Ever since the whistleblower complaint came out, Democrats in the House have been very consistent:

"This would be an abuse of power if true."

But the Republicans in the House keep changing their story:

"You haven't investigated enough to know that, there's just this one complaint and one transcript"
*They call witnesses and get more evidence*
"Your procedure is all wrong, the whole House has to vote to investigate"
*They hold a vote to investigate*
"We think there are better things to do with our time"
"This is tanking the stock market."
"You're just trying to overturn the 2016 election"

If you don't think Trump abused power, say so.  If you think his actions are good and normal, say so.  They wouldn't be quibbling so much about process if they thought their man was innocent.  Trump is out there declaring his own innocence every day.  Don't you think it's telling that his erstwhile allies in Congress are not?

Plus we can dismiss some of these quibbles out of hand easily.
Impeaching the president is one of the jobs the Constitution gives the House. It doesn't say any job is more important. The Constitution doesn't mention the stock market or even the economy. A vote to impeach does not overturn the 2016 election. All the judges Trump got remain in place, and Pence becomes President, not Hillary.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The “whistleblower”.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...20996.html

---

Ever since the whistleblower complaint came out election of 2016, Democrats in the House have been very consistent:

"This would be an abuse of power if true We are going to impeach Trump on something no matter what!!!!"

FTFY and you could've stopped there.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This vote literally means nothing.

---

How about these words?

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How about these words?

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today.

An abuse of power is not necessarily illegal.

---

This vote literally means nothing.

Last week I was supposed to believe that this whole investigation was illegal because there had been no vote.
What changed?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is so productive and helpful ?

---

All the star witnesses are Obama cronies with deep ties to Ukraine. It's Kubuki Theater trying to distract from the fact that the Dem leadership was using Ukraine as their personal family slush fund.

---

How about these words?

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today.

An abuse of power is not necessarily illegal.

---

This vote literally means nothing.

Last week I was supposed to believe that this whole investigation was illegal because there had been no vote.
What changed?

What has been voted on and how does it differ from the past impeachment process?

Explain this rule.  The majority party can subpoena any witness of their choosing.  The minority party must submit a detailed explanation for any subpoena.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

An abuse of power is not necessarily illegal.

---

No, but lying about the occurrence of that abuse while under oath is.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

An abuse of power is not necessarily illegal.

---

Last week I was supposed to believe that this whole investigation was illegal because there had been no vote.
What changed?

What has been voted on and how does it differ from the past impeachment process?

Explain this rule.  The majority party can subpoena any witness of their choosing.  The minority party must submit a detailed explanation for any subpoena.

Passing a subpoena is the same as passing a bill. In theory, the minority can do it, but they need members of the majority to either defect to their side or abstain during the vote.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ever since the whistleblower complaint came out, Democrats in the House have been very consistent:

"This would be an abuse of power if true."

But the Republicans in the House keep changing their story:

"You haven't investigated enough to know that, there's just this one complaint and one transcript"
*They call witnesses and get more evidence*
"Your procedure is all wrong, the whole House has to vote to investigate"
*They hold a vote to investigate*
"We think there are better things to do with our time"
"This is tanking the stock market."
"You're just trying to overturn the 2016 election"

If you don't think Trump abused power, say so.  If you think his actions are good and normal, say so.  They wouldn't be quibbling so much about process if they thought their man was innocent.  Trump is out there declaring his own innocence every day.  Don't you think it's telling that his erstwhile allies in Congress are not?

Plus we can dismiss some of these quibbles out of hand easily.
Impeaching the president is one of the jobs the Constitution gives the House.  It doesn't say any job is more important.  The Constitution doesn't mention the stock market or even the economy.   A vote to impeach does not overturn the 2016 election.  All the judges Trump got remain in place, and Pence becomes President, not Hillary.

This is a neat trick.  As part of our corrupt process, we are going to embargo any details of the depositions we deem fit so that our opponents CAN'T argue substance in the public square while we set the narrative.  Shameful!  The Republicans are upset because they want the hearings out in the open, and they want the full transcripts of the depositions leaked.  It's not, "Oh well we don't have anything to say, let's just bang the table," It's "We just shredded your witness and the narrative you're advancing, but you won't let us share it with the American people!"  

