ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Impeachment Curveball In The Senate?

[ Posted Tuesday, November 12th, 2019 – 17:41 UTC ]

I must admit, I'm a sucker for "what if" storylines, especially when they concern little-used sections of the Constitution or congressional rules. Which is why an interesting article in Politico caught my eye today, because it lays out how a curveball move in the Senate could actually lead to Trump's removal from office (assuming that the House does impeach him, which seems like a pretty safe bet at this point).

The story was written by Juleanna Glover, described as "an adviser for several Republican politicians, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Rudy Giuliani." She also worked on the presidential campaigns of both John McCain and Jeb Bush. So she's not some lefty journalist or anything remotely like that (although she may in fact be a "Never-Trumper" Republican). She begins the article by pitching her parliamentary curveball (and yes, I know that I should be using football metaphors by now, but "curveball" just seemed the most appropriate):


By most everyone's judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn't have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it's actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

. . .

[A]ccording to current Senate procedure, [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell will still need a simple majority -- 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans -- to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn't like. (Vice President Mike Pence can't break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.

Some might say transparency in congressional deliberations and votes is inviolable, and it's true that none of the previous Senate impeachments have been conducted via secret ballot. But the Senate's role in an impeachment is analogous to a U.S. jury, where secret ballots are often used. When Electoral College gridlock has resulted in the House picking the president -- the House elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824 -- that vote has been secret. And, of course, when citizens vote for president, they do so in private.

It would certainly be a game-changer, that's for sure. There are at least three senators who have publicly broken with President Trump previously on important votes: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney. The article mentions Romney and Murkowski (although it fails to mention Collins), and also points out there are five Republican senators who have already announced their retirement who won't be seeking re-election next year. All it would take would be for three of them to hold firm and demand a secret ballot.

The results of such a vote are anyone's guess, of course. Even if all Democratic senators vote to remove Trump, it would still require 20 Republicans to join them to get the necessary two-thirds requirement. But some Republicans already think that wouldn't be all that hard:

There's already been some public speculation that, should the Senate choose to proceed with a secret ballot, Trump would be found guilty. GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way.

This may be wishful thinking on their part, seeing as how both Murphy and Flake can easily be classified as "Never-Trumpers." But if true, it is interesting to hear that GOP senators are already speculating along these lines.

Trump, of course, would go absolutely ballistic if this happened. His main argument currently is how unfair the whole process has been, and a secret Senate vote would just be one more thing for him to whine about as he repeatedly tries to play the victim card. Trump knows full well that his power over congressional Republicans hinges on his ability to fire up his followers against any perceived lack of fealty to him. If he didn't know who to aim his rage at, he would revert to attacking the process instead. That's pretty much a given.

What would the vote be if it were held in secret? That's a fun guessing game we can all play at home, but it may never happen. The final decision may actually rest with the parliamentarian (the person responsible for interpreting the rules of each chamber of Congress). Because, as an update to the Politico article points out, there's a clause in the Constitution which may preclude a secret impeachment ballot. It comes from Article I, Section 5:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

This isn't completely determinative, which is why the parliamentarian would likely have to issue a ruling. But if read in Trump's favor, this seems to suggest that it would only take 20 Republicans to force a public vote in the impeachment trial, not 51. And the vote to determine the secrecy would likely be a public one. Which would mean that 34 Republican senators would have to publicly break with the president -- which is a lot more than just three.

The most interesting thing about this scenario is that it could not be appealed anywhere. That's what the phrase "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" really means. The Supreme Court or the federal judiciary wouldn't touch it -- because the rules of Congress are a purely legislative decision. So the parliamentarian's ruling would be final.

If three or more GOP senators did demand a secret vote and held firm, then McConnell wouldn't be able to pass the rules for the trial without their votes, no matter what else happened. This could lead to a stalemate, with the Senate unable to start the trial because they can't agree on the rules.

The article ends with more speculation about what Trump might do if he faced a secret vote in the Senate -- that he would instead decide to step down and begin negotiating to stay out of jail on all the other legal problems which confront him. I must admit, I found most of this rather unrealistic. But the whole thing is kind of a farfetched idea to begin with, so I suppose following it to such a conclusion isn't any more speculative than the rest of the article.

I don't think the chances are very high that this curveball will even happen, personally. But then again, we've certainly seen stranger things happen, especially in the Trump era. This is only the fourth impeachment proceeding to ever happen, and if the House does impeach Trump it will only be the third time that has happened (since Richard Nixon resigned before being impeached).

Still, as a "what if" thought exercise, it is fun to contemplate a few Republican profiles in courage standing firm and demanding a secret ballot in the Senate when they try Trump. And it's even more fun to speculate what the final vote would be if it did play out this way. How many Republican senators would vote to remove Donald Trump from office if they knew there would be no political blowback from such a vote? If they were truly allowed to vote their conscience and had to contemplate a wide-open 2020 presidential nomination after Trump was removed, it certainly might convince some of them to vote against Trump. It might just convince enough of them to make it a reality. It's admittedly a longshot, but then again so is impeaching a president in the first place.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

179 Comments on “Impeachment Curveball In The Senate?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    I will be watching the public hearings tomorrow from beginning to end, so tomorrow's column may be a bit late, depending on how long it all takes. Just wanted to warn everyone in advance.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's admittedly a longshot, but then again so is impeaching a president in the first place.

    Oh, com'on!!

    Impeaching THIS President was a forgone conclusion, from the day he wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton..

    Impeaching Trump a longshot, my arse???

    It was pre-ordained..

    As far as the Senate actually convicting President Trump??

    "You keep dreamin'"
    -Michael Jackson, THE GIRL IS MINE

    :D

    I get it.. Democrats are going to lose.. Ya'all HAVE to come up with pleasing fantasies, just to remain sane.. I understand..

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will be watching the public hearings tomorrow from beginning to end, so tomorrow's column may be a bit late, depending on how long it all takes. Just wanted to warn everyone in advance.

    I'll probably live blog it.. :D

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good God.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [4] was in reference to [3], just to be clear. :)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why wouldn't a majority of Republican senators jump at the chance for a secret ballot?

    I mean, I'm always hearing about how afraid they are of the president. This would be a great way to get rid of him without taking any personal flack for it, though I'm sure Trump would find a way to pay them back for their disloyalty ...

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    2

    Impeaching Trump a longshot, my arse???

    It was pre-ordained..

    Remember when the gullible goobers like yourself were begging for Trump to be impeached because it would only help him? Well, you and the dumbfuck brigade have all had your wishes granted and now whine incessantly like dazed and confused curs who caught the tire of the car they were chasing.

    You got what you whined for... now go play in traffic.

  8. [8] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    It seems to me I read several articles speculating on the Senate's secret ballot option, over a month ago.

    One writer, obviously depressed by the state of the world, pointed out that the secret ballot would give cover to a lot of senators to acquit the president, in the face of undeniable evidence of guilt revealed in the trial, and a scarily high percentage of their home-state voters thus supporting conviction.

    The tone was "beware of what you wish for."

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One writer, obviously depressed by the state of the world, pointed out that the secret ballot would give cover to a lot of senators to acquit the president, in the face of undeniable evidence of guilt revealed …

    That writer doesn't make any sense with his point on the secret ballot. I mean, why would Republicans want to acquit in secret? Surely, if they really want to acquit, then why wouldn't they want to do it with the president watching!?????

    No, a secret ballot is the best option I know of. Nothing to fear here.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You got what you whined for... now go play in traffic.

    Really?

  11. [11] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [34] from yesterday by Michale:


    > Just for context: how many home invasions happened last year?

    1.3 million per year..

    What's your source? Because according to this source which presents FBI crime data from 2018, there were only a total of 349,136 residential burglarys.

    I would say a "home invasion" is a residential burglary that involves additionally some sort of physical intimidation to the residents; so surely the number of home invasions will be less than that.

    Helpfully, the above site lists the number of burglary + additional offenses; if we combine Simple Assault, Aggravated Assault, and Intimidation, we get a total of 11,953; considerably fewer than 1.3 million.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for that all important context, chaszzzbrown. (do we have another name for you?)

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does that site have any statistics about accidental shootings in the home?

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    6

    Why wouldn't a majority of Republican senators jump at the chance for a secret ballot?

    Good question, but Moscow Mitch's wife wasn't chosen to serve in Trump's cabinet for no reason.

    I mean, I'm always hearing about how afraid they are of the president. This would be a great way to get rid of him without taking any personal flack for it, though I'm sure Trump would find a way to pay them back for their disloyalty ...

    Sticks and stones may break their bones,
    but they're deathly afraid of itty bitty words in tweets.

    It's comical to watch their pathetic posturing. They impeached Bill Clinton for "lying under oath" and "obstruction of justice," and now just look at them whimper like simpering sycophants when Donald Trump obstructs justice and sits in contempt of Congress and abuses his power multiple times in bribery.

    This is bribery... pure and simple. If Ukraine wanted a meeting with Trump and to receive the money already granted by Congress that was already cleared by the Pentagon, President Zelensky must announce investigations into the Bidens and Hillary Clinton. The facts of this case are damning against Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Sondland (who perjured himself and had to change his testimony) and Giuliani and the mobster twins who aren't elected officials and have no business whatsoever conducting business for the United States.

    Trump has already confessed to doing this on the White House lawn and said he would do it again while stating that China too should investigate Hunter Biden of 2015... whose corruption was apparently so "heinous" that it wasn't mentioned and virtually nonexistent until his father announced he was running for president against Donald Trump, whereupon Rudy Giuliani and the mobster twins were dispatched to Ukraine to instigate Trump's agenda:

    Donald Trump abused the power of the presidency for his own personal gain in the act of bribery/extortion of a foreign country to manufacture fake allegations against his political opponent to help him win the 2020 election and also to legitimize the 2016 election and thereby clear Russia and himself (and multiple associates currently or soon to be residing in prison) by withholding the military aid Ukraine desperately needed to survive their ongoing war with Russia who invaded their country. Yes, Russia who virtually owns Donald Trump... also known as Putin's whore.

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    — United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4

    The devil's in the details which are much worse than that, of course, but that's the gist of it for purposes of impeachment.

  15. [15] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [13] EM

    Does that site have any statistics about accidental shootings in the home?

    Since it's generally not a crime, this sort of data is better researched by the CDC; here's a Pew Research page that summarizes their results.

    TLDR: accidental deaths, like mass shooting events, are a pretty small part of the pie, numerically speaking. The under-appreciated takeaway to me is that gun-inflicted suicides make up 6 out of 10 of US gun deaths.

    do we have another name for you?

    Chas (pronounced 'chaz') or CB work fine!

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    10

    You got what you whined for... now go play in traffic. ~ Kick

    Really?

    Of course not; it's a dog joke. The dogs begged for it, whined and moaned while chasing the impeachment car until they caught it... on the Interstate. Tough break for dumb animals.

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    12

    Thanks for that all important context, chaszzzbrown. (do we have another name for you?)

    Charles Brown, Esq.

  18. [18] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [17] Kick

    Charles Brown, Esq.

    Hey, you skipped "Most Honorable..." etc. :)

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was looking for something shorter.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chaz is good!

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Good question, but Moscow Mitch's wife wasn't chosen to serve in Trump's cabinet for no reason.

    What has that to do with my question about why Republicans wouldn't jump at the chance to get rid of Trump by secret ballot!?

  22. [22] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [20]

    Chaz is good!

    Chas, actually.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    21

    What has that to do with my question about why Republicans wouldn't jump at the chance to get rid of Trump by secret ballot!?

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    — United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

    The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, and who is the Majority Leader of the Senate who is married to Trump's Secretary of Transportation and wields power over said Senate and all those who enter therein? And would this not give leverage over McConnell for _________ <--- [insert issue here]?

    One of the primary ways our system reigns in the power of the Executive Branch is via the "balance of power." If the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch was seeking to find a way to influence the Senate, might he pave that lane through the Senate Majority Leader's office, and might the employment of said Majority Leader's lawfully married spouse provide that opportunity? While Majority Leader McConnell should obviously be focused on the American people and the country to which he swore an oath to serve as a check on the Executive Branch thereof, might his lawfully married spouse being a member of said Executive Branch enter into his decision-making responsibilities?

    No matter how you slice and dice it, McConnell definitely has a conflict of interest in the family... exactly the way cons and racketeers operate. Capisce?

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You also brought up The First Step Act for helping prisoners to prepare for re-entry into society, and both of these are great bi-partisan legislation and Trump should be commended for signing them into law.

    Yes, he should..

    But was he?? Not in Weigantia..

    I just stated that Trump deserves to be commended for signing those two bi-partisan pieces of legislation into law, and how do you respond???

    You complain on how no one does for Trump the exact thing that I had just done! And if Trump wants more compliments — and we all know that he wants WAY MORE compliments — face it, the only thing Trump likes more than receiving compliments is grabbing unsuspecting women by their .....— maybe he should do more things to earn those compliments. And if he wouldn’t constantly say crap that he shouldn’t, maybe we’d have time to discuss all of the positive things he has done...both of them.

    So, you are saying that the Civil Rights legislation was not good legislation?? You are saying that the EPA is not a good federal department???

    No, what I said was:

    Republicans do not know how to create good legislation.

    NOT:

    Republicans have never known how to create good legislation!

    I said they (present tense) do not know how to create good legislation — and I base that on the fact that they have not offered any examples for us to choose from.

    Look how far back you had to go to find something good associated with the GOP.... the EPA was created by Nixon! (Side note: I find it comical that you are calling the legislation that created the EPA “good legislation”, given your opinion of them based on your comments on here.)

    I am surprised you didn’t include freeing the slaves considering how few examples there are to choose from.

    Then when I said maybe Trump was OK with signing legislation that helped people in prison was because he was thinking of himself and was planning ahead...just in case, to which you replied:

    I admit no such thing because I don't presume to know what is in President Trump's head and heart.

    But you claim to know that Trump is not a racist. Donnie Jr. says daddy can’t be a racist because he let him go on spring break with Herschel Walker and let him play with Michael Jackson when they were little kids. (Hey Donnie, Jr.! Michael Jackson was not a little kid when daddy let him have, I mean, let you play with him!).

    Sadly, Donnie Jr.’s proof requires us to believe that Donald Trump actually gave a crap about you, because it looks very different if you do not assume that to b true!

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    chaszzzbrown
    18

    Hey, you skipped "Most Honorable..." etc. :)

    Lord High Treasurer His Grace the Right Honourable Charles Brown, Esquire... I beg thy pardon and dispensation...

    Nay I demand it... Victoria Regina ;)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Why wouldn't a majority of Republican senators jump at the chance for a secret ballot?

    Simple.. For all the hysterical Trump hatred that flows in these pages and beyond..

    With only a few minor morons, the GOP is firmly in President Trump's camp..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I mean, I'm always hearing about how afraid they are of the president.

    That's because all you listen to is hysterical Left Wing Trump/America hate propaganda..

    So, of course that is all you hear..

    If you were to peruse my links to RCP (which is the ONLY valid source for information in Weigantia) you would actually be exposed to the reality of the issues..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    I would say a "home invasion" is a residential burglary that involves additionally some sort of physical intimidation to the residents; so surely the number of home invasions will be less than that.

    Yes, you would say that.. But you would be wrong.. :D

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-1

    But it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make at the time..

    Which is, of course, that Democrats want to disarm law-abiding Americans who use {sic} assault rifles to defend themselves or their families..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    You complain on how no one does for Trump the exact thing that I had just done!

    No, I complained that Weigantia has changed from the way it used to be..

    But you claim to know that Trump is not a racist.

    Once again, you are not factually accurate.

    I claim that ya'all have NO FACTS that prove President Trump is a racist..

    Which is factually accurate..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Good God.

    Oh it'll be fun! :D Wanna join in??

    :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make at the time..

    Which is, of course, that Democrats want to disarm law-abiding Americans who use {sic} assault rifles to defend themselves or their families..

    I have noticed this trend amongst many of the Trump/America haters here..

    They ignore the valid and factual point and nit-pick around the edges, find a misplaced decimal point here or there or hysterically pointing out that 'is' can mean many different things..

    It would be nice if ya'all could actually address the POINT rather than nit pick..

    But then again, it would also be nice to have the old Weigantia back..

    "... and so it goes... and so it goes...."
    -Billy Joel

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Oh it'll be fun! :D Wanna join in??

    For Democrats, it's going to be the Kavanaugh debacle all over again!! :D

    Democrats should have been happy with the Russia Collusion delusion and left well enough alone..

    NOW, Democrats are riding into Nov of 2020 with 2 failed coups under their belts and not a single worthwhile piece of legislation to show the American people..

