cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
elcheapo
Veteran Advisor

Guilty as sin

Well someone has to say it.

With the latest now.... That ruby

And the white house and OMB

At the order of the white house

Is refusing to comply with a sopena issued by a house committee....im sorry....but guilty.

Not only are they guilty by not

Complying....but what are they

Hiding ?

And ruby....the president thinks

He can get away with it....but his

Lawyer is not an elected figure nor

A staff member....he is walking

On very thin ice.

Now, even more people comming

Foward.

Just a question....where is trumps

Wife from ?

Folks, i'm not happy about this,

And impeachment procedings

Are hard on the country....and

Who knows anything about pence.

 

16 Replies
Edmund55
Senior Contributor

Re: Guilty as sin

(Well someone has to say it.)

What? The democrats and their cohorts in the main stream / liberal media have been saying it since Trump was sworn in, we're at day 998 of the 116th investigative congress' impeachment inquiry.  

(Folks, i'm not happy about this,)

Nervous nancy has said this many times, I'm calling her a liar.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

There are no impeachment proceeding. All you have is liar Schiff behind closed doors doing who knows what. It's a joke. The fake stream media is making a fool out of ya.

elcheapo
Veteran Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

What if......they do move ahead

And do find a problem.....

Ya going to eat your hat ?

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

To begin, there should be no "if they do find a problem" -- it should be readily apparent to most, on a bipartisan basis.  There's too much fishing for a problem going on.

If they first have and pass a full house vote on the "inquiry", and then hold bi-partisan interviews/depositions/examinations, not in secret or "behind closed doors", preferably open to any/all congressmen even if questions are limited to committee members, then we might see better cooperation.  Plus, if they really wanted the WHOLE truth, they would want to get to the bottom of the whole ball of wax, without regard to whom is implicated, even if they have a 'D' by their name, or CIA, DOJ, FBI, etc.  As for the "whistle-blower", or more, it really seems more like "leaks" and disgruntlement.  Trump is our elected President, like it or not, and he deserves the powers, protections and privileges granted to his office, no more and no less than our previous President. 

Then, if a full House vote passes for impeachment, it moves on to the Senate for trial, or at least a vote in judgment.  Yet, they better hurry up and get there because it will soon be a situation where the Democrats in the House are clearly and unduly attempting to influence the 2020 election.  Then, IF Trump is re-elected anyway (knowing what we already know, or what we will know by that time), the Democrats will have quite a problem on their hands if they try to remove him.

So far, it seems like just more crap along the same lines as previous "hearings" on matters such as the Mueller Report, etc., orange-man bad and we don't want him.  Investigating Biden, or Hillary, or anyone else, is no more election interference than investigating Trump, either already, or quite soon.

 

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

Is not doing the inquiry in the manner you’d prefer any worse a move by a person in a leadership role in Congress than putting a permanent hold on a Supreme Court nominee?

 

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

The biggest difference -- one is moving forward with something without a vote, and thus with questionable authority; the other was not moving forward with something, not allowing a vote at the time, which was apparently within their authority (not saying I agree with it, yet there are also many bills which die every year due to a "no vote").  Still, it all depends on who one reads or listens to, while the two are quite different subjects, with quite different elective/selective processes, and quite different implications.

gh2002gh
Senior Contributor

Re: Guilty as sin

Hahaha....your melt down gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. 

 

Please continue....

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

What if they don't? If they want to hold impeachment hearings take an inquiry vote. No vote no inquiry. If they want to hold an impeachment inquiry with out a vote it should be ignored. Do it above the table not behind closed doors. Let us see an hear from the witnesses with our eyes and ears. Don't hide and then tell us about it.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Guilty as sin

If Hillary won, as everyone told us she would, it would have been her nominee. Trump told the world who he would nominate before the election. Hillary did not. But now you want to justify the impeachment of a president for something he had nothing to do with.