JN

"Leaked" request by some Democrats that asked Nancy to coordinate censure vote instead of impeachment vote.

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Deliberately leaked as trial balloon to gauge feasibility.  Would be convient way out for Democrats.  

The proposed plan entailed the cooperation from the House of Representatives Republicans to agree to a bipartisan vote to censure Trump instead of an impeachment vote.  

Many Democrats are fearful of walking into a Senate impeachment trial controlled by Republicans with no hearsay allowed and a long list of people to testify the Democrats do not want to see. 

Trump said No.  Bring it on.

Does Nancy go with a partisan censure in the House or expose Dems to Senate trial that is sure to be damaging.

Schiff writes up testimony and sends to Nadler's Judiciary committee where they will get another couple of days of public debate. 

Edited by Jabbar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jabbar said:

Many Democrats are fearful of walking into a Senate impeachment trial controlled by Republicans with no hearsay allowed and a long list of people to testify the Democrats do not want to see.

Dems are gonna be eatin' crow is my guess. What a farce this has been.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

What a farce this has been.

Agreed... despite all the testimony Trump today reprises the so many times quashed rumor that the Ukraine meddled in 2016 US elections, and to help his case refuses the release of essential documents and withholds first-hand witnesses, such is his desire for a fair and open process.

Edited by remake it
hype-a-nation
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, remake it said:

Agreed... despite all the testimony Trump today reprises the so many times quashed rumor that the Ukraine meddled in 2016 US elections, and to help his case refuses the release of essential documents and withholds first-hand witnesses, such is his desire for a fair and open process.

HUH?  Are you referring to the doddering old fool who authored the failed takeover of Venezuela and didn't even know that twitter could reset the password on his account which he forgot?  LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As to the Ukranian meddling in the 2016 election, it's documented, in fact the Ukranian Ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing candidate Trump which was published in an American web-based news outlet, TheHill.  This article here discusses that as well as the activities of DNC cat's paw Alexandra Chalupa to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wrs said:

As to the Ukranian meddling in the 2016 election, it's documented, in fact the Ukranian Ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing candidate Trump which was published in an American web-based news outlet, TheHill.  This article here discusses that as well as the activities of DNC cat's paw Alexandra Chalupa to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine.

Unfortunately you are one one of the many who peddle conspiracy theories and prefer to remain ignorant of US investigation after investigation that renders your version of reality a false narrative as so clearly enunciated in Dr Hill's testimony on Friday.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my memes from yesterday.  Seems relevant to this thread, to counter the Jello Bizarro World inversion above.

3haxjt.jpg.7a8efc018a7e5522ec9fd170b38b6bb6.jpg

 

For those not old enough for the Bizarro World reference ...

Bizarro-World.thumb.jpg.caebea01adf80cbdd5cf326e88234e40.jpg

 

1488754694_ScreenShot2019-01-03at9_50.45AM(1).png.c1a31dd06b3d3dcc161332169f70a78e.png

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, remake it said:

Unfortunately you are one one of the many who peddle conspiracy theories and prefer to remain ignorant of US investigation after investigation that renders your version of reality a false narrative as so clearly enunciated in Dr Hill's testimony on Friday.

I have listened to and read a lot of Fiona Hill's testimony and it's just like the rest, opinions not based on factual evidence.  Her's is the false narrative but then you would know that if you read a little more.  Try this article here to get a clearer picture on the real backstory.

Anyone who believes we have representative government in the US is gullible but the democrats are the most gullible because they believe the media propaganda more than republicans at this point.  The republican voters are beginning to understand that the media are all liars, including Fox.  So that makes them less gullible but they next need to understand that their politicians are also liars.  Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul are closer to the type of politicians the US needs but will never get in a majority.

Edited by wrs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wrs said:

I have listened to and read a lot of Fiona Hill's testimony and it's just like the rest, opinions not based on factual evidence.  Her's is the false narrative but then you would know that if you read a little more.  Try this article here to get a clearer picture on the real backstory.

Anyone who believes we have representative government in the US is gullible but the democrats are the most gullible because they believe the media propaganda more than republicans at this point.  The republican voters are beginning to understand that the media are all liars, including Fox.  So that makes them less gullible but they next need to understand that their politicians are also liars.  Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul are closer to the type of politicians the US needs but will never get in a majority.