    So, when the American people ask Democrats in Nov of 2020, "What have you done for us lately??" Democrats can ONLY reply, "Well... uh... er... We tried twice to nullify a full, free, fair, democratic and Constitutional election.. Doesn't that count for SOMETHING!???"

    Oh yes.. It DOES count for "something"...

    It will explain why Democrats will lose the House.. Because, obviously they can't be trusted with governing..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the WHO WOULDA THUNKED IT!?? department...

    Complaint alleges whistleblower who touched off impeachment inquiry violated federal law

    A new complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly anonymous sources via a GoFundMe page.

    The complaint, which was filed anonymously last week and obtained by Fox News, alleged the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals “clearly constitute” gifts to a current intelligence official that may be restricted because of the employee’s official position under ethics laws.

    The GoFundMe pitch has raised more than $227,000 to date, the network reported.
    https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/

    So, apparently, the whistleblower wanted to get PAID for blowing the whistle...

    Why am I not surprised.. :eyeroll:

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "By Wednesday evening, I think we're going to have a very strong sense. I think what Senator Kennedy said, he wants to measure the credibility of these witnesses. He wants to measure the tone of these witnesses. He wants to get a sense of hearing their words and hearing them talk, see them cross-examined.

    I think by Wednesday evening and perhaps Friday afternoon after the ambassador comes forward, we're going to have a much better sense of Nancy Pelosi who I think has been the most mature of all the politicians in D.C. around this issue because I don't that she really wanted to do this.

    But if she does not feel that the Democrats can have a sound vote, a bipartisan vote, and maybe even the chance to remove the president, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't pull this in the next several days. If this first week does not go well."
    -FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN)

    I can definitely see this happening if this faux impeachment coup goes the way of the Kavanaugh hearings.

    And we all remember what happened here in Weigantia after the Kavanaugh hearings... :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton says she is being urged by ‘many, many, many people’ to run in 2020

    The two-time presidential hopeful and former secretary of state wouldn’t definitively rule out another bid.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/hillary-clinton-presidential-run-2020-070318

    And she has a LOT of support in email.. :eyeroll:

    But hay, I say go for it, Hills!!!

    Go for the hat trick.. Be a THREE-TIME luser...

    If the Democrat Party nominates Hillary AGAIN, they will have proven beyond ANY DOUBT that they are incapable of learning ANY lessons...

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I must admit I'm a sucker for "what if" storylines."

    Really?

    What if citizens participated in One Demand?

    What if you received and read the article I tried to send you that you would not even acknowledge that you received or give me an email to send it to if you didn't get it. What if you read that article like you read other articles and write about them and informed citizens about One Demand?

    What if you had the courage and integrity to explain why you will not address One Demand and why you will not give One Demand the same what if you give to other issues/ideas?

    Is it birds of a feather flock together so you only consider what if's that can fool others into also being suckered by the big money "two" party charade?

    What if you actually covered reality on your blog?

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    From yesterday..

    You probably heard about this. Parents that had lost their daughter in the Aurora shooting sued a gun store, Lucky Gunner, where the shooter had purchased (online!) over 4,000 bullets. Unfortunately, a Colorado judge dismissed the case - you can't sue gun stores in Colorado - and the Parents suddenly owed the Lucky Gunner more than $200,000 to cover the costs of the ammo dealer's legal expenses. Unwilling to pay, the couple have been living in an RV, in which they travel around, spreading word of what happened to them.

    While I sympathize with the parents (There is no worse hell for a parent than outliving their child..) they got really bad legal advice..

    The lawyer who advised the parents that this was a valid claim should be the ones who have to pay..

    It IS a sad instance all the way around.. But it's what happens when people try to push a ridiculous political agenda via civil litigation...

    On the face of it, it's ridiculous??

    Sue'ing the place where the scumbag shooter bought the bullets!!??

    It's as ridiculous as sue'ing the place where the scumbag shooter bought gas to put in the car he used to drive to the scene of the shooting..

    Completely nonsensical..

    As I have said, I see the reason behind these families of victims wanting to lash out. It's a perfectly rational reaction..

    But the activists who use these tragedies to further their own partisan agenda??

    There is a special place in hell waiting for THOSE scumbags..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Impeachment Hearings Open With Schiff on Hook to Make Case
    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-hearings-open-schiff-090000658.html

    And when it all comes crashing down (as it will because there IS no case to make) Schiff-head will be Pelosi's bitch scapegoat.. :D

    There is no question that Schiff-head specifically, Democrats in general, will go down in flames.

    The ONLY question is will it be sooner or later...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar, I misread this part..

    Unwilling to pay, the couple have been living in an RV, in which they travel around, spreading word of what happened to them.

    I thought it said they are UNABLE to pay. But if they are UNWILLING to pay then I have no sympathy for them and their legal plight..

    If they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, they deserve no sympathy for a situation that they themselves created..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Five wounded victims from Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting file lawsuit alleging weak security

    Suit on behalf of five wounded victims alleges that festival organizers had ‘inadequate and outdated security policies’ that failed to anticipate a mass shooting
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/11/five-wounded-victims-from-gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-file-suit-alleging-weak-security/

    Another group wanting a payout from anyone and everyone because one psycho went nutso...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    DACA in the Dock

    What Obama has done, Trump can undo.
    https://www.city-journal.org/trump-revocation-of-daca

    DACA is toast..

    Get used to it..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    54 minutes til Democrats thoroughly embarrass themselves.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    And aaaawwwwwwaaaaaaayyyyy we go!! :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still say Schiff-Head looks like President Logan from 24... :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the issue of Democrats and their overly litigious entitled manner..

    He told a kid to slide. Then he got sued.

    What happened next in an N.J. courthouse threatened to change youth sports forever.
    https://www.nj.com/slide-trial/

    OK, now the faux impeachment coup hearing...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW!!

    Nunes is ripping Schiff-head a new one!!! :D

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You complain on how no one does for Trump the exact thing that I had just done!

    No, I complained that Weigantia has changed from the way it used to be..

    Yes, you complained about that too, but you stated immediately after I said that Trump was to be commended for signing that legislation into law that no one here had commended him!

    And you might want to go back and reread some of the posts from years ago, all I keep finding are comments from people calling you out for the same trolling BS that you continue to do today!

    It would be nice if ya'all could actually address the POINT rather than nit pick

    And it would be nice if you were honest with your posts instead of choosing to lie all the time.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, you complained about that too, but you stated immediately after I said that Trump was to be commended for signing that legislation into law that no one here had commended him!

    But my point was how Weigantia has changed.. The fact that you ignore the point because it's inconvenient to your agenda and chose a periphery issue.. well, that's on you. :D

    And you might want to go back and reread some of the posts from years ago, all I keep finding are comments from people calling you out for the same trolling BS that you continue to do today!

    Yes, I have no doubt that you cherry picked and characterize comments to fit your agenda...

    Which simply supports the point I made.. :D

    And it would be nice if you were honest with your posts instead of choosing to lie all the time.

    I am always honest with my posts.. Which is why I point out that you (and many like you) always choose to mis-characterize my points and posts to fit your hatred agenda..

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Wow! The Republicans are so desperate to make this about outing the Whistleblower! Geez, how pathetic that this is all they have! This is gonna be great!

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow! The Republicans are so desperate to make this about outing the Whistleblower!

    That's because it IS about the WhistleBlower/Democrat Plant/Stooge..

    Schiff-head was all about getting the whistle blower to testify..

    Right up to the point it was learned that Schiff-Head lied about previous contact and coordination between Schiff-Head & Stooge/Plant Eric Ciaramella..

    After the collusion was exposed, Schiff-head has been HYSTERICAL about making sure GOP'ers don't cross-examine Ciaramella...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP can easily shut down these morons..

    "Do you have any first hand knowledge with President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky?"

    "No."

    "I'm finished with THIS guy..."

    Fini...

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Unfortunately for "Ignorant Tool" Devin Nunes, the President of the United States has already admitted to doing what Nunes has referred to as a "hoax" and also said he did nothing wrong, described his call as "perfect" (spoiler alert, it wasn't so perfect) and said he'd do it again. It was a particularly nice touch when Trump stood on the White House lawn and confessed to asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and then asked China to investigate the Bidens.

    In order to buy into the "hoax" scenario, you'd have to be ignorant enough to believe the ridiculous nonsensical proposition that Trump is in on the "hoax."

    Now I ask you, how dumb is that defense? *laughs*

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Ambassador Taylor. Do you have ANY first hand knowledge of President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky?"

