• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump is going to be in a tweet quandry; Turley doesn't support his impeachment but he voted against him.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Oh, Lordy, I did not even remotely mean to imply that. Only that in today’s proceeding the Democratic hypocrisy was front and center.
Click to expand...

And more than a few quotes from both the GOP legislators and Turley were played back or read exposing inconsistencies as well. Turley thought impeaching Clinton was legitimate. His story has changed.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Can I just say that subjectively I found the hypocrisy of the Democrats more blatant today without being accused of being a Trump/Republican apologist???

Geez.
Click to expand...

Yes but I note you drew your conclusion before the hearing was over.


No wonder Pelosi shifted the last hearings to Schiff. Nadler is not impressive.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Yeah, that was out of bounds. Baron should be off limits.
Click to expand...

alfaniner said:
She did apologize the first chance she had to speak again. But that line should never have come up in the first place.
Click to expand...

I Am The Scum said:
She did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. This is a crystal clear example of faux outrage. She never said anything negative about Barron. Not a word. She said the President isn't a king. Whereas President Trump can name his son Barron, he may not make his son a Baron.

Now I think it was a mistake to mention his underage son, the Professor however said nothing wrong or even unseemly.

In contrast, Trump utters something wrong and unseemly multiple times a day.
 
acbytesla said:
Absolutely. This is a crystal clear example of faux outrage. She never said anything negative about Barron. Not a word. She said the President isn't a king. Whereas President Trump can name his son Barron, he may not make his son a Baron.

Now I think it was a mistake to mention his underage son, the Professor however said nothing wrong or even unseemly.

In contrast, Trump utters something wrong and unseemly multiple times a day.
Click to expand...

And Baron is all over the cable news sites. This is why his name should never have come up.
 
Matt Gaetz Tweeted

@mattgaetz
You actually can impeach a former President, FWIW
 
Craig4 said:
And Baron is all over the cable news sites. This is why his name should never have come up.
Click to expand...

I agree. But so what? Oh, the horror. :rolleyes: They mentioned his name on the news.

It's not like they put him in a cage.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Barron, being underaged and having zero to do with any of this, should never have been mentioned. Glad she recognized this and stepped up to do the right thing.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Matt Gaetz Tweeted

@mattgaetz
You actually can impeach a former President, FWIW
Click to expand...

So? What's the point of that statement other than to reveal you own idiocy, Matt?

This is one of those times it's better to say nothing. Gaetz and Trump need to learn that.
 
I only saw parts of it, but I saw Turley repeatedly say that he hadn't seen sufficient evidence of any impeachable act. Did anyone say, "The 3rd article of impeachment against Nixon cited his defiance of House subpoenas. Is it your position that we do not have sufficient evidence that Trump has defied House subpoenas?"
 
listening to the hearings today was torture. listening to any Trump apologist is torture. I read a thread this last week by a Trumper that was making a big stink that Biden had not formally announced his candidacy yet(at the time of the call) as if that somehow means something. Or that Zelinsky didn't say it was quid pro quo and countless other meaningless "data points" that are super important.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
And it’s not like Trump or his cohorts would ever stoop so low as to target someone’s son!
Click to expand...

Faux outrage. It was a play on words and had nothing to do with Baron's life.

In terms of mean comments, we can always talk about Rush Limbaugh...

 
Cain said:
Faux outrage. It was a play on words and had nothing to do with Baron's life.

In terms of mean comments, we can always talk about Rush Limbaugh...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to sort my sock drawer.

In fact I'd rather cut my own head off with a blunt rusty butter knife than listen to Rush.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I honestly don't see what's wrong with mentioning a child's name. Can you point out what I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Because we've now turned a child into a tennis ball being hit between opponents on an international stage. He has a right to his childhood and not to be used as political ammunition.
 
Craig4 said:
Because we've now turned a child into a tennis ball being hit between opponents on an international stage. He has a right to his childhood and not to be used as political ammunition.
Click to expand...

That is not what happened. She merely stated that just because Trump named his son Barron, does not give him the powers of a Baron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom