Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

[seacoaster]

https://twitter.com/andrewsweiss/status ... 5736598528

[old salt]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by otjers.

[old salt]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by others.

[seacoaster]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by otjers.

Wrong again; it was interjected into the conversation by ggait and probably others to demonstrate -- apples to apples -- that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted is consistent with a significant GOP antecedent. Again, you need some air.

[old salt]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by otjers.

Wrong again; it was interjected into the conversation by ggait and probably others to demonstrate -- apples to apples -- that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted is consistent with a significant GOP antecedent. Again, you need some air.

Apples to apples ? Benghazi was an impeachment inquiry ? Paul Ryan neglected to tell us about it.
He must have been doing his patriotic praying & reflecting on it in private.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[seacoaster]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by otjers.

Wrong again; it was interjected into the conversation by ggait and probably others to demonstrate -- apples to apples -- that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted is consistent with a significant GOP antecedent. Again, you need some air.

Apples to apples ? Benghazi was an impeachment inquiry ? Paul Ryan neglected to tell us about it.
He must have been doing his patriotic praying & reflecting on it in private.

You're being silly; you know exactly what I mean. This investigation is just as serious or more than that one. Thus, the procedures used in the one were suitable to the other. All of this blather by you for a political party. It is really remarkable.

[a fan]

Have they subpoenaed the WH janitors yet ?
Gotta run up the tally to build an obstruction count.

Right. As i said: everyone is wrong except Trump and the Republicans. Sell it somewhere else. Not even you are buying what you're selling here. Schiff is a car crash. Yep.

But in no stretch of the imagination does that make what Trump, Giuliani, and now Graham and McConnell are doing ok.


And you're worried about precedent going forward? This from a guy who is trying to convince himself that Trump's conflicts of interest are just fine and dandy.

Come on. You've already admitted you know what Trump did is wrong. Stay focused. There is no possible way Pelosi is "going to do it right".

I'll give you the same challenge I've given tech37, albeit on a different subject: you tell me how Pelosi is "supposed" to run this impeachment, and I'll give you the FoxNation spin as to how it's the wrongest thing in the history of wrongs.

It's spin. Listen to what your Federal employees are trying to tell you for a change. This is not good stuff coming out of our State Department.....

[calourie]

Here's a nice teaser

:https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics ... index.html

Looks like a fun month ahead.

[njbill]

Benghazi was an impeachment inquiry ? Paul Ryan neglected to tell us about it.
He must have been doing his patriotic praying & reflecting on it in private.

If only the Speaker had been a good, red blooded American, like Newt, the House would have impeached Hillary. Wait. Hillary was President?

[MDlaxfan76]

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

Nice, if totally inaccurate, bit of whataboutism. I'm not belittling anyone's lives. I'm staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Benghazi, except to the narrow extent that -- as ggait points out -- those investigations demonstrate the stupidity of the "lack of due process" argument that hacks like you now raise. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but you've lost whatever way you had. Please, just walk your dog.

Agree. I did not introduce Benghazi to this discussion.I was responding to it's use as a reflexive whataboutism by otjers.

Wrong again; it was interjected into the conversation by ggait and probably others to demonstrate -- apples to apples -- that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted is consistent with a significant GOP antecedent. Again, you need some air.

Apples to apples ? Benghazi was an impeachment inquiry ? Paul Ryan neglected to tell us about it.
He must have been doing his patriotic praying & reflecting on it in private.

You're being silly; you know exactly what I mean. This investigation is just as serious or more than that one. Thus, the procedures used in the one were suitable to the other. All of this blather by you for a political party. It is really remarkable.

Is it party R, for Salty?
Or Trumpism?
Or some other 'party'?

It's definitely weird.
I understand our resident troll being such a knucklehead, but Salty clearly has more brains, so the obvious dense stuff is more irritating.
ahh well.

[youthathletics]

Grassley is lurking in the shadows of late.....he will be in shortly to clean up all this mess.

[old salt]

Benghazi was an impeachment inquiry ? Paul Ryan neglected to tell us about it.
He must have been doing his patriotic praying & reflecting on it in private.

If only the Speaker had been a good, red blooded American, like Newt, the House would have impeached Hillary. Wait. Hillary was President?