    "No"

    "I finished with THIS guy."

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the facts of the case seem pretty difficult to dispute. donald pressured ukraine to attack the bidens and to claim involvement in the 2016 election. donald tried back-channels to induce his desired result, with a white house visit as the carrot and withholding of military aid as the stick.

    whatever other context may exist, those appear to be the facts of the case. whether any of this is impeachable, is more of a political question than a legal one.

    JL

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    51

    Superfluous nonsense, Mike. Trump states over and over in the telephone call released by the White House that Ukraine should talk to Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani has also confessed to travelling to Ukraine to get dirt on the Bidens.

    All the whistleblower bullshit you can invent will not change the fact that Trump has admitted to doing this and said he would do it again, but knock yourself out since you quite obviously don't appear to mind sounding like a gullible rube who's bought "all in" to the right-wingnut conspiracy theory bullshit you've been spoon-fed like a toddler.

    None of the bullshit you regurgitate back here will change the confessions of Trump and Giuliani. It will do wonders, however, to bolster the fact that you're a gullible moron. *laughs*

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again....

    "Ambassador Taylor. Do you have ANY first hand knowledge of President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky?"

    "No"

  58. [58] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    For my generation, trolls were weird little guys who lived under bridges, and the verbal form meant dragging a lure thru the water behind a boat, so being perpetually accused of "trolling" never registered with me.

    Now,it finally becomes clear that in the new language of 'blogspeak', "trolling" is defined as "contradicting or disputing any Democratic/Liberal dogma, regardless of how irrational or incorrect".

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I heard", "I got the feeling", "someone said"
    -Ambassador Taylor

    Nothing but hearsay...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Now,it finally becomes clear that in the new language of 'blogspeak', "trolling" is defined as "contradicting or disputing any Democratic/Liberal dogma, regardless of how irrational or incorrect".

    Welcome to 2019 Weigantia...

    Ya shouldn't been here in 2006 on..

    It was GLORIOUS!!! :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Joe Blow said to me that he heard....."
    -Ambassador Taylor

    Again.. Nothing but hearsay...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, where is the impeachable conduct??

    All we have so far is NOTHING but policy differences & Trump/America hate...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Someone told me that someone else said that the aid was being held up.."
    -Ambassador Taylor

    "Ambassador Sodland told me that President Trump told him...."

    Again, nothing but hearsay...

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    54

    "Ambassador Taylor. Do you have ANY first hand knowledge of President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky?"

    Yes. Taylor replaced Marie Yovanovitch as the top diplomat in Kyiv following her abrupt removal in May. He was on the front lines of the White House's effort to pressure Ukrainian leaders to invent dirt on President Trump's political rivals. At one point, Taylor actually threatened to quit over their repeated pressures to shakedown Ukraine.

    Taylor met with Zelensky multiple times in face-to-face meetings and is the Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. What kind of moron would claim Taylor's firsthand testimony regarding his assigned duties wasn't relevant?

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Yes. Taylor replaced Marie Yovanovitch as the top diplomat in Kyiv following her abrupt removal in May. He was on the front lines of the White House's effort to pressure Ukrainian leaders to invent dirt on President Trump's political rivals. At one point, Taylor actually threatened to quit over their repeated pressures to shakedown Ukraine.

    Taylor met with Zelensky multiple times in face-to-face meetings and is the Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. What kind of moron would claim Taylor's firsthand testimony regarding his assigned duties wasn't relevant?</I.

    ALL of what you said is NOT relevant to the question.

    Does Ambassador Taylor have ANY **FIRST HAND** knowledge of the actual phone call??

    No he does not.. *ALL* he has is hearsay...

    Pull yer head out yer ass, Victoria...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. :^D

    Victoria,

    Yes. Taylor replaced Marie Yovanovitch as the top diplomat in Kyiv following her abrupt removal in May. He was on the front lines of the White House's effort to pressure Ukrainian leaders to invent dirt on President Trump's political rivals. At one point, Taylor actually threatened to quit over their repeated pressures to shakedown Ukraine.

    Taylor met with Zelensky multiple times in face-to-face meetings and is the Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. What kind of moron would claim Taylor's firsthand testimony regarding his assigned duties wasn't relevant?

    ALL of what you said is NOT relevant to the question.

    Does Ambassador Taylor have ANY **FIRST HAND** knowledge of the actual phone call??

    No he does not.. *ALL* he has is hearsay...

    Pull yer head out yer ass, Victoria...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I heard from a member of my staff that President Trump said..."
    -Ambassador Taylor

    Again... NOTHING but hearsay...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for Taylor's claim he won't take sides.. :^/

    Liar...

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    55

    the facts of the case seem pretty difficult to dispute. donald pressured ukraine to attack the bidens and to claim involvement in the 2016 election. donald tried back-channels to induce his desired result, with a white house visit as the carrot and withholding of military aid as the stick.

    Yes, bribery.

    whatever other context may exist, those appear to be the facts of the case. whether any of this is impeachable, is more of a political question than a legal one.

    The United States Constitution makes clear that bribery is impeachable... so there's that.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's clear that Taylor has ABSOLUTELY ZERO first hand knowledge of the actual phone call.

    ALL he has is what other people have told him..

    In short...

    NOTHING but hearsay...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It's my belief", "I had the feeling", "I felt"
    -Taylor

    Again.. Nothing but Trump/America hating opinions..

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    There has been talk talk talk for over an hour and a half..

    And NOT A SINGLE CRIME has been established...

    It's nothing but a coup...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    This guy is worse then Mueller on the senility issue..

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    66

    ALL of what you said is NOT relevant to the question.

    You can invent fake quotes until the cows come home, Mike, and pretend like you understand legal issues when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

    Does Ambassador Taylor have ANY **FIRST HAND** knowledge of the actual phone call??

    Idiot. You didn't say which phone call, and that makes you a shitty questioner. Taylor does have firsthand knowledge of lots of phone calls and lots of face-to-face meetings with President Zelensky. It's his damn job. He just listed some of them while you whined incessantly like a moron about a phone call of unspecified date, you ignorant dipshit. Not content to whine once about said phone call of unspecified twice, you made double sure we all knew how stupid you were by repeating your stupid question two times. Taylor was in the room with Zelensky and multiple others and on multiple phone calls.

    Wouldn't it be great if this issue was about one phone call of unspecified date like you describe? But it isn't so you're an idiot. Please repeat your ignorant bullshit multiple times so everyone will know what a dumbfuck you really are... Oh, wait... you already did that! *laughs*

    No he does not.. *ALL* he has is hearsay...

    Wrong. This guy was in multiple meetings and on multiple phone calls. Don't quit your day job, dipshit.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Told me of that meeting"

    "As I understand it.."
    -Ambassador Taylor

    Nothing but hearsay....

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria...

    Wrong. This guy was in multiple meetings and on multiple phone calls.

    NONE of which means that Taylor has FIRST HAND knowledge of the Trump/Zelensky phone call..

    Taylor was NOT on the call.. Therefore he has NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the call..

    You feeling OK, Victoria?? Yer usually not THIS stupid and moronic..

  77. [77] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Mike

    Everybody knows damn well what Trumps unforgivable sin is (winning an election that everybody promised them that he couldn't possibly win) but they're too ashamed/embarrassed to say that, so they invent, deflect and improvise endless bullshit reasons to demonize normal political shenanigans.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    "That's my understanding"
    Ambassador Taylor

    An opinion.. Not a fact..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everybody knows damn well what Trumps unforgivable sin is (winning an election that everybody promised them that he couldn't possibly win) but they're too ashamed/embarrassed to say that, so they invent, deflect and improvise endless bullshit reasons to demonize normal political shenanigans.

    Yep..

    I just marvel at the lengths and self-delusion they stoop to.. :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    At the 2 hr mark..

    NOTHING but opinions and hearsay and not a single relevant fact that indicates a crime was committed..

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    76

    NONE of which means that Taylor has FIRST HAND knowledge of the Trump/Zelensky phone call..

    There were multiple phone calls, idiot. This issue isn't just about your one phone call of unspecified date that you keep whining about.

    Taylor was NOT on the call.. Therefore he has NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the call..

    Which call, dipshit? This issue is about more than one phone call of unspecified date. Pay attention.

    You feeling OK, Victoria?? Yer usually not THIS stupid and moronic..

