Because a lot of the evidence that brought the scheme into focus was developed on late 18 early 19 in response to the mueller probe.  

Moreover if u find a DNA match to a murder weapon it foesnt matter if the person was your initial suspect.

"Evidence"
I ain't seen none.

Why did the state department ig rush over to congress?

---

Because Trump, not the Republican Party, is interested in rooting out the corruption that flows through Ukraine. You aren't this dense, you just can't admit that what he's doing is the right thing and necessary for the good of our country. Just remember, the harder they fight to stop him the deeper is their guilt. And this point is quite obvious as you clearly have taken the same position as Schiff, Pelosi, and Romney and willfully refuse to see the truth.

Alternate explanation: The other Republicans understood what Biden was doing and agreed with it. They were all deeply involved enough with Ukraine to have a strong opinion about who their prosecutor should be. Why be that deeply involved if you're not trying to root out corruption?
If Pelosi and Romney are on the same side of something, that says something more than partisanship supports that side. A cynic would say that it's dollars from the corruption gravy train. But DOJ should find receipts for something like that in short order. So the only other explanation is that the truth is on that side. That patriotism and the national interest are on that side.

The word salad in this one.

---

"Evidence"
I ain't seen none.

Why did the state department ig rush over to congress?

---

Alternate explanation: The other Republicans understood what Biden was doing and agreed with it. They were all deeply involved enough with Ukraine to have a strong opinion about who their prosecutor should be. Why be that deeply involved if you're not trying to root out corruption?
If Pelosi and Romney are on the same side of something, that says something more than partisanship supports that side. A cynic would say that it's dollars from the corruption gravy train. But DOJ should find receipts for something like that in short order. So the only other explanation is that the truth is on that side. That patriotism and the national interest are on that side.

The word salad in this one.

You're one to talk...

---

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

Interesting article about how an impeachment trial in the Senate could result in the recusal of John Roberts and another jurist being named as Chief Justice. John Roberts is a fact witness in the trial since he presides over the FISA court.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201...cess_.html

---

So nothing?

Not exactly.

LOL, ok. Take a pill for that TDS.

"We got him now!"

Dude, you've gotta let it go, at least with me. I'm not anti-repub or anti-dem or even anti-Don, for that matter - though I think he's incredibly skilled at DARVO which is a horrible thing for the man holding the most powerful position in the world to be good at while simultaneously being a malignant narcissist. I don't have an agenda other than poking holes in political BS - of which there are many in every administration, yet this one seems determined to top. 

But I understand how fun it is to say any of the following:

"Orange man bad"
"We got him now!"
"Fake news"
"Deep state"
"TDS"

So have you poked holes is any political b/s from the left yet?



I’m guessing no.

---

Not exactly.

Dude, you've gotta let it go, at least with me. I'm not anti-repub or anti-dem or even anti-Don, for that matter - though I think he's incredibly skilled at DARVO which is a horrible thing for the man holding the most powerful position in the world to be good at while simultaneously being a malignant narcissist. I don't have an agenda other than poking holes in political BS - of which there are many in every administration, yet this one seems determined to top. 

But I understand how fun it is to say any of the following:

"Orange man bad"
"We got him now!"
"Fake news"
"Deep state"
"TDS"

So have you poked holes is any political b/s from the left yet?



I’m guessing no.

He's been away for a while.  The left is not in charge at the moment.  Most of their BS is not relevant for now.

---

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

So have you poked holes is any political b/s from the left yet?



I’m guessing no.

He's been away for a while.  The left is not in charge at the moment.  Most of their BS is not relevant for now.

Thats not what he said. He said he has no bias left or right and pokes holes in all political b/s. I’m just waiting for an example of a single time he poked a hole in anything on the left. 

I’d even settle for 99% vs 1%. Any. Single. Post. Criticizing the. Left. 


I haven’t seen any.

---

He's been away for a while.  The left is not in charge at the moment.  Most of their BS is not relevant for now.

Thats not what he said. He said he has no bias left or right and pokes holes in all political b/s. I’m just waiting for an example of a single time he poked a hole in anything on the left. 

I’d even settle for 99% vs 1%. Any. Single. Post. Criticizing the. Left. 


I haven’t seen any.

Does anybody ever come on here praising the left?
Maybe if someone did, Gabe would disagree with that person.

---

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

He's been away for a while.  The left is not in charge at the moment.  Most of their BS is not relevant for now.

