info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The House has postponed testimony in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
16 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 20, 2019, 4:28:48 PM10/20/19
to
On 10/20/19 2:10 PM, Andrew Janson wrote:
> On 10/19/2019 5:51 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 10/19/19 10:19 AM, jim wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote on 10/19/2019 8:12 AM:
>>>> The sole purpose of this "impeachment inquire" is to destroy the
>>>> President's
>>>> political viability, so that he loses next November.
>>>
>>> You are saying investigations of a candidate are unethical because
>>> they destroy the candidates viability in upcoming election.
>>
>> NO but FAKE investigations are....
>
> Nothing fake about it. Enough is already known about corrupt Trump's
> corrupt solicitation of foreign interference in our election, for
> corrupt Trump's political gain, but more needs to be uncovered. That's
> being done in the fully constitutional, fully legal, fully ethical House
> impeachment inquiry.
You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the House
of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
Corruption by a Democrat is NOT legal because they are running in a
Democratic primary... it's NOT a Presidential General Election. NOT
yet. And Biden has yet to become an actual candidate for the Presidency.
The FAKE IMPEACHMENT inquiry has nothing and NANCY PELOSI says there
will never be a vote impeachment. Which means the FAKE inquiry
masquerading as an impeachment inquiry, is also a moot point.
The entire fiasco is just an attempt to hide Democrats corruption.
--
That's Karma
Is it strange that Hillary has been involved in 3 of the 4 "impeachment"
attempts that have happened in the last 250 years?
> On 10/19/2019 5:51 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 10/19/19 10:19 AM, jim wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote on 10/19/2019 8:12 AM:
>>>> The sole purpose of this "impeachment inquire" is to destroy the
>>>> President's
>>>> political viability, so that he loses next November.
>>>
>>> You are saying investigations of a candidate are unethical because
>>> they destroy the candidates viability in upcoming election.
>>
>> NO but FAKE investigations are....
>
> Nothing fake about it. Enough is already known about corrupt Trump's
> corrupt solicitation of foreign interference in our election, for
> corrupt Trump's political gain, but more needs to be uncovered. That's
> being done in the fully constitutional, fully legal, fully ethical House
> impeachment inquiry.
You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the House
of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
Corruption by a Democrat is NOT legal because they are running in a
Democratic primary... it's NOT a Presidential General Election. NOT
yet. And Biden has yet to become an actual candidate for the Presidency.
The FAKE IMPEACHMENT inquiry has nothing and NANCY PELOSI says there
will never be a vote impeachment. Which means the FAKE inquiry
masquerading as an impeachment inquiry, is also a moot point.
The entire fiasco is just an attempt to hide Democrats corruption.
--
That's Karma
Is it strange that Hillary has been involved in 3 of the 4 "impeachment"
attempts that have happened in the last 250 years?
M I Wakefield
Oct 20, 2019, 4:53:03 PM10/20/19
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
> show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed it.
> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the House of
> Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
> including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented with an
Article of Impeachment.
Tinfoil goes shiny side out.
> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
> show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the House of
> Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
> including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
Article of Impeachment.
Tinfoil goes shiny side out.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 21, 2019, 12:49:05 PM10/21/19
to
On 10/20/19 2:10 PM, Andrew Janson wrote:
> On 10/19/2019 5:51 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 10/19/19 10:19 AM, jim wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote on 10/19/2019 8:12 AM:
>>>> The sole purpose of this "impeachment inquire" is to destroy the
>>>> President's
>>>> political viability, so that he loses next November.
>>>
>>> You are saying investigations of a candidate are unethical because
>>> they destroy the candidates viability in upcoming election.
>>
>> NO but FAKE investigations are....
>
> Nothing fake about it. Enough is already known about corrupt Trump's
> corrupt solicitation of foreign interference in our election, for
> corrupt Trump's political gain, but more needs to be uncovered. That's
> being done in the fully constitutional, fully legal, fully ethical House
> impeachment inquiry.
> On 10/19/2019 5:51 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 10/19/19 10:19 AM, jim wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote on 10/19/2019 8:12 AM:
>>>> The sole purpose of this "impeachment inquire" is to destroy the
>>>> President's
>>>> political viability, so that he loses next November.