    I'm fine, asshole. Of note, you are stupid enough to claim that this issue is only about a single phone call that you won't specify the date and ignorant enough to claim that Taylor's testimony and emails directly with Sondland are hearsay. Face-to-face meetings and direct emails aren't hearsay. Taylor was on multiple phone calls and in multiple meetings with witnesses. Try to keep up.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news:

    Justice Ginsburg Misses Supreme Court Arguments With Stomach Bug
    https://news.yahoo.com/justice-ginsburg-misses-supreme-court-151618343.html

    Looks like President Trump better ready his 3rd SCOTUS pick.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    There were multiple phone calls, idiot. This issue isn't just about your one phone call of unspecified date that you keep whining about.

    Oh really?? SO, it's YER claim now that the Trump/Zelensky phone call is not the issue here??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

    Taylor was on multiple phone calls and in multiple meetings with witnesses.

    But he **WASN'T** on the ONE SINGLE CALL that prompted this entire faux impeachment coup..

    Is that not factually accurate??

    You are REALLY slacking this morning, Victoria.. Yer brain, sluggish at best, is now vapor locked.. :D

    Yer really not THIS stoopid normally..

    Probably you should take a break.. Maybe roll around outside or something...

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    80

    At the 2 hr mark..

    NOTHING but opinions and hearsay and not a single relevant fact that indicates a crime was committed..

    Two things:

    * Liar
    * Liar

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Face-to-face meetings aren't hearsay, Mike, and there are several relevant facts that indicate a crime was committed.

    Also of note, one does not have to commit a crime in order to be impeached so that's just superfluous nonsensical posturing on Mike's part.

    For a guy who prolifically spams this forum on a regular basis with nothing but post upon post containing right-wingnut conspiracy theory bullshit, it's comical to watch him flailing and whining about the time and all the "talk talk talk." *laughs*

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay.. I'll play your immature game, Victoria.

    What other phone call do Democrats want to impeach President Trump over..

    We know the one..

    You claim there are other phone calls that are impeachable..

    What are those.

    Put up or shut up, Victoria.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are at intermission now.

    The *ONLY* relevant fact that has been established is that neither of these 2 yahoos have ANY first hand knowledge of the Trump/Zelenski call...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are Democrats building a collapsible impeachment?

    As impeachment hearings begin, some have raised dubious objections to the process from a constitutional basis. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker suggested there can be no impeachment since “abuse of power” is not a crime, while University of Chicago Law Professor Steven Calabresi argued that President Trump was denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the closed hearings held by House Democrats.

    Neither argument is compelling. The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural. If Democrats want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.

    The physics is simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy is not such a foundation, and Democrats are building a structurally unsound case that will be lucky to make it to the Senate before collapsing.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/470217-are-democrats-building-a-collapsible-impeachment

    These faux impeachment coup is going to collapse..

    Sooner rather than later..

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    83

    Oh really?? SO, it's YER claim now that the Trump/Zelensky phone call is not the issue here??

    No, dumbfuck. It's my claim now that the phone call isn't the only thing at issue like you seem to keep suggesting with your incessant whining about a phone call of unspecified date on your part.

    But he **WASN'T** on the ONE SINGLE CALL that prompted this entire faux impeachment coup..

    Thank you for that admission that you've bought "all in" to the ridiculous idea that this issue is limited to a single phone call; that makes you an admitted rube. Your Orange Worship has stated he is going to release a "transcript" regarding another phone call.

    Trump's own appointed Acting Ambassador to Ukraine's testimony is relevant no matter how many times you whine and stamp your feet that it isn't. Full stop.

    You really are this stupid every single day. Trump has admitted to doing this and said he'd do it again. Can't wait to hear the dipshits like you in their infinite ignorance explaining away those multiple admissions.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    86

    But hay.. I'll play your immature game, Victoria.

    The idea that this is an impeachment over a single phone call is the right-wingnut "immature game," ignorant rube.

    What other phone call do Democrats want to impeach President Trump over..

    This isn't just about phone calls, you dumbfucking idiot, but it's obvious you've bought "all in" to the right-wingnut conspiracy theory. The GOP is going with the "Russia didn't interfere in our election because it was Ukraine." Trump is Putin's bitch... always has been and always will be.

    We know the one..

    You claim there are other phone calls that are impeachable..

    What are those.

    Put up or shut up, Victoria.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT 90

    Mike
    86

    But hay.. I'll play your immature game, Victoria.

    The idea that this is an impeachment over a single phone call is the right-wingnut "immature game," ignorant rube.

    What other phone call do Democrats want to impeach President Trump over..

    This isn't just about phone calls, you dumbfucking idiot, but it's obvious you've bought "all in" to the right-wingnut conspiracy theory. The GOP is going with the "Russia didn't interfere in our election because it was Ukraine." Trump is Putin's bitch... always has been and always will be.

    You claim there are other phone calls that are impeachable..

    I claimed it wasn't about one phone call; the other shit is your typical invented bullshit wherein you lie and mischaracterize a poster's words... same shit, different day... same old circular bullshit from a flailing lying ignorant gullible right-wingnut marching in lockstep dipshit. *laughs*

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    The gist I got from the morning session is that this Kent and Taylor guys had potato chips up their asses because President Trump wasn't doing things the way that THESE guys felt things should be done..

    This is nothing but a policy dispute..

    So, these two clowns weave a story based on nothing but hearsay and opinions..

    The indisputable FACT of the matter is that neither Taylor NOR Kent have ANY First Hand knowledge of the Trump/Zelensky phone call that prompted this faux impeachment coup..

    NOT A SINGLE FIRST HAND account of this call..

    So far, ALL we have is hearsay and opinions..

    NO relevant facts at all..

  93. [93] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    And the PTSD syndrome manifests again!!

  94. [94] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The republican prosecutor has a sleazy quality.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taylor is so flustered now...

    It's almost sad to watch..

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the PTSD syndrome manifests again!!

    It's their defining characteristic :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    The republican prosecutor has a sleazy quality.

    Yea.. You said the same thing about Rachel Mitchell..

    Your bias is well documented... :D

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep.. Taylor didn't like he wasn't the Alpha Male in Ukraine..

    This is nothing but jealousy..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    My gods, this is Robert Mueller all over again...

    "Ta Ta Ta Ta TODAY, JUNIOR!!!"
    -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The... The... The President's uh.. interest...."
    -Taylor

    SPIT IT OUT.. Jeezus!!

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    92

    The gist I got from the morning session is that this Kent and Taylor guys had potato chips up their asses because President Trump wasn't doing things the way that THESE guys felt things should be done..

    But you're an idiot who keeps claiming there is nothing but hearsay when the fact is that testimony regarding face-to-face meetings/communication and communication between two individuals from one to another are "hearsay" so you've proven over and over that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    This is nothing but a policy dispute..

    Opinions are like assholes. Also: Testimony wherein POTUS will withhold funds unless an announcement is made by a foreign nation that your political rivals are being investigated isn't "nothing but a policy dispute" because bribery isn't "a policy dispute."

    So, these two clowns weave a story based on nothing but hearsay and opinions..

    Face-to-face meetings, direct telephone conversations, and emails aren't "hearsay," dumpfuck.

    The indisputable FACT of the matter is that neither Taylor NOR Kent have ANY First Hand knowledge of the Trump/Zelensky phone call that prompted this faux impeachment coup..

    Moron Mike keeps insisting that this issue involves only one phone call. Meanwhile, even the GOP questioner is asking questions about other relevant issues while Mike prattles on and on about his phone call of unspecified date like a flailing moron.

    NOT A SINGLE FIRST HAND account of this call..

    It takes a special kind of stupid to keep insisting this issue that occurred over the course of multiple months involves a single phone call. Carry on in your flailing, dipshit.

    So far, ALL we have is hearsay and opinions..

    So far, you keep lying about hearsay, and your opinion that the events of several months should be limited to questioning about one phone call are laughable. The GOP lawyer is asking questions not limited to your fantasy... try to keep up, dumbfuck.

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    94

    The republican prosecutor has a sleazy quality.

    He's the living embodiment of how the rubes describe Schiff. How pathetic is that?

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You can call me any names you wish.. It's par for the course dealing with you..

    But the simple FACT is neither Kent nor Taylor has ANY first hand knowledge of the phone call that started this whole faux impeachment coup..

    THIS one phone call is the BASIS for the Democrats' actions..

    Taylor and Kent have NO first hand knowledge of that phone call...

    This is fact that all your name-calling will not erase...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!!!

    Jordan is ripping the SHIT out of Taylor!!! :D

    LOVE IT!!!!