Thats not what he said. He said he has no bias left or right and pokes holes in all political b/s. I’m just waiting for an example of a single time he poked a hole in anything on the left. 

I’d even settle for 99% vs 1%. Any. Single. Post. Criticizing the. Left. 


I haven’t seen any.

Been swamped at work for a little bit and still dealing/reeling with the biz closure. Doing my best to passively pay attention while becoming increasingly passive about the Jags. 

Personally, I thought the "left" - meaning Schiff and Nadler - opted to bunt instead of swing for the fences. I think it's much harder, at least in this case, to prove abuse of power vs. obstruction of justice. The meat of this investigation was essentially not even present w/o testimonies from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. At the very least, Pompeo should have testified. Why they didn't make a bigger deal of this I don't know.  

Additionally, I thought the legal expert testimonies were fluff and a big waste of time...basically fodder for both sides to use to their advantage. Three of em said this, one of them said that - proving "my side" is right. Nadler (as opposed to Schiff) seemed incompetent as Judiciary chair, looked/sounded flustered more often than gaining control of decorum.  If I never have to hear the drama queen Matt Gaetz speak another word, I can die a little more content. Nunes is in some pretty hot water, whether he realizes it or not. 

In all, I think it's probably fine to vote for impeachment now on one of two articles (obstruction) - I think abuse of power would need more time for discovery. I have expectations that it won't last in the Senate unless there's a deep republican state to do what Graham posited they should have done way back in 2016 (i.e. kick him [Trump] out of the GOP). I've read that when it comes to a Senate vote, theoretically a passive-aggressive move to remove him would be for 30 senators to simply not show up that day. 

Given all this, the House's job with impeachment is to essentially determine if they want to indict the President - then send it over to the Senate for Roberts to preside over the case. You can indict with less-than-optimal evidence, but I'd feel better as a citizen if all due-diligence was done, rather than acting quickly for the sake of speed. Maybe the latter isn't the case, but it certainly feels 50% that way. 

I also think Trump is sundowning and it's disheartening to watch.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Thats not what he said. He said he has no bias left or right and pokes holes in all political b/s. I’m just waiting for an example of a single time he poked a hole in anything on the left. 

I’d even settle for 99% vs 1%. Any. Single. Post. Criticizing the. Left. 


I haven’t seen any.

Been swamped at work for a little bit and still dealing/reeling with the biz closure. Doing my best to passively pay attention while becoming increasingly passive about the Jags. 

Personally, I thought the "left" - meaning Schiff and Nadler - opted to bunt instead of swing for the fences. I think it's much harder, at least in this case, to prove abuse of power vs. obstruction of justice. The meat of this investigation was essentially not even present w/o testimonies from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. At the very least, Pompeo should have testified. Why they didn't make a bigger deal of this I don't know.  

Additionally, I thought the legal expert testimonies were fluff and a big waste of time...basically fodder for both sides to use to their advantage. Three of em said this, one of them said that - proving "my side" is right. Nadler (as opposed to Schiff) seemed incompetent as Judiciary chair, looked/sounded flustered more often than gaining control of decorum.  If I never have to hear the drama queen Matt Gaetz speak another word, I can die a little more content. Nunes is in some pretty hot water, whether he realizes it or not. 

In all, I think it's probably fine to vote for impeachment now on one of two articles (obstruction) - I think abuse of power would need more time for discovery. I have expectations that it won't last in the Senate unless there's a deep republican state to do what Graham posited they should have done way back in 2016 (i.e. kick him [Trump] out of the GOP). I've read that when it comes to a Senate vote, theoretically a passive-aggressive move to remove him would be for 30 senators to simply not show up that day. 

Given all this, the House's job with impeachment is to essentially determine if they want to indict the President - then send it over to the Senate for Roberts to preside over the case. You can indict with less-than-optimal evidence, but I'd feel better as a citizen if all due-diligence was done, rather than acting quickly for the sake of speed. Maybe the latter isn't the case, but it certainly feels 50% that way. 

I also think Trump is sundowning and it's disheartening to watch.

They have to move fast, the DoJ investigations are going to continue to display for all exactly what the criminal Obama Administration did to obstruct the election and the Trump candidacy and Presidency.

---

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

Been swamped at work for a little bit and still dealing/reeling with the biz closure. Doing my best to passively pay attention while becoming increasingly passive about the Jags. 