>>>
>>> You are saying investigations of a candidate are unethical because
>>> they destroy the candidates viability in upcoming election.
>>
>> NO but FAKE investigations are....
>
> Nothing fake about it. Enough is already known about corrupt Trump's
> corrupt solicitation of foreign interference in our election, for
> corrupt Trump's political gain, but more needs to be uncovered. That's
> being done in the fully constitutional, fully legal, fully ethical House
> impeachment inquiry.
You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the House
of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of any kind
including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
Corruption by a Democrat is NOT legal because they are running in a
Democratic primary... it's NOT a Presidential General Election. NOT
yet. And Biden has yet to become an actual candidate for the
Presidency. In fact if Biden is a Presidential Candidate and that makes
Democratic primary... it's NOT a Presidential General Election. NOT
yet. And Biden has yet to become an actual candidate for the
TRUMPS actions a crime, then shouldn't Hillary be investigated for the
way she stole the Primary from Bernie Sanders? That would be considered
the Presidential election if you consider BIDEN to be running against
TRUMP, all the election laws are in play and for Hillary who hacked the
Bernie Sanders election via the DNC it will mean Prison....
The FAKE IMPEACHMENT inquiry has nothing and NANCY PELOSI says there
*masquerading as an impeachment inquiry* , is also a moot point.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 21, 2019, 12:58:38 PM10/21/19
to
did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with impeachment?
If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by the
entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so where di
this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
There is no IMPEACHMENT POWERS that have been authorizes.
*YOU'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE*
You can't invoke the term impeachment for an inquiry when the power to
impeach belongs to the House, and the HOUSE has yet yo vote or come
together to approve any form of impeachment proceedings.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 22, 2019, 9:08:03 AM10/22/19
to
On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>
>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
>> show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
>
> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed it.
Cite
>
>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence to
>> show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
>
> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed it.
>
>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the
>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment of
>> any kind including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
>
> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented with an
> Article of Impeachment.
The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment.... when
did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with impeachment?
If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by the
entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so where di
this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
There are no IMPEACHMENT POWERS that have been authorized by the House.
did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with impeachment?
If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by the
entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so where di
this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
*YOU'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE*
You can't invoke the term impeachment for an inquiry when the power to
together to approve any form of impeachment proceedings.
That would be FRUD and abuse of power.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 22, 2019, 9:28:08 AM10/22/19
to
BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>
>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence
>>> to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
>>
>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed
>> it.
>
> Cite
>
>>
>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the
>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment
>>> of any kind including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
>>
>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented with
>> an Article of Impeachment.
>
> The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment.... when
> did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with impeachment?
>
> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by the
> entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so where di
> this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
1) The constitution doesn't say
"the entire House".
2) The House hasn't voted on
impeachment yet. All that is
happening is an impeachment inquiry.
And THAT is only necessary because
the Atty General refuses to appoint
an independent counsel, as was done
in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
Clinton (Ken Starr).
news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>
>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no evidence
>>> to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro Quo?
>>
>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed
>> it.
>
> Cite
>
>>
>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the
>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any impeachment
>>> of any kind including anything called an impeachment inquiry.
>>
>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented with
>> an Article of Impeachment.
>
> The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment.... when
> did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with impeachment?
>
> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by the
> entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so where di
> this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
"the entire House".
2) The House hasn't voted on
impeachment yet. All that is
happening is an impeachment inquiry.
And THAT is only necessary because
the Atty General refuses to appoint
an independent counsel, as was done
in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
Clinton (Ken Starr).
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 22, 2019, 10:16:28 AM10/22/19
to
On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>
>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty"Â wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>
>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch hunt,
then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the Democrats.
The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted on
an impeachment inquiry...
But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY* the question
to ask is why didn't the Democrats call for that vote for an IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as having voted to
impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason for an impeachment,
and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the
2020 election.
The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more than
another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by Democrats. And they were
betting that TRUMP would fold like a cheap suit.... but that didn't
happen so now they're attempting find a way out and rather than vote to
impeach the Democrats will tuck their tail between their legs and run
for cover.