The testimony of all 12 witnesses told a consistent story and the factual basis of their comments was resounding, so you stick to whatever narrative makes sense to you because its a denial of realities.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarro World inversion continues unabated.

TDS can be amusing.

Meanwhile, lying under oath appears to be amusing to some as well.

9ogo.thumb.jpg.7c5e5635ff64ca31494ad40c75584be3.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, remake it said:

The testimony of all 12 witnesses told a consistent story and the factual basis of their comments was resounding, so you stick to whatever narrative makes sense to you because its a denial of realities.

Read these notes from the state department whcih were just released in a FOIA request and wake up.  The Biden's are corrupt and in those notes the information about the Black Book being used to setup Manafort is  described as well as a payment to Joe Biden for $900,000 for lobbying in 2015.  Furthermore, George Kent and Yovanovitch are also implicated in the coverup.  These are Ukranian prosecutors being interviewed here.  I am not aware that it is legal for the VP to receive payments for lobbying from a foreign nation while in office.  Seems well worth investigating to me and in addition, why the career diplomats like Kent and Yovanovitch were meddling in Ukranian politics which the clearly were.  Their testimony was purely self-serving as evidenced by these notes which were taken on Jan 25, 26 of this year.

Edited by wrs
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 1:23 PM, remake it said:

The testimony of all 12 witnesses told a consistent story and the factual basis of their comments was resounding, so you stick to whatever narrative makes sense to you because its a denial of realities.

And if the Dems asked you for testimony you'd have to read the phone call transcript or read the media coverage of the phone call transcript.  This is precisely what 11 of the 12 'witnesses' did because they were not on the phone call either.  So with respecct I offer the following:  either you don't understand that heresay is not fact or you're a typical Dem/Lib 'useful idiot' spouting off what the mainstream media expects you to restate.  

Useful idiot - Wikipedia

f9bbbf72.png
Overview

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bob D said:

And if the Dems asked you for testimony you'd have to read the phone call transcript or read the media coverage of the phone call transcript.  This is precisely what 11 of the 12 'witnesses' did because they were not on the phone call either.  So with respecct I offer the following:  either you don't understand that heresay is not fact or you're a typical Dem/Lib 'useful idiot' spouting off what the mainstream media expects you to restate.  

Impeachment here is based on "obstruction of justice" and while it is a lawful political process, it is not a judicial process as otherwise those with first hand knowledge - and the White House is refusing to let these people testify - would have been prosecuted for contempt, so it is obvious that justice is being obstructed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wrs said:

Read these notes from the state department whcih were just released in a FOIA request and wake up.  The Biden's are corrupt and in those notes the information about the Black Book being used to setup Manafort is  described as well as a payment to Joe Biden for $900,000 for lobbying in 2015.  Furthermore, George Kent and Yovanovitch are also implicated in the coverup.  These are Ukranian prosecutors being interviewed here.  I am not aware that it is legal for the VP to receive payments for lobbying from a foreign nation while in office.  Seems well worth investigating to me and in addition, why the career diplomats like Kent and Yovanovitch were meddling in Ukranian politics which the clearly were.  Their testimony was purely self-serving as evidenced by these notes which were taken on Jan 25, 26 of this year.

So that's what you believe, and it's based on evidence that no competent authority is able to confirm, and remains among the forever circulating conspiracy theories that pervade the US ignoranti.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoramus

It’s a satisfying way to tell somebody that he’s stupid or ignorant, its Latinate form projecting an aura of dusty academic superiority. It also has a long and interesting history.

The ancient legal institution of the grand jury now continues only in the USA, but it was once the standard way of deciding whether a person should be charged with a crime. It was called a grand jury because it was made up of 24 men, twice the size of one in a trial, which was a petit jury or petty jury. Grand juries were originally called from among local men who were expected to act on personal knowledge. If they felt the evidence was too weak their foreman wrote the Latin word ignoramus on the back of the indictment. This literally meant “we do not know”, from the Latin verb ignorare, to be ignorant. In practice it meant “we take no notice of this”. It was the opposite of declaring the indictment a true bill, which meant the accused person went to trial.