Personally, I thought the "left" - meaning Schiff and Nadler - opted to bunt instead of swing for the fences. I think it's much harder, at least in this case, to prove abuse of power vs. obstruction of justice. The meat of this investigation was essentially not even present w/o testimonies from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. At the very least, Pompeo should have testified. Why they didn't make a bigger deal of this I don't know.  

Additionally, I thought the legal expert testimonies were fluff and a big waste of time...basically fodder for both sides to use to their advantage. Three of em said this, one of them said that - proving "my side" is right. Nadler (as opposed to Schiff) seemed incompetent as Judiciary chair, looked/sounded flustered more often than gaining control of decorum.  If I never have to hear the drama queen Matt Gaetz speak another word, I can die a little more content. Nunes is in some pretty hot water, whether he realizes it or not. 

In all, I think it's probably fine to vote for impeachment now on one of two articles (obstruction) - I think abuse of power would need more time for discovery. I have expectations that it won't last in the Senate unless there's a deep republican state to do what Graham posited they should have done way back in 2016 (i.e. kick him [Trump] out of the GOP). I've read that when it comes to a Senate vote, theoretically a passive-aggressive move to remove him would be for 30 senators to simply not show up that day. 

Given all this, the House's job with impeachment is to essentially determine if they want to indict the President - then send it over to the Senate for Roberts to preside over the case. You can indict with less-than-optimal evidence, but I'd feel better as a citizen if all due-diligence was done, rather than acting quickly for the sake of speed. Maybe the latter isn't the case, but it certainly feels 50% that way. 

I also think Trump is sundowning and it's disheartening to watch.

They have to move fast, the DoJ investigations are going to continue to display for all exactly what the criminal Obama Administration did to obstruct the election and the Trump candidacy and Presidency.

I don't know if that's the reason for speed - my thought was that if the Dems truly (or even half) believed that Trump was committed to compromising the 2020 elections, then speed was necessary. I think the recent investigation/report is damning to both sides, but I've only seen Trump/Barr and others talk from both sides of their mouths about it (i.e. This is a horrible report, the worst thing I've ever seen and a disgrace that shouldn't be believed, but look at how it proves X point about the Obama administration).

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

The vacation schedule of congress is always a good gauge of how serious something is.

---

Well, they've published the Articles of Focus Group Research Impeachment:

Article 1: OrangeManBad won the 2016 election against the Will of the Establishment and his stupid policies are working much to our chagrin.
Article 2: OrangeManBad is running away with the 2020 election and our Clownshow can't compete.

Vote to be held sometime soon.

---

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

So let's recap.

First it was RUSSIA!
Then it was COLLISION!
Next it was WHISTLE-BLOWER! (un-named and anonymous of course).
Then it was QUID-PRO-QUO!
Which changed to BRIBERY!

Now they finally had to settle for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress".  In other words, they couldn't find anything that The President did wrong.  Their "evidence" is based on how 2nd and 3rd parties "felt" and "thought".

---

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

They have to move fast, the DoJ investigations are going to continue to display for all exactly what the criminal Obama Administration did to obstruct the election and the Trump candidacy and Presidency.

I don't know if that's the reason for speed - my thought was that if the Dems truly (or even half) believed that Trump was committed to compromising the 2020 elections, then speed was necessary. I think the recent investigation/report is damning to both sides, but I've only seen Trump/Barr and others talk from both sides of their mouths about it (i.e. This is a horrible report, the worst thing I've ever seen and a disgrace that shouldn't be believed, but look at how it proves X point about the Obama administration).

I agree that we need to hear from guys like Pompeo and Bolton before we really understand what was going on with our Ukraine diplomacy, however those guys were going to plead executive privilege all the way to the supreme Court. If the House goes ahead and impeaches without them, then the question of whether or not they should be made to talk goes to the Chief Justice of the supreme Court directly. It's a rational move, if you have a strong hunch about what they're going to say, and I would have done the same thing.

---

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

So let's recap.

First it was RUSSIA!
Then it was COLLISION!
Next it was WHISTLE-BLOWER! (un-named and anonymous of course).
Then it was QUID-PRO-QUO!
Which changed to BRIBERY!

Now they finally had to settle for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress".  In other words, they couldn't find anything that The President did wrong.  Their "evidence" is based on how 2nd and 3rd parties "felt" and "thought".

It seems in your mind that statements you don't understand just go on the category of "feelings".

