ripped?

Investigations against Clinton & Nixon were behind closed doors.

Quit whining.

They interviewed Meadows and he said that-no leak. Why are you hung up on whining? Is someone telling you that at home? The last time I heard it used that much, it was workers to 18 year olds-"So what if you can't vote, go to Viet Nam and shut up". Were you one of them?

You voted for the draft dodging, veteran hating piece of shit Trump. Not me.

 

[RealDave]

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

Obama did not interfere. You continue to lie to support the criminality of your orange buddy.

The fact is that a radio station that receives US funding came out against certain Israeli politicians. You really need to quit lying.

As for the phone call, rent a few mob movies.

You are starting to lose it. He did not say anything inflammatory. Calm down.

Really. Because Trump did not say " You do this or we will cut off funding", you thonk there was no threat?

Really.

If a thug comes up to you & a ks you for a favor and then says "you have a lovely family. It would be sad oif anything happened to them.", you would not feel threatened?

We have testimoney that Trump was withholding funding unless the Ukraine President said he was investigating Biden.

I would think that even a total dumbass like you can see the problem. You can't see it because it must be too dark up Trump's ass.

 

[RealDave]

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

There is a reason to keep these first testimonies away from the public.
This was done during Nixon to prevent subsequent witnesses to be affected by the testimony of others. In order to get valuable testimony from witness, this witness should be unaware of the testimony of other witnesses. Eventually during Nixon, the press was allowed in.

But you're doing a great job at orange-nosing:

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Your're looking up history, I lived thru it. I hated Nixon and hoped they would treat him the way Trump is being treated now. But they didn't, the press and the Democrats were fair. I understand you hate Trump and feel the way I felt-but it wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Open the hearings to the public-we have a right to see what our government is doing.

Nixon did not act like a spoiled 5 year old, did not lie every day, was not scamming the office for personal gain, did not assault women, Did not call people childish names, acted like an adult.

All that is irrelevant-you see that because you hate him-I see the anti-politician I waited decades for. The only real question is, do you think Trump is being treated fairly? Is that how YOU would want to be treated?

If I acted like Trump, I would get the same treatment.

 

[edward37]

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

Your're looking up history, I lived thru it. I hated Nixon and hoped they would treat him the way Trump is being treated now. But they didn't, the press and the Democrats were fair. I understand you hate Trump and feel the way I felt-but it wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Open the hearings to the public-we have a right to see what our government is doing.

Nixon did not act like a spoiled 5 year old, did not lie every day, was not scamming the office for personal gain, did not assault women, Did not call people childish names, acted like an adult.

All that is irrelevant-you see that because you hate him-I see the anti-politician I waited decades for. The only real question is, do you think Trump is being treated fairly? Is that how YOU would want to be treated?

If I acted like Trump, I would get the same treatment.

In the good old days they'd take a crook like trump to a tall oak tree and hang his thieving self

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

Obama did not interfere. You continue to lie to support the criminality of your orange buddy.

The fact is that a radio station that receives US funding came out against certain Israeli politicians. You really need to quit lying.

As for the phone call, rent a few mob movies.

You are starting to lose it. He did not say anything inflammatory. Calm down.

Really. Because Trump did not say " You do this or we will cut off funding", you thonk there was no threat?

Really.

If a thug comes up to you & a ks you for a favor and then says "you have a lovely family. It would be sad oif anything happened to them.", you would not feel threatened?

We have testimoney that Trump was withholding funding unless the Ukraine President said he was investigating Biden.

I would think that even a total dumbass like you can see the problem. You can't see it because it must be too dark up Trump's ass.

"Nice army base you've got here Colonel. Would be a shame if something were to ah.... happen to it.
Fings break, don't they? Oh see, when my bruvver's unhappy he breaks fings"

 

[edward37]

Yeah, that's what the puppet masters told you, huh?

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Nixon left evidence of a crime; a real crime, if you know what that is. They did not drag people into a secret room to interrogate them in search of a crime.

It's the same thing that happened in the Russia investigation. No real probable cause to conduct it, because the left doesn't need any evidence of anything. 2 years and 45 million dollars later, They came up with what they had in the beginning--nothing.

Here is the relevant history of watergate, showing how initial interviews were behind closed doors.

The ukraine-call whistleblower has already been corroborated by interviews. Suspending of ukraine aid has been demonstrated to be connected to requests to investigation of political opponents.

Just like the Mueller investigation was kicked off by Papadouplous bragging, the Mueller investigation has shown that Russia interfered with our election, and faced massive obstruction, preventing a complete investigation.

What obstruction was that which interfered in a two year investigation? Nothing Trump did, that's for certain.

Russia may have interfered in our election, just like Hussein did in Israel's election. But that doesn't mean it changed any votes, nor is there evidence that Trump or his associates were behind it. Mueller stated that pretty clearly.

Watergate was not an impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. The transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine is available for all to see, and nowhere in that conversation did Trump ever once mention an ultimatum.

1. Putin orders interference into election, to have Trump win
   
   
2. Russians hack DNC email (not RNC)
   
   
3. Russian hacks gets on Wikileaks's
   
   
4. Trump talks about Wikileaks all the time "what about her emails"
   
   
5. The campaigns are all about emails, no real issue matters
   
   
6. A week before election Wikileaks is pushed by Trump and public again
   
   
7. Trump narrowly wins even if still losing popular vote
   
   
8. Trump becomes president

For the ukraine call transcript, it is not complete. Its a memo from the white house.

As for obstruction, its detailed here.

and what exactly was said interference?

as for hacking, meta data doesn't like. the data was copied off, not downloaded.

Still denying the Russians interfered despite every intel agency saying it did.

They only believe the pos trump