How this abstruse foreign form from the specialised language of the law became an English word is due to George Ruggle. He wrote a play called Ignoramus, mostly in Latin, which was performed on 8 March 1615 at Trinity College, Cambridge, before an audience of some 2,000 which included King James I of England and the future Charles I. It featured a rascally and ignorant lawyer, the Ignoramus of the title, who used barbarous law Latin of a kind deplored by the university’s academics. The king loved the play but his judges and law officers hated it. It caused a huge controversy that led to the name of the play’s chief character entering the language.

Since there is no lack of ignorance and stupidity in our world, we have to decide how to create its plural. A slight knowledge of Latin noun plurals suggests it should be ignorami, to match nucleus, fungus, terminus, cactus, and stimulus. But ignoramus never was a Latin noun, so the sensible course is to stick to the rules of English, making ignoramuses. That’s a mouthful, but it will stop you from sounding like an ignoramus.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, remake it said:

So that's what you believe, and it's based on evidence that no competent authority is able to confirm, and remains among the forever circulating conspiracy theories that pervade the US ignoranti.

What competent authority?  The ones that attempted to impeach Trump on nothing? In fact, what authority?  By what authority does Adam Schiff hold his hearings?  What do you define as competent authority?

I think that people who try to invoke "conspiracy theories" when faced with inconvenient facts simply concede their position is weak.  The papers that I linked were from the State Department and they represent interviews with two prosecutors from Ukraine.  Those people are equally if not more credible than all the state department insiders that were interviewed in the Schiff hearings.  You don't like the facts so you attempt to smear them as "conspiracy theories" but what the whistle blower claimed was also a "conspiracy theory" which was unfortunately for Schiff, debunked publicly.

Here is the first democrat, a black woman from Michigan backing down publicly.  LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-democrat-backs-down-from-impeachment-i-dont-see-the-value-of-kicking-him-out-of-office

Edited by wrs
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A slight knowledge of Latin noun plurals suggests it should be ignorami, to match nucleus, fungus, terminus, cactus, and stimulus. But ignoramus never was a Latin noun, so the sensible course is to stick to the rules of English, making ignoramuses. That’s a mouthful, but it will stop you from sounding like an ignoramus.

Good knowledge Tom!

Also the correct English plural for Octopus is Octopuses not Octopi although both are normally found in a dictionary.

The original word is Greek and not Latin and some would argue that the correct plural would therefore be Octopodes.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Good knowledge Tom!

Also the correct English plural for Octopus is Octopuses not Octopi although both are normally found in a dictionary.

The original word is Greek and not Latin and some would argue that the correct plural would therefore be Octopodes.

Thanks Rob.  I suffered through 4 years of Latin in high school.  Etymologies were about the only useful thing I got out of the required Latin courses.  Learning foreign languages are next to impossible for me, due to dyslexia.  Unless I can correspond a foreign word somehow with an English word, I generally can't remember it.  That's where etymologies and roots of words are helpful - the string of logic I can recall fairly easily.  Just a specific quirk of my particular type of dyslexia.

For example, one of the very few number words that I can remember easily is "lima" which is the Malay word for the number 5.  

My memory / logic link for remembering that "lima" means "5" is the Malaysia 5 Ringgit Note is the color of lima beans.

MY41.jpeg.ec4129c0c1e4100af93c0cf8e5195fe4.jpeg

 

What the Malay words for 4 or 6 or 7 or 8 are, I can't recall.  No connection / root / derivation at all to an English word, for me to remember the Malay words for those numbers.  Dyslexia can be weird.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I had 5 years of Latin, I was bloody useless at it🤣

You have a bona fide excuse with dyslexia, I on the other hand must be a language retard.

Don't want to pry but how come you're back in the US? work, or sick of the heat in Malaysia? I did hear the lowest ever recorded temperature in Singapore (I know that's not Malaysia but its close) was 21 degrees C and that was at night.

I've only ever been to KL once, man that place it humid. Aircon is a great invention!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2019 at 4:23 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Dems are gonna be eatin' crow is my guess. What a farce this has been.

I concur exactly, dem dems are going to be washing a lot of egg off their faces

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah I had 5 years of Latin, I was bloody useless at it🤣

You have a bona fide excuse with dyslexia, I on the other hand must be a language retard.

Don't want to pry but how come you're back in the US? work, or sick of the heat in Malaysia? I did hear the lowest ever recorded temperature in Singapore (I know that's not Malaysia but its close) was 21 degrees C and that was at night.

I've only ever been to KL once, man that place it humid. Aircon is a great invention!

I love tropical weather.  I moved back to the U.S. after all these years primarily because the mandatory retirement age in Malaysia is 60 years old.  Up until just a few years ago, the mandatory retirement age was 55 years old.  Insanity.  I am in no way ready to retire.  Heck, I'm already labelled hyperactive here.  But I cannot fight Malaysia laws.  So I gave up a losing battle to find another contract in Malaysia after my last contract there finished, and moved back to the U.S.   I expect to be called in for a local interview here shortly after Thanksgiving, for a Project Manager role.  And recruiters in U.S. have been contacting me since I moved back to the U.S.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wrs said:

What competent authority?  The ones that attempted to impeach Trump on nothing?

Those authorities vested with the skills and powers to investigate and advise, and comprise elements of the US government which apparently you do know about.

4 hours ago, wrs said:

The papers that I linked were from the State Department and they represent interviews with two prosecutors from Ukraine.  Those people are equally if not more credible than all the state department insiders that were interviewed in the Schiff hearings.

They were notes of a conversation that the State Departments holds, and that conversation was translated in part by a person who is a criminally-indicted associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, so if that is who you believe in preference to career bipartisan public servants then it pretty well says everything about you that one needs to know.

4 hours ago, wrs said:

You don't like the facts so you attempt to smear them as "conspiracy theories" but what the whistle blower claimed was also a "conspiracy theory" which was unfortunately for Schiff, debunked publicly.

It's the other way around as there is no factual basis for any of your claims which are getting more and more bizarre. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah I had 5 years of Latin, I was bloody useless at it🤣

Yes, as shown by not knowing that ignoranti is the Italian version of the Latin ignorante, while the Latin word ignoramus is a verb and has already been expressed in its plural form from its derivative, but to most its all Greek.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

57 minutes ago, remake it said:

Those authorities vested with the skills and powers to investigate and advise, and comprise elements of the US government which apparently you do know about.

They were notes of a conversation that the State Departments holds, and that conversation was translated in part by a person who is a criminally-indicted associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, so if that is who you believe in preference to career bipartisan public servants then it pretty well says everything about you that one needs to know.

It's the other way around as there is no factual basis for any of your claims which are getting more and more bizarre. 

The fact someone is criminally indicted doesn't make them a criminal (innocent until proven guilty),  furthermore , the charges are not an impediment to a proper translation so your argument is a fail but finally, the translation and interviews were done many months prior to the indictment.  The factual basis for the claims is the testimony of the individuals who were making the statements, not the translator.  Their testimony is based on knowledge of the actual facts in the cases against Burisma and the many corrupt characters that were brought into the orbit of Burisma.  Furthermore, their testimony contradicts that of Yovanovitch so further substantiation may be required to prove that.  Such substantion may well be contained in other records held by the State Department.  

I direct you to John Solomon's latest on this topic.  It's your choice to remain part of the ignoranti you seem to believe you are not part of but in fact, you are.  Evidenced by the fact that you don't bother to read what doesn't suit your agenda but instead, provides the factual side of the case and not the fairy tale you are choosing to believe.

Edited by wrs
  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wrs said:

The fact someone is criminally indicted doesn't make them a criminal (innocent until proven guilty),  furthermore , the charges are not an impediment to a proper translation so your argument is a fail but finally, the translation and interviews were done many months prior to the indictment.

It was a response to your claim that "Those people are equally if not more credible than all the state department insiders," so it went to "credibility," and that's a slam dunk fail on your part.

4 minutes ago, wrs said:

The factual basis for the claims is the testimony of the individuals who were making the statements, not the translator.  Their testimony is based on knowledge of the actual facts in the cases against Burisma and the many corrupt characters that were brought into the orbit of Burisma. 

No, the factual basis would be the use of actual facts, and when these have been examined your claims have been repeatedly debunked.

10 minutes ago, wrs said:

It's your choice to remain part of the ignoranti you seem to believe you are not part of but in fact, you are.  Evidenced by the fact that you don't bother to read what doesn't suit your agenda but instead, provides the factual side of the case and not the fairy tale you are choosing to believe

But the delusional beliefs are yours, given there is no actual evidence supporting what you say unless you fall into the trap of believing liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wrs said:

I direct you to John Solomon's latest on this topic

Why didn't you link to Pinocchio as a more credible source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.