This is not about feelings, not at all. 
For two years, our president's motto was "no collusion!"
We all understood that if anyone found evidence that Donald Trump's campaign had asked Russia for help, or coordinated with Russia about how they could help, that this would be an impeachable offense for the president, and a criminal offense for anyone else.
Then this whistleblower report comes out, and his story changes to, "collusion is totes legal guys, come on. Of course I want Ukraine to act in my interest, what do you think I am stupid? if it's my interest, it's your interest trust me! we're making America great again."

I don't let people change their stories that fast, man.
If I remember far enough back where the chocolate ration was 30 grams, you don't get to fill the corner stores up with 20 gram rations and then fill the radio announcements up with proclamations of your benevolence for increasing the chocolate ration. You can have the power of the presidency, but you can't go change your story like that and expect me to not call you on it. 

But not all of us are built that way. Some of us don't mind it when the guy tells us it's raining while he's relieving himself on our backs. Some of us instead think, "letting the guy with the red tie do this is still way better than letting the guy with the blue tie do it."

If nothing else, I hope your out look is making you happy.

---

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

So let's recap.

First it was RUSSIA!
Then it was COLLISION!
Next it was WHISTLE-BLOWER! (un-named and anonymous of course).
Then it was QUID-PRO-QUO!
Which changed to BRIBERY!

Now they finally had to settle for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress".  In other words, they couldn't find anything that The President did wrong.  Their "evidence" is based on how 2nd and 3rd parties "felt" and "thought".

It seems in your mind that statements you don't understand just go on the category of "feelings".

This is not about feelings, not at all. 
For two years, our president's motto was "no collusion!"
We all understood that if anyone found evidence that Donald Trump's campaign had asked Russia for help, or coordinated with Russia about how they could help, that this would be an impeachable offense for the president, and a criminal offense for anyone else.
Then this whistleblower report comes out, and his story changes to, "collusion is totes legal guys, come on. Of course I want Ukraine to act in my interest, what do you think I am stupid? if it's my interest, it's your interest trust me! we're making America great again."

I don't let people change their stories that fast, man.
If I remember far enough back where the chocolate ration was 30 grams, you don't get to fill the corner stores up with 20 gram rations and then fill the radio announcements up with proclamations of your benevolence for increasing the chocolate ration. You can have the power of the presidency, but you can't go change your story like that and expect me to not call you on it. 

But not all of us are built that way. Some of us don't mind it when the guy tells us it's raining while he's relieving himself on our backs. Some of us instead think, "letting the guy with the red tie do this is still way better than letting the guy with the blue tie do it."

If nothing else, I hope your out look is making you happy.

Lol, whargarble at its finest. Yiu give Schiff a run for the bull [BLEEP] record.

---

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

It seems in your mind that statements you don't understand just go on the category of "feelings".

This is not about feelings, not at all. 
For two years, our president's motto was "no collusion!"
We all understood that if anyone found evidence that Donald Trump's campaign had asked Russia for help, or coordinated with Russia about how they could help, that this would be an impeachable offense for the president, and a criminal offense for anyone else.
Then this whistleblower report comes out, and his story changes to, "collusion is totes legal guys, come on. Of course I want Ukraine to act in my interest, what do you think I am stupid? if it's my interest, it's your interest trust me! we're making America great again."

I don't let people change their stories that fast, man.
If I remember far enough back where the chocolate ration was 30 grams, you don't get to fill the corner stores up with 20 gram rations and then fill the radio announcements up with proclamations of your benevolence for increasing the chocolate ration. You can have the power of the presidency, but you can't go change your story like that and expect me to not call you on it. 

But not all of us are built that way. Some of us don't mind it when the guy tells us it's raining while he's relieving himself on our backs. Some of us instead think, "letting the guy with the red tie do this is still way better than letting the guy with the blue tie do it."

If nothing else, I hope your out look is making you happy.

Lol, whargarble at its finest. Yiu give Schiff a run for the bull [BLEEP] record.

Which of the two bolded sections is false?
Why?

---

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

Lol, whargarble at its finest. Yiu give Schiff a run for the bull [BLEEP] record.

Which of the two bolded sections is false?
Why?

Your second statement is false, but aside from that, like Schiff, you have a great case!

---

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

---

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

Which of the two bolded sections is false?
Why?

Your second statement is false, but aside from that, like Schiff, you have a great case!

What's false about it? Trump's not denying that he asked Ukraine's officials to read out a statement on Fox news that would serve his campaign.

---

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