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    "That um... That um..."
    -Taylor

    Someone shut this down.. Jordan is DECIMATING Taylor!

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar

    Nunes made a huge mistake when he quoted Andrey Artemenko since the Trump administration met with Artemenko in 2017 to negotiate the dropping of sanctions on Russia.

    So the Ignorant Tool Devin Nunes just opened that door. I do hope there is followup on that. :)

  107. [107] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [28] Michale

    You gave a link purporting to support your assertion that there were 1.3 million home invasions per year, but there's no instance of the words "home invasion" on that page.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Six people telling about 4 conversations and THAT's where Taylor got his "clear understanding"...

    :D

    "Mr Taylor, were you on the call with President Trump and President Zelensky!?"

    "No"

    Hearsay.. Opinions That's all Taylor and Kent have... Not a SINGLE FIRST PERSON connection to the phone call that is the ENTIRE basis for Democrats faux impeachment coup...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB

    You gave a link purporting to support your assertion that there were 1.3 million home invasions per year, but there's no instance of the words "home invasion" on that page.

    Do you have a question on the main point of the discussion??

    No??

    Of course you don't...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ratcliffe is ALSO totally DECIMATING Taylor!!!

    NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE in the phone call.....

    It's that simple...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Ukrainians did NOT know about the hold at the time of the phone call"..
    -Taylor

    There ya go.. No quid pro quo....

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well at least Kent doesn't sound senile...

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    The first up witnesses has *NEVER* had any contact with the President of the United States..

    Which is kinda funny since this who faux impeachment coup is ABOUT the President Of The United States..

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taylor is like many Weigantians...

    He CAN'T admit he was wrong...

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, basically, Schiff-head is accusing President Zelensky of lying...

    Of course, Schiff-head has NO FACTS to support the accusation..

    Par for the course for Schiff-head and the Dumbocrats..

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't wait til the transcript is available..

    I am gonna have a FIELD DAY!!!!! :D

    This is basically the worst of the Kavanaugh hearings and the WORST of the Mueller hearing combined!! :D

    President Trump is gonna win re-election in a landslide!!! :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ouch!! Dr Wenstrub is totally eviscerating Odumbo!!!! :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO QUID PRO QUO....

    That's the message from Schiff-head's first public hearing.. :D

    ANYONE who thinks this is working out GOOD for the Democrats either is not watching the hearing or is definitely a Party slave... :D

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny....

    Democrats go on and on about how bad it was that the military aid was delayed.. On how Ukraine TOTALLY SUFFERS from that aid delayed..

    If Dumbocrats REALLY believe that, then why haven't they condemned to Odumbo Administration for NOT GIVING ANY OFFENSIVE AID TO UKRAINE AT ALL!???

    So, Odumbo refuses ALL military aid to Ukraine and Democrats are FINE with that...

    But President Trump allegedly holds up a single shipment and Democrats lose their frakin' minds!

    Ahhhh The hypocrisy!!!

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Schiff-head got caught grand-standing!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    FOLLOW LIVE: Jordan grills ‘star witness’ over Ukraine claims, mocks ‘clear understanding’ on aid
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/public-hearings-begin-in-house-impeachment-probe-live-blog

    Democrats are going home tonight shaking their heads and asking how they could be so stoopid!!! :D

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    103

    You can call me any names you wish..

    No shit, dipshit.

    It's par for the course dealing with you..

    Said the forum troll who spams this board full of majority Democrats near daily while hurling insult after insult constantly and without abatement. Pot meet kettle.

    But the simple FACT is neither Kent nor Taylor has ANY first hand knowledge of the phone call that started this whole faux impeachment coup..

    The simple FACT is that only in the simple minds of the seriously ignorant spoon-fed rubes should this issue that involves multiple months of face-to-face meetings and direct communication via multiple phone calls and emails that involve multiple people in the Trump administration and multiple others not in the Trump administration be characterized as a single phone call impeachment.

    It's just pure uladulterated dumbfucking demonstrable ignorance to keep whining that this impeachment is limited to a single phone call. The phone call didn't happen in a vacuum, moron, and withholding funds in order to bribe a foreign nation to announce an investigation into your political rival is an infinitely impeachable offense.

    You begged for impeachment. It's here.

    THIS one phone call is the BASIS for the Democrats' actions..

    Incorrect. The whistleblower's complaint and its subsequent coverup by the Trump administration and all the information contained therein was the catalyst for the impeachment. Pelosi announced the impeachment after Trump acknowledged that he urged the Ukrainian president to investigate former vice president Biden, his political opponent.

    The actions of the Trump presidency have revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. ~ Nancy Pelosi, September 24, 2019

    Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment before the so-called "transcript" was ever released by Trump and the administration and their useful idiots began flailing miserably in their attempts to spin the entire issue into a single phone call.

    How far up your ass does your head have to be? Rhetorical question.

    Taylor and Kent have NO first hand knowledge of that phone call...

    Who gives a shit. They have firsthand knowledge of all kinds of other stuff despite your ridiculous nonsensical lying false claims to the contrary. The lies are all yours and the dipshits who keep insisting this entire issue is about one phone call when it obviously isn't. That's just the GOP spin invented for rubes and morons, and you're obviously "all in" on the reeking stupidity.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Blaa blaaa blaaa, whine, whine, whine, waa, waa, waa..."
    -Victoria

    NO FACTS to support any quid pro quo..

    All Democrats have is opinions and hearsay..

    It's THAT simple...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    You can't have any Quid Pro Quo if there is no Quid or Quo..

    It's really that simple..

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Quid = Ukraine received the military aid....

    No Quo = Ukraine did not open any Biden investigation..

    Sorry, JL..

    You can't have Quid Pro Quo if there is no Quid and no Quo...

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the other take away from these hearings is that President Trump has done ten times more for Ukraine security than Odumbo ever did...

    Of course, ya'all don't really care about Ukraine security..

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to re-assess my opinion of Mr Kent..

    He doesn't appear to be the senile ignorant moron that Taylor is..

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr Swalwell just got stuffed...

    No wonder he crashed and burned as a presidential candidate.. :D

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    123

    Thank you for your concession. You can't refute the facts.

    It's THAT simple...

    Your pathetic spin is definitely infinitely SIMPLE.

    The impeachment was announced before the transcript of the phone call was released and is based on the ICIG's findings through questioning of people identified by the whistleblower, and your pathetic attempts to spin the events of several years into a single phone call are nonsensical, asinine, and laughable.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    #123 was a comment to Joshua...

    You can't even get the facts HERE straight..

    It's obvious why you can't speak intelligently about anything..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Castro is trying to bullshit people..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    No wonder he is such a weak candidate for POTUS... :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Taylor's Mueller-esque senility rears it's ugly head again..

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    My god, Democrats are TOTALLY crashing and burning here!!!

    I can't see how ANYONE can say that this hearing was a plus for Dumbocrats...

    They are flailing.. Pathetically flailing..

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr Kent is REALLY growing on me..

    Taylor is obviously a Trump/America hater..

    Mr Kent seems to be an honorable man and a patriotic American...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ratcliffe is awesome!!! :D

  136. [136] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s BRIBERY, plan and simple! Taylor wasn’t part of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, but that doesn’t matter because all that is needed is Trump’s own words to impeach him.

    What Taylor does provide us with is a first person account of how Trump used Giuliani and Sondland to send the message to the Ukrainians that without Zelensky going on CNN and saying that Biden and Clinton’s campaign were being investigated, Ukraine would not get their aid nor a meeting at the White House. He spent his entire career in the service of our country, and he is able to explain why Trump’s actions are so damaging to our national security.

    Republicans desperation is so obvious that it is almost comedic how outlandish their attacks are. Jordan doesn’t think Trump did anything wrong, but then again he thought it was OK for his wrestlers to be sexually assaulted by their team doctor. He did nothing to protect his wrestlers, so it’s not that surprising that he won’t do anything to protect our Constitution.

    If Trump did nothing wrong, then he would have no reason to block this investigation at every turn — he’d hand over the complete transcript of the phone call with Zelensky instead of offering the transcript of a completely unrelated phone call that isn’t the subject of this hearing.

    Seriously, Trump’s offer for that unrelated transcript is like a person accused of filming themselves committing a crime offering to allow the police see home movies that they had shot months earlier, but refusing to turn over the tape of them committing the crime.

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s BRIBERY, plan and simple!

    I thought it was quid pro quo??