...or if Mueller had delivered tape recordings suborning perjury like Starr had to accept.

[old salt]

Have they subpoenaed the WH janitors yet ?
Gotta run up the tally to build an obstruction count.

you tell me how Pelosi is "supposed" to run this impeachment

Listen to what your Federal employees are trying to tell you for a change.
This is not good stuff coming out of our State Department.....

Pelosi should shut up about impeachment until she's prepared to follow precedent & conduct impeachment proceedings as her predecessors did.

Everybody knows it's the President's responsibility to support the State Dept's foreign policy. POTUS is just the front man.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Have they subpoenaed the WH janitors yet ?
Gotta run up the tally to build an obstruction count.

you tell me how Pelosi is "supposed" to run this impeachment

Listen to what your Federal employees are trying to tell you for a change.
This is not good stuff coming out of our State Department.....

Pelosi should shut up about impeachment until she's prepared to follow precedent & conduct impeachment proceedings as her predecessors did.

Everybody knows it's the President's responsibility to support the State Dept's foreign policy. POTUS is just the front man.

[a fan]

Pelosi should shut up about impeachment until she's prepared to follow precedent & conduct impeachment proceedings as her predecessors did.

Which parts? The parts you like? Or the parts where AG Barr does his job and investigates first.

We've been over this before. If you want to cry partisanship and precedent, your complaints 100% fall at Barr's feet for not appointing a SP, as they did for both Nixon and Clinton. Blaming Pelosi skips a step, and is, of course, something a Republican would complain about here.

Barr didn't do his job, and is playing games. So Pelosi is now doing his job for him. Blame Barr for that.

Everybody knows it's the President's responsibility to support the State Dept's foreign policy. POTUS is just the front man.

RIght. And as I said, using this halfwitted explanation, you'd be perfectly fine and happy if Obama had opened an investigation into every Republican in Congress. CIA, FBI, and IRS. EPA, too, if they have a business that relies on it.

After all, "it's Obama's job to enforce our laws as head of the Executive Branch", right?

Right. If you're back to telling us that what Trump and Giuliani did is now ok, let me know.

Until then, stop being silly, you know this was wrong, and crossed a huge line. If we let this go, every POTUS we ever get will investigate his/her rivals, and no one will be able to stop them. That's Putin-level stuff. You know this is bad, bad news.

[old salt]

Pelosi should shut up about impeachment until she's prepared to follow precedent & conduct impeachment proceedings as her predecessors did.

Which parts? The parts you like? Or the parts where AG Barr does his job and investigates first.

We've been over this before. If you want to cry partisanship and precedent, your complaints 100% fall at Barr's feet for not appointing a SP, as they did for both Nixon and Clinton. Blaming Pelosi skips a step, and is, of course, something a Republican would complain about here.

Barr didn't do his job, and is playing games. So Pelosi is now doing his job for him. Blame Barr for that.

Everybody knows it's the President's responsibility to support the State Dept's foreign policy. POTUS is just the front man.

RIght. And as I said, using this halfwitted explanation, you'd be perfectly fine and happy if Obama had opened an investigation into every Republican in Congress. CIA, FBI, and IRS. EPA, too, if they have a business that relies on it.

After all, "it's Obama's job to enforce our laws as head of the Executive Branch", right?

Right. If you're back to telling us that what Trump and Giuliani did is now ok, let me know.

Until then, stop being silly, you know this was wrong, and crossed a huge line. If we let this go, every POTUS we ever get will investigate his/her rivals, and no one will be able to stop them. That's Putin-level stuff. You know this is bad, bad news.

Kinda like unleashing your intel services & FBI on a Presidential candidate.

[a fan]

Nope. Not even close. And you know this.

That's like telling us that the Ukrainian interests and United States interests are identical because both countries start with the letter U....and you're arguing "gee, I just can't tell the difference between Ukraine and United States.......some of the letters are the same, you know? Gee, it's just a tough call right there."

But yes, that's what passes for logic from FoxNation in 2019. We're that stupid as a nation now.

And you can bet that Trump is grateful for how stupid America has become. And you're here pretending like you believe him.

Sell it somewhere else.

[Trinity]

Fiona Hill destroys the Ukraine-Did-it conspiracy theory and scolds the staff lawyer pushing helpful-to-Russia propaganda. Read the transcript.