As for the  

This is over...

---

An abuse of power is not necessarily illegal.

---

No, but lying about the occurrence of that abuse while under oath is.

Having sex with an intern that you supervise is not illegal, but it is abuse of power.
Lying about your sex life while under oath is not an abuse of power, but it is illegal.

Criminal courts punish crimes.  Congress considers impeachment to punish abuse of power, not crimes.

---

Ever since the whistleblower complaint came out, Democrats in the House have been very consistent:

"This would be an abuse of power if true."

But the Republicans in the House keep changing their story:

"You haven't investigated enough to know that, there's just this one complaint and one transcript"
*They call witnesses and get more evidence*
"Your procedure is all wrong, the whole House has to vote to investigate"
*They hold a vote to investigate*
"We think there are better things to do with our time"
"This is tanking the stock market."
"You're just trying to overturn the 2016 election"

If you don't think Trump abused power, say so.  If you think his actions are good and normal, say so.  They wouldn't be quibbling so much about process if they thought their man was innocent.  Trump is out there declaring his own innocence every day.  Don't you think it's telling that his erstwhile allies in Congress are not?

Plus we can dismiss some of these quibbles out of hand easily.
Impeaching the president is one of the jobs the Constitution gives the House.  It doesn't say any job is more important.  The Constitution doesn't mention the stock market or even the economy.   A vote to impeach does not overturn the 2016 election.  All the judges Trump got remain in place, and Pence becomes President, not Hillary.

This is a neat trick.  As part of our corrupt process, we are going to embargo any details of the depositions we deem fit so that our opponents CAN'T argue substance in the public square while we set the narrative.  Shameful!  The Republicans are upset because they want the hearings out in the open, and they want the full transcripts of the depositions leaked.  It's not, "Oh well we don't have anything to say, let's just bang the table," It's "We just shredded your witness and the narrative you're advancing, but you won't let us share it with the American people!"  

The President and Republicans in the Senate will have the power to call witnesses and publicly question all witnesses once the impeachment resolutions pass.

But I'm sure the right wing media machine will come up with another reason that everyone should disregard these proceedings and be upset about them once that happens.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, but lying about the occurrence of that abuse while under oath is.

Having sex with an intern that you supervise is not illegal, but it is abuse of power.
Lying about your sex life while under oath is not an abuse of power, but it is illegal.

Criminal courts punish crimes.  Congress considers impeachment to punish abuse of power, not crimes.

---

This is a neat trick.  As part of our corrupt process, we are going to embargo any details of the depositions we deem fit so that our opponents CAN'T argue substance in the public square while we set the narrative.  Shameful!  The Republicans are upset because they want the hearings out in the open, and they want the full transcripts of the depositions leaked.  It's not, "Oh well we don't have anything to say, let's just bang the table," It's "We just shredded your witness and the narrative you're advancing, but you won't let us share it with the American people!"  

The President and Republicans in the Senate will have the power to call witnesses and publicly question all witnesses once the impeachment resolutions pass.

But I'm sure the right wing media machine will come up with another reason that everyone should disregard these proceedings in the upset about them once that happens.

This isn't a lie.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  They have the ability to submit a request in writing to Adam Schiff and if he had his Metamucil that morning, then he might think about it.  This is the same guy who is selectively leaking testimony out of context, coaching witnesses, shutting down opposition questioning when he doesn't like where its going, met with the leaker to help craft the initial complaint and then hired two of their former collegues to his staff, still waiting for all his secret evidence.  

The guy who got this ball rolling is literally the guy who set the meeting with Ukrainian Prosecutors to start the Russia Hoax.  This is a coup.  This can't be allowed.

---

Having sex with an intern that you supervise is not illegal, but it is abuse of power.
Lying about your sex life while under oath is not an abuse of power, but it is illegal.

Criminal courts punish crimes.  Congress considers impeachment to punish abuse of power, not crimes.

---

The President and Republicans in the Senate will have the power to call witnesses and publicly question all witnesses once the impeachment resolutions pass.