    Taylor wasn’t part of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, but that doesn’t matter because all that is needed is Trump’s own words to impeach him.

    Yea??? Then you don't NEED these hearing, right??

    If it's JUST the phone call that is at issue here (Despite Victoria denying that) then why don't Democrats vote on Articles Of Impeachment right now??

    If it's so cut and dried, why even bother with hearings??

    Because you know that nothing in the call is impeachable..

    It's THAT simple..

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    130

    "Blaa blaaa blaaa, whine, whine, whine, waa, waa, waa..."
    -Victoria

    NO FACTS to support any quid pro quo..

    All Democrats have is opinions and hearsay..

    It's THAT simple...

    #123 was a comment to Joshua...

    Yet nowhere is his name on it while mine demonstrably is.

    It's obvious why you can't speak intelligently about anything..

    And yet, look where your "legal expertise" landed you. That's priceless... and public record. :)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what's wrong with you people. With a few notable exceptions, ya'all are ALL OVER THE MAP..

    Russ says that the phone call is ALL that is needed to "prove" President Trump guilty...

    Victoria says that the phone call is not even important to find President Trump guilty..

    You people can't even get yer own stories straight!!!

    I find that very VERY funny.. :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Yet nowhere is his name on it while mine demonstrably is.

    Yea???

    [123] Michale wrote:
    No Quid = Ukraine received the military aid....

    No Quo = Ukraine did not open any Biden investigation..

    Sorry, ***JL***.

    You can't have Quid Pro Quo if there is no Quid and no Quo...

    emphasis mine...

    Once again, you PROVE how wrong you always are... :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  141. [141] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [109] Michale

    Do you have a question on the main point of the discussion??

    Nope; just verifying that when you give a surprising statistic, as you did in this case, it's safe to assume that you just made it up out of thin air.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deval Patrick tells allies he's running for president
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/deval-patrick-2020/index.html

    Just what Dumbocrats need!!

    ANOTHER Dumbocrat candidate!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  143. [143] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Nunes defense of Trump sounded exactly like the defense you’d expect to hear from a person who is suing an imaginary cow on Twitter to make the cow stop picking on him!

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope;

    Of course you don't.. :D

    just verifying that when you give a surprising statistic, as you did in this case, it's safe to assume that you just made it up out of thin air.

    You know what happens when you make an assumption??

    You make an ass out of U.. and umption.. :D

    The stat is valid.. You disputing the fact is not relevant to the FACT you have nothing to refute the point that the fact supports..

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nunes defense of Trump sounded exactly like the defense you’d expect to hear from a person who is suing an imaginary cow on Twitter to make the cow stop picking on him!

    As opposed to Schiff-head's imaginary President Trump phone call???

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    I thought it was quid pro quo?? ~ Moron Mike

    Bribery involves "something for something" so Mike's argument over semantics is dead on arrival.

    If it's JUST the phone call that is at issue here (Despite Victoria denying that) then why don't Democrats vote on Articles Of Impeachment right now?? ~ Flailing Mike

    Mike is apparently ignorant of "due process." You know "due process"... what the useful idiots whined like toddlers about and now they've been granted... and yet, they're still whining about process. Pounding the table because they've got no defense of Trump... kind of obvious too.

    Mike has bought "all in" to the right-wingnut dipshit theory that the entire impeachment is about one phone call that was made by Trump to Zelensky.

    I see the obvious problem here, and I would wager you and everyone else here on the forum sees it too.

    Mike's head is obviously so far up Trump's ass that he ran into Sean Hannity. *laughs*

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    "ah ah ah uh..uh...uh..."
    -Taylor

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    WOW I really have space in your head!! :D

    BBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer even talking about me to others... :D

    Do you talk to your BF (when it has batteries) about me too??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taylor is obvious disgruntled that he got pushed out of power in Ukraine..

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment witness urges Burisma probe, testifies to concern of Hunter Biden ‘conflict’

    State Department official George Kent testified Wednesday that he would “love” to see Ukraine look into the circumstances surrounding the closure of a probe tied to natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, while also raising concerns that Hunter Biden’s role on the board of that firm created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    During questioning by GOP counsel Steve Castor at the first public hearing of the House impeachment inquiry, Kent was asked about the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma Holdings and why it was closed.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-witness-urges-burisma-probe-testifies-to-concern-of-hunter-biden-conflict

    Even the Democrat's own witness says that Burisma and Hunter Biden should be investigated...

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    140

    Yea???

    Fact... yes, definitely, exactly what I said, and then I quoted 123 wherein JL is not mentioned but I am mentioned.

    [123] Michale wrote:
    No Quid = Ukraine received the military aid....

    No Quo = Ukraine did not open any Biden investigation..

    Sorry, ***JL***.

    You can't have Quid Pro Quo if there is no Quid and no Quo...

    You quoted [125] there, Mike, and called it [123].

    Thank you so much for that demonstration of lying GOP useful idiot tricks. If the GOP and their useful idiots had any facts in their favor, they'd have no need to lie and make shit up and obstruct justice by telling career diplomats to ignore Congressional subpoenas. *laughs*

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    You quoted [125] there, Mike, and called it [123].

    Actually I quoted #123...

    But I know you have a problem with facts.. :D

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why are Democrats so hysterically desperate to call the Democrat Plant/Stooge AKA WhistleBlower??

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why are Democrats so hysterically desperate to call the Democrat Plant/Stooge AKA WhistleBlower??

    ACK!!!!

    Let that read:

    Why are Democrats so hysterically desperate to NOT call the Democrat Plant/Stooge AKA WhistleBlower??

    I mean, everyone already knows that the Democrat Stooge/Plant is Eric Ciaramella...

    What are Democrats so afraid of???

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, one thing is certain..

    Democrats got their asses handed to them today..

    Not a SINGLE fact to support **ANY** Impeachable conduct...

    Anyone who says different either didn't watch the hearing or is nothing but a Party slave...

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    148

    WOW I really have space in your head!! :D

    You're posting; I'm responding. Try not to get your knickers in a twist over it or your head will explode to discover the fact that you troll this forum damn near every day obsessing over your hatred of Democrats and whining about anyone who isn't worshiping at the alter of the cult to which you obviously belong.

    Poor Mike, nobody else will suck at the alter he clearly worships. *laughs*

    Yer even talking about me to others... :D

    Obviously pointing and laughing at your incessant whining, moaning, and your ever-present frantic sucking... guilty as charged.

    Keep posting your shit; you will likely get some responses. This ain't rocket science, dipshit.

    Do you talk to your BF (when it has batteries) about me too??

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    149

    Taylor is obvious disgruntled that he got pushed out of power in Ukraine..

    Taylor didn't get "pushed out of power." Taylor is a Trump administration appointee and career foreign service official who was made the interim chargé d’affaires to Kiev in May when the previous ambassador was forced out of that position under pressure from Giuliani and Donald Trump, Jr. in a campaign to smear her by the President of the United States so he could install his own person... Taylor.

    Taylor is a West Point graduate and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has served under every president since Ronald Reagan and has held several nonpartisan diplomatic posts including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Jerusalem.

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    152

    Actually I quoted #123...

    Actually, you quoted [125] and claimed it was [123]:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/11/12/impeachment-curveball-in-the-senate/#comment-149200

    [123] Michale wrote:

    "Blaa blaaa blaaa, whine, whine, whine, waa, waa, waa..."
    -Victoria

    NO FACTS to support any quid pro quo..

    All Democrats have is opinions and hearsay..

    It's THAT simple...

    [Wednesday, November 13th, 2019 at 12:30 UTC]

    *

    [125] Michale wrote:

    No Quid = Ukraine received the military aid....

    No Quo = Ukraine did not open any Biden investigation..

    Sorry, JL..

    You can't have Quid Pro Quo if there is no Quid and no Quo...

    [Permalink] [Wednesday, November 13th, 2019 at 12:33 UTC]

    Kind of obvious to anyone with reading comprehension skills, and lying to prove a lie only proves you're an inveterate liar.

  159. [159] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [144] Michale

    The stat is valid.. You disputing the fact is not relevant to the FACT you have nothing to refute the point that the fact supports..

    You gave as source for your "fact" a link to a web page that doesn't contain the words "home invasion". How does that in any way support the statistic "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year"?

    Furthermore, just as a reality check, there are about 130 million households in the US. So you are suggesting that 1 in 100 homes gets a "home invasion" each year.

    Suppose you know 50 people, living in distinct households. That means that each and every year, the odds of at least one person you know having endured a "home invasion" in that year should be roughly 50/50. That's not what I experience. Is that what you experience?

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    You gave as source for your "fact" a link to a web page that doesn't contain the words "home invasion"

    You DO realize that a Home Invasion is a burglary, right??

    I understand how a NON-LEO such as yourself might be confused..

    How does that in any way support the statistic "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year"?

    Yer right.. I DID make a decimal point error..

    The correct stat is 1.03 million per year..

    Suppose you know 50 people, living in distinct households. That means that each and every year, the odds of at least one person you know having endured a "home invasion" in that year should be roughly 50/50. That's not what I experience. Is that what you experience?

    And does ANY of that address my point of why Democrats want to disarm law abiding Americans if the chance to defend themselves???

    No, it does not..

    As I said, you people nit pick the periphery and believe that THAT somehow negates the entire point..

    Let me know when you want to address the point and not play semantical games..

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Kind of obvious to anyone with reading comprehension skills, and lying to prove a lie only proves you're an inveterate liar.

    Dunno what to tell you..

    Maybe my chrisweigant.com dashboard is config'ed differently than yours.. Maybe I have options that you do not... Maybe you have options that I do not..

    But the fact is, comment #123 is my comment to JL...

    Once again, the queen bee of the nitpicks.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    160

    You DO realize that a Home Invasion is a burglary, right??

    Heh! Because no one ever entered a residence with anything other than the intent to burglarize it?

    Are you seriously this stupid, Mike?

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it's that time again.. My time now belongs to my beautiful wife.. :D

    Looking forward to reading CW's assessment in the morning..

    Hope it's long on factual accuracy and reality (Democrats got stomped by Senile Mueller Part II) and very VERY short on HHPTDS (TRUMP IS TOAST PREDICTION #4,943,916)...

    Here's hoping.. :D

  164. [164] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michale #18
    You argue that the use of an "assault rifle" is necessary for the defense of the home and therefore is constitutional. But you are wrong on this for a common auto shotgun is far far superior for that purpose. It is easy to aim and fire in a fluid and confused situation. And one is infinitely more likely to actually hit the target. They, shotguns, are commonly available and inexpensive. Unlike a high velocity rifle, shotguns will not travel through walls and cause collateral damage, i.e., kill the kids sleeping in the next room. And perhaps most importantly shotguns do not lend themselves to mass killings. They are not at all necessary for home defense and to use one for this purpose is ill advised and irresponsible. Semi auto rifles, high velocity rifles have no legitimate use and laws outlawing them are indeed constitutional, just as laws outlawing fully auto weapons are.

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Do not miss the fake cop's statement at 160:

    You DO realize that a Home Invasion is a burglary, right?? ~ Mike the Fake Cop

    Okay, my sides are hurting from laughter. Mike just informed our Lord High Treasurer His Grace the Right Honourable Charles Brown, Esquire that a "home invasion" is a burglary.

    It just doesn't get any stupider than that! :D

  166. [166] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [160] Michale

    You DO realize that a Home Invasion is a burglary, right??

    A home invasion would seem to require that the burglary takes place in a home, and that the occupants are there to use the gun (assuming they have one).

    Not every burglary is a burglary that takes place at a home.

    Not every burglary that takes place at a home involves a confrontation between the burglar(s) and the occupant(s) of the home.

    So just stating the total number of burglaries that occur in a year does not support your statistic as regards home invasions; anymore than noting that there were 1,247,321 violent crimes in 2017 does (although obviously a home invasion is a violent crime).

    As I said, you people nit pick the periphery and believe that THAT somehow negates the entire point..

    Well, to your point, I think you are overstating the actual occurrence by about two orders of magnitude (i.e., by a factor of 100). That seems at least relevant to your argument.

    But more importantly, I'm just noting that as usual, you are still just pulling numbers out of thin air and claiming they are "facts".

  167. [167] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    SF Bear

    I basically agree with you, but your firearms knowledge may be lacking something. Depending on the load, shotshell ammo can definitely penetrate walls.

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    161

    Dunno what to tell you..

    I blame your sheer mind-numbing and unabashed demonstrable ignorance.

    Maybe my chrisweigant.com dashboard is config'ed differently than yours.. Maybe I have options that you do not... Maybe you have options that I do not..

    So your claim is that Chris's website somehow displays the numbering totally different for you?

    But the fact is, comment #123 is my comment to JL...

    Because in your fantasy, Chris's website displays totally different numbers than it does for every single other person?

    Once again, the queen bee of the nitpicks.. :D

    You couldn't refute the facts I posted so you began whining like a toddler about the numbering... and that makes you both the nitpick and the lying dipshit. Congratulations.

    p.s. A "home invasion" isn't necessarily a "burglary," and a burglary isn't necessarily a "home invasion."

    I could explain it to you if I thought you were capable of grasping reality so I won't be doing that. Idiot!

  169. [169] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    C.R. Sticki #167

    Of course you are correct it is possible for a shotgun blast to penetrate a wall but com paired to a high velocity rifle the energy to do damage is far less. Buck shot in a 3" shell penetrating a standard Sheetrock wall would probably not be lethal to someone on the other side. Whereas a bullet from a semi auto rifle could go through several such walls and easily kill someone two or three walls away.

  170. [170] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bear

    If you really understand the term "buckshot", you are totally wrong, but I'm guessing you are defining the term to mean all lead pellets.

    Actually, shot pellets No. 2 and smaller should probably be referred to as 'birdshot', and the other term should be designated for the much larger pellets normally used by deer hunters (shooting 'bucks', as in 'male deer'). True "buckhot" would actually penetrate multiple sheetrock walls.

  171. [171] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Well, I didn't bother watching, because I knew in advance exactly what was going to transpire, and what the outcome would be.

    You guys are contorting yourselves over something that amounts to nothing more than political theater, and Trump will unfortunately survive intact.

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    The Taylor staffer who overheard Sondland's telephone call with Donald Trump is David Holmes. Holmes is the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and is scheduled to appear Friday, November 15 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

    They've also scheduled a deposition for Mark Sandy, an official working in the Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney will be so glad to hear this. *laughs*

  173. [173] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [170] CRS

    Here's a video demonstrating your point (00 buckshot goes through 17 layers of drywall):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6clay9pFaw

  174. [174] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    C.R. Stucki #171

    You may be correct. Although I have fired both "Birdshot" and "Buckshot" many time i have never actually fired either through a wall. But the point I was trying to make is that no shotgun blast has the ability to penetrate walls and do collateral damage as a rifle bullet can. I have actually repaired a house that was shot up with an assault rifle (no one was home) and can attest to their ability to penetrate walls and do damage.

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Breaking News: Congress can have access to eight years of Trump’s tax records

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit let stand an earlier ruling against Donald Trump that affirmed Congress’s investigative authority.

    Winning!

  176. [176] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bear

    Absolutely correct, all rifle ammo more potent than rimfire cartridges would always be FAR more deadly than shot shells.

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yesterday, Donald Trump lied about Ivanka saying that she has "now created 14 million jobs." So is Donald Trump that ignorant or does Trump think the Trump cult is that gullible/stupid? Or both?

    https://thehill.com/policy/finance/470291-trump-claims-ivanka-created-14-million-jobs

    It's like the GOP and BLOTUS -- Big Liar of the United States -- don't care one iota how stupid a whole bunch of them are making all of them appear to everyone else. *laughs*

  178. [178] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Okay, my sides are hurting from laughter. Mike just informed our Lord High Treasurer His Grace the Right Honourable Charles Brown, Esquire that a "home invasion" is a burglary.

    Well, according to Michale, he spent 25 years in law enforcement and only worked as an MP, which sounded impossible for both claims to be true until I realized what he’s been trying to tell us this whole time... He’s a crossing guard for a school on base!

    Also, I feel bad for the poor printer tasked with making Chaz’s business cards!

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    178

    Well, according to Michale, he spent 25 years in law enforcement and only worked as an MP, which sounded impossible for both claims to be true until I realized what he’s been trying to tell us this whole time... He’s a crossing guard for a school on base!

    *laughs*

    Also, I feel bad for the poor printer tasked with making Chaz’s business cards!

    Oh, I wouldn't worry about Chaz's business cards since the name you have been bestowed makes his look tiny in comparison:

    Our Personal Aide-de-Camp the Lord of the Privy Council and Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter the Right and Honourable Royal Highness Russ

    'Tis a mouthful, for sure. :)

Comments for this article are closed.