The MIGHT SCHIFF will find some excuse to disband their merry band of
lying Democrats and pretend that it never happened.
R Dean
Nov 4, 2019, 12:26:04 PM11/4/19
to
is robed, the perpetrator is found, then and only then comes the
prosecutor.
However, what we have here is the exact opposite. This is a prosecutor
in search of a crime.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Carlson
Nov 4, 2019, 12:30:25 PM11/4/19
to
On 10/22/2019 7:16 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled:
You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about. You never do.
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled:
Kevrob
Nov 4, 2019, 1:22:01 PM11/4/19
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Watergate_Committee
Archibald Cox .....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Cox
...and then Leon Jaworski were the "special prosecutors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Jaworski
> and Clinton (Ken Starr).
The House Oversight Committee can investigate durned near anything
it wants to, before sending a report to Judiciary recommending that
a Articles of Impeachment be approved and submitted to the entire House.
Judiciary ran its own inquiry before voting the articles, back in 1974.
If Trump tried to appeal his impeachment, and/of conviction, through
the Federal courts to SCOTUS, he would undoubtedly be told that such
issues were political questions, and SCOTUS wouldn't second-guess
a co-equal branch of government.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
(That's Walter Nixon, not Richard, BTW)
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Mitchell Holman
Nov 4, 2019, 1:29:44 PM11/4/19
to
R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7....@fx17.iad:
Just like Ken Starr.
Where were your complaints then?
Where were your complaints then?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 5, 2019, 11:28:07 AM11/5/19
to
On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7....@fx17.iad:
>
>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7....@fx17.iad:
>
>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the
>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment....Â
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney confirmed
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when the
>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> when did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with
>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â Â Â 1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>
>>>> Â Â Â 2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>> Counsel.
>>>
>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>
>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>> Democrats.
>>>
>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>
>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY*Â the
>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>> Counsel.
>>>
>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>
>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>> Democrats.
>>>
>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>
>>> question to ask is why didn't the Democrats call for that vote for an
>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>
>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by Democrats. And
>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>
>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>> they were betting that TRUMP would fold like a cheap suit.... but
>>> that didn't happen so now they're attempting find a way out and
>>> rather than vote to impeach the Democrats will tuck their tail
>>> between their legs and run for cover.
>>>
>>> The MIGHT SCHIFF will find some excuse to disband their merry band of
>>> lying Democrats and pretend that it never happened.
>>> When there is a crime such as a murder, a bank robbery or a store
>> is robed, the perpetrator is found, then and only then comes the
>> prosecutor.
>> However, what we have here is the exact opposite. This is a prosecutor
>> in search of a crime.
>
>
> Just like Ken Starr.
>
> Where were your complaints then?
>
I did complain when it became impeachment about sex, but then being as
>>> that didn't happen so now they're attempting find a way out and
>>> rather than vote to impeach the Democrats will tuck their tail
>>> between their legs and run for cover.
>>>
>>> The MIGHT SCHIFF will find some excuse to disband their merry band of
>>> lying Democrats and pretend that it never happened.
>>> When there is a crime such as a murder, a bank robbery or a store
>> is robed, the perpetrator is found, then and only then comes the
>> prosecutor.
>> However, what we have here is the exact opposite. This is a prosecutor
>> in search of a crime.
>
>
> Just like Ken Starr.
>
> Where were your complaints then?
>
I'm for women unlike the Feminists who threw Lewinsky under the bus....
I say a workplace superior having sex with underlings is NOT proper.
It was at the very least unethical and since it's Democrats who harp on
the subject they should have been aggressively wanting to censure
President Clinton for his lack of respect for his employees.
Like the Democrat Congress woman who just resigned for having sex with
people working for her in her office. She quit her elected office.
Why didn't Bill Clinton do that?
All in all I have no problem with CongressPersons or Presidents having
sex with younger legal aged people as long as those people aren't
working for them.
Targeting people under their charge for sex is predatory.
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
28 - Taxes are a measure of Liberalism's failures "the more Liberal
failure" the more the residents are taxed. Which is why Chicago, NYC,
city tax and Illinois and California's State taxes are so high.
