Breaking: DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation Seeks Charges In Russia Probe

a reply to: burntheships

My hope, as always, is that anyone who broke the law sees justice.

I will wait until we get more news before I get excited.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

You've misinterpreted my post again.

My comment is simple: calls for Trump's impeachment started after he became Presdient in 2017.

Your post is taking the opportunity to rail on Democrats which is cool. If you'd like to prove me wrong with, you know, actual evidence, feel free to post significant examples of Clinton or Democrats calling for Mr. Trump's impeachment before he was even inaugurated.

People were certainly upset that their "team" didn't "win" and I don't think those really count, but you can even include those if you want.

Barring that, I can suggest that you read the context of my posts more closely; that might avoid embarrassing public mistakes.

I will help you out...here is a Huff Post article from December 2016

You will note that Trump was inaugurated in Jan 2017. You are delusional or have amnesia if you believe that calls for impeachment did not begin as soon as Nov 9th 2016 the news that Trump won were released. The list making began immediately on how to impeach him. It was in all the news. Democrat congresspersons quoted again and again before Trump's inauguration!

a reply to: Gryphon66

And here is an article from April 2016 that asks if Trump will be impeached "if he wins"...

7 months BEFORE the election they were talking about impeaching him!

www.politico.eu... ment/

a reply to: Gryphon66

what does "reinterpreted" mean anyways??

you are correct the law was not changed but what the law means was.

or did you miss that???

and thanks Guys for showing it was before he was inaugrated...

Your ball now.

Hope you aren't too embarrassed, right??🍳🥚🍳🥚🍳🥚

originally posted by: Gojira54
a reply to: Gryphon66

And here is an article from April 2016 that asks if Trump will be impeached "if he wins"...

7 months BEFORE the election they were talking about impeaching him!

www.politico.eu... ment/

So they were, though strictly speaking this is both Democrats and Republicans ... and really, rather than calling for impeachment they're more or less predicting that Trump, being Trump, would do something impeachable, no?

Full disclosure: Nobody we talked to said this was likely without a series of cascading events first unfolding. Impeachment is, after all, a rarely used and highly disruptive tactic that would throttle pretty much everything else happening from a federal policy perspective in the country. It would take an unprecedented mix of popular sentiment and raw power politics at the very highest levels to actually succeed at toppling a new president, and it’s far from certain that even Trump could manage to be so offensive that he clears that bar.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And here is another from December 15, 2016 talking about impeaching Trump BEFORE the inauguration.

You get the facts right about as often as SillyOlMe

www.vanityfair.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

And here's another one from November 3, 2016... FIVE DAYS before the election

www.nytimes.com...

So, this begs the question... Are you willfully ignorant? Or is it not your fault?

originally posted by: Gojira54
a reply to: Gryphon66

And here is another from December 15, 2016 talking about impeaching Trump BEFORE the inauguration.

You get the facts right about as often as SillyOlMe

www.vanityfair.com...

... well, I did say it was my best recollection ...

You win this round Mr. Bond.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You obviously, did not read the whole Huff article I posted with the links to other earlier articles and oh my...the link to the DNC Petition for Congress to Impeach Trump on Day One www.change.org website!

They were not saying if...they were demanding impeachment before he was inaugurated!

originally posted by: Gojira54
*snip*
So, this begs the question... Are you willfully ignorant? Or is it not your fault?

Well, I could be snarky and point out that you don't understand what "begging the question" means ... but I won't.

I see that you're going to spam the thread ... so let me attempt to seriously answer your attempts.

Here's what I said:

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I don't think that started until sometime in January 2017... can't remember exactly.

So, you're blatantly lying about what I said. Further, since dishonesty obviously isn't enough, you trudge ahead ironically demonstrating just how ignorant you yourself are of what I said and of my normal habits of discussion. I would opine that such an obvious argumentative failure on your part constitutes a lack of intellect ... but then I'd be lowering myself to your rather pathetic level.

SO, buck up, Tiger ... and stop the silly.

a reply to: burntheships

Do these threads ever feel like Deja-Vu?

About how the same people are finally going to prison..this time FOR REAL!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey! All I did was point out your ignorance.

It's not my fault you can't get the facts right

originally posted by: Gojira54
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey! All I did was point out your ignorance.

It's not my fault you can't get the facts right

... and I called someone else meta, LOL.

You do you, Boo.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

You've misinterpreted my post again.

My comment is simple: calls for Trump's impeachment started after he became Presdient in 2017.

Yet they started even before he was the GOP nominee.

Is your ignorance a result of you simply not paying attention? Or is it deliberate?

a reply to: Gryphon66

that is NOT what you said to me though was it??

you said I embarassed myself

YOU SAID THAT.


now, you are back peddling, quite fast to boot

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: Gryphon66

They are two entirely separate issues.

SPYGATE predates everything, nothing
the Democrats can do about it now.

Too late, and Barr is ahead of them
by light years. There are 4 years of
documents that will be off limits
the dim witted Democrats as they
are now part of a criminal investigation.

Peach mints on the other hand is pie in the sky.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps, you should read your post that was quoted in My original post here

And especially read your last 2 lines for much needed personal self advice.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps, you should read your post that was quoted in My original post here

And especially read your last 2 lines for much needed personal self advice.

Wow. Perhaps you should actually read what I said?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I don't think that started until sometime in January 2017... can't remember exactly.

/shrug

a reply to: burntheships

With the long hyped OIG report due out any day and this leak to the press?

It is the clearest sign yet the OIG report will be a nothing burger and to dull the pending disappointment they are already hyping the next thing the Right Wing should hang their hopes on.

It is like an eternal and bottomless well of gullibility.

They will all be locked up!!