Create Account

Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums Other Stuff Political Talk *** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD ***

Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x


The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
*** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD ***

  • Offline MalabarJag
    Pet Sitter

  • ******
  • Posts: 5,972
    Threads: 46
    Joined: Mar 2001
    Reputation: 112
#596
01-29-2020, 06:55 PM

(01-29-2020, 06:23 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 05:52 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: We don't know whether or not Bolton is an irrelevant witness. Even if not, it's easy to spin something in his testimony to open the path for the new Julie Swetnick.

Sorry Dems, you had your chance. You wasted it with Kavanaugh. No second chances for purveyors of false information. No "I'll only call credible witnesses this time," especially after the numerous lies Schiff has been putting forth.

The Republicans aren't being asked to just "allow witnesses". Chuck Schumer has a specific list of four witnesses, and Mitch McConnell could allow a separate vote on each one. 
In fact I think the judiciary committee worked the same way. The only reason you saw a blasey-ford on the stand was because a couple of Republican senators voted to allow her specifically as a witness, after the Democrats begged and moaned.
Swetnik was not brought to the stand.

Schumer's witnesses? Blasey-Ford 2.0?

Swetnick was not a witness, but her lie was treated as evidence. At least Jeff Flake acted as if it was, hence the delay in confirmation.

The House has presented what it claims is enough evidence for impeachment. Because of that claim there is no need for additional witnesses. Let the Senate vote yea or nay on impeachment and end this farce.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply


Messages In This Thread
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 12-28-2019, 01:59 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-16-2020, 08:21 AM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-21-2020, 04:06 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by mikesez - 01-21-2020, 04:18 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-22-2020, 01:29 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by StroudCrowd1 - 01-22-2020, 01:32 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 01:37 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 01:43 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 02:18 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by flsprtsgod - 01-23-2020, 03:42 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-24-2020, 12:58 PM
RE: *** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD *** - by MalabarJag - 01-29-2020, 06:55 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-30-2020, 02:47 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 12-18-2019, 01:57 PM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.

Forum software by © MyBB - Theme © iAndrew 2017

ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!