But I'm sure the right wing media machine will come up with another reason that everyone should disregard these proceedings in the upset about them once that happens.

This isn't a lie.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  They have the ability to submit a request in writing to Adam Schiff and if he had his Metamucil that morning, then he might think about it.  This is the same guy who is selectively leaking testimony out of context, coaching witnesses, shutting down opposition questioning when he doesn't like where its going, met with the leaker to help craft the initial complaint and then hired two of their former collegues to his staff, still waiting for all his secret evidence.  

The guy who got this ball rolling is literally the guy who set the meeting with Ukrainian Prosecutors to start the Russia Hoax.  This is a coup.  This can't be allowed.

It won't be, the Senate won't even take this up on the floor. And if they do then they won't convict. And if they do...well, then the 2nd will be freely exercised. We will have war, and it won't be pretty.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All the star witnesses are Obama cronies with deep ties to Ukraine. It's Kubuki Theater trying to distract from the fact that the Dem leadership was using Ukraine as their personal family slush fund.

Yep and no one in the media is talking about it. These people wanted everything to stay the same. Trump wanted to clean up the corruption. No one seems to be remembering that the delaying of funds didn't happen until well after the call.

Unfortunately these liberals can't seem to do their job if they don't like their boss. They actively look to do the opposite and only follow directives if they agree with them. Need to just clean house of everyone in DC, but it's just not realistic.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

Having sex with an intern that you supervise is not illegal, but it is abuse of power.
Lying about your sex life while under oath is not an abuse of power, but it is illegal.

Criminal courts punish crimes.  Congress considers impeachment to punish abuse of power, not crimes.

---

The President and Republicans in the Senate will have the power to call witnesses and publicly question all witnesses once the impeachment resolutions pass.

But I'm sure the right wing media machine will come up with another reason that everyone should disregard these proceedings in the upset about them once that happens.

This isn't a lie.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  They have the ability to submit a request in writing to Adam Schiff and if he had his Metamucil that morning, then he might think about it.  This is the same guy who is selectively leaking testimony out of context, coaching witnesses, shutting down opposition questioning when he doesn't like where its going, met with the leaker to help craft the initial complaint and then hired two of their former collegues to his staff, still waiting for all his secret evidence.  

The guy who got this ball rolling is literally the guy who set the meeting with Ukrainian Prosecutors to start the Russia Hoax.  This is a coup.  This can't be allowed.

Yes, members of the majority party are typically the only ones who can issue subpoenas. It's always been that way.

On the other hand, a coup is when the military begins removing elected officials from office outside of the procedures laid out in the Constitution. The impeachment procedure is laid out in the Constitution so you should not call it a coup.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This isn't a lie.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  They have the ability to submit a request in writing to Adam Schiff and if he had his Metamucil that morning, then he might think about it.  This is the same guy who is selectively leaking testimony out of context, coaching witnesses, shutting down opposition questioning when he doesn't like where its going, met with the leaker to help craft the initial complaint and then hired two of their former collegues to his staff, still waiting for all his secret evidence.  

The guy who got this ball rolling is literally the guy who set the meeting with Ukrainian Prosecutors to start the Russia Hoax.  This is a coup.  This can't be allowed.

Yes, members of the majority party are typically the only ones who can issue subpoenas. It's always been that way.

On the other hand, a coup is when the military begins removing elected officials from office outside of the procedures laid out in the Constitution. The impeachment procedure is laid out in the Constitution so you should not call it a coup.

Not in the case of impeachment.  

The Intel community is all over this.

---

Yes, members of the majority party are typically the only ones who can issue subpoenas. It's always been that way.

On the other hand, a coup is when the military begins removing elected officials from office outside of the procedures laid out in the Constitution. The impeachment procedure is laid out in the Constitution so you should not call it a coup.

Not in the case of impeachment.  

The Intel community is all over this.

I don't follow.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not in the case of impeachment.  

The Intel community is all over this.

I don't follow.

You don't want to admit that internal government resources (the so called Deep State) have been actively working to entrap the President since the day he took the oath and this House action is the accumulation of all that work. So you "don't follow."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato