7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

8 hours ago, atyclb said:

glad i have hobbies

I’m sure they’ll provide you some solace in the months ahead.

 

 

i clicked and gave you a "like" for that post as it was actually clever.

5 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Behind closed doors; always a sign.

You're not a poker player, I can tell.

 

"Keep one's cards close to one's vest" - written by I don't have a clue.

James Comey violated that rule just before '16 election and see how that turned out?

 

The house investigators are wise to restrict access to any evidence they collect.  They are not in a court and therefor there is no disclosure rule.  All relevant evidence and tons of irrelevant conspiracy theories will receive a thorough airing in any Senate impeachment hearings.

7 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

pardon me "tug" for delayed response but i had to tug something

You go tug whatever it is you ate talking about I run them bucko

19 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

I made no such assumption. You could not possibly have come to that conclusion correctly based on my post. I clearly stated that it made no difference whether or not it existed. Either way, Trump has done wrong with the simple suggestion.

 

You either have very poor comprehension or you are using deflection tactics to attempt to make a lie you have just told become a truth.

well as a Trump supporter he would be using Trumps tactics. I believe it was Churchill who once said "A lie has run twice around the world before truth has got its trousers on"

15 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Behind closed doors; always a sign.

Yes, it's a reflection of the fact that the investigative stage of an impeachment inquiry is analogous to the holding of Grand Jury proceedings. Grand Jury proceedings are held behind closed doors.

 

Do you think that Grand Jury procedures are somehow invalid or improper because they're held in secret?

Edited October 16, 20196 yr by GroveHillWanderer

On 10/15/2019 at 6:08 PM, rgraham said:

No Republicans allowed, kangaroo court.

Are you contending that there are no republicans on the House Committee? Really? You don't have much use for facts, do you?

There is a bit of poor humour in this, but this clip highlights the contradiction regarding Trump's case against Biden.

 

Worth a look.

 

On 10/15/2019 at 6:08 PM, rgraham said:

No Republicans allowed, kangaroo court.

 

You do realize that Matt ("DUI") Gaetz is not the brightest bulb in the 4-pack? I mean he did equate a Kangaroo Court with Captain Kangaroo, so that should tell you something about Rep. Gaetz.

 

This is not a trial/court, it is an investigation more akin to a Grand Jury.

 

Yes, Republicans are participating in the investigation as they are minority members of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), also known as the House Intelligence Committee. 

 

Devin Nunes, California, Ranking Member
Mike Conaway, Texas
Mike Turner, Ohio
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah
Rick Crawford, Arkansas
Elise Stefanik, New York
Will Hurd, Texas
John Ratcliffe, Texas

 

They have equal time to question witnesses, and report back to the WH. Some reports are that they are losing faith in the president.

 

Assuming the case is referred to the Senate then there will be a trial.

 

Why do people seem to have trouble grasping this relatively simple concept?

 

 

Mug-shot for Gaetz, Dad (nepotism) got him off (so to speak).

 

 

Edited October 17, 20196 yr by mtls2005