Mitchell Holman
Nov 5, 2019, 1:56:45 PM11/5/19
to
BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
$QZ6....@fx37.iad:
> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
Good point. Clinton quits, Al Gore becomes
president. Now as the sitting president he has
huge advantage in the next election (think LBJ
trouncing Goldwater, or Truman defeating Dewey)
and Bush never becomes president.
Is that the history line you would have
preferred?
$QZ6....@fx37.iad:
> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
president. Now as the sitting president he has
huge advantage in the next election (think LBJ
trouncing Goldwater, or Truman defeating Dewey)
and Bush never becomes president.
Is that the history line you would have
preferred?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 5, 2019, 2:00:43 PM11/5/19
to
On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>
>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
> @fx17.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>
>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
> @fx17.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
> confirmed
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
> the
>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment....Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
> confirmed
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
> the
>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with
>>>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>
>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY* the
>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>
>>>>> question to ask is why didn't the Democrats call for that vote for
> an
>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by Democrats. And
> an
>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
--
That's Karma
Is it strange that Hillary has been connected with 3 of the 4
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 5, 2019, 2:11:35 PM11/5/19
to
On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>
>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
> @fx17.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>
>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
> @fx17.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
> confirmed
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
> the
>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of impeachment....Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid Pro
>>>>>>>>> Quo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
> confirmed
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
> the
>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an impeachment
>>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is presented
>>>>>>>> with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when did the HOUSE decide to invoke anything having to do with
>>>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>> impeachment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized by
>>>>>>> the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution says, so
>>>>>>> where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>
>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY* the
>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is why
>>>>> they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also voted
>>>>> on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>
>>>>> question to ask is why didn't the Democrats call for that vote for
> an
>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by Democrats. And
> an
>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record as
>>>>> having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no reason
>>>>> for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL STUNT* to try
>>>>> to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
him a "rub and tug" in a hotel and his wife later divorced him.
Kind of funny how that worked out, the fact that Democrats would
re-elect someone like Al Gore after he was picking up the pieces and was
apparently no better than Bill Clinton..... So why would they vote for
his re-election, di dthey just not see thet he was aligned with BILL
Clinton? Maybe someone should see if Al Gore hung out with Jeff Epstein
and Bill Clinton?
Like I said I don't mind them doing that with people other than the ones
working for them or contracting through a business to work for them, it
shows the same elitist disregard for people that have to work for them
doesn't it?
But Democrats are electing these hypocrites.
--
That's Karma
Is it strange that Hillary has been connected with 3 of the 4
Mitchell Holman
Nov 5, 2019, 2:20:07 PM11/5/19
to
BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
"excepted" isn't even a word, you
illiterate right wing knuckle dragger
news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
illiterate right wing knuckle dragger
Mitchell Holman
Nov 5, 2019, 2:22:50 PM11/5/19
to
BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
news:CPjwF.1566$6v7....@fx23.iad:
Like that matters to Trump supporters?
Trump thought bedding friends’ wives made life worth living
January 4, 2018
President Trump used to boast that one
of the things that made "life worth
living" was sleeping with his friends’
wives, according to a new tell-all book.
"In pursuing a friend’s wife, he would
try to persuade the wife that her husband
was perhaps not what she thought, author
Michael Wolff quotes a Trump friend as
saying.
Before he was president, Trump would have
his secretary ask the friend to drop by
his office, where he would subject him to
"more or less constant sexual banter,"
according to "Fire and Fury: Inside the
Trump White House," a copy of which was
obtained by The Post.
With the wife listening in on speakerphone,
Trump would say: "Do you still like having
sex with your wife? How often? You must
have had a better f–k than your wife? Tell
me about it."
http://tinyurl.com/ybw4g5dm
news:CPjwF.1566$6v7....@fx23.iad:
Trump thought bedding friends’ wives made life worth living
January 4, 2018
President Trump used to boast that one
of the things that made "life worth
living" was sleeping with his friends’
wives, according to a new tell-all book.
"In pursuing a friend’s wife, he would
try to persuade the wife that her husband
was perhaps not what she thought, author
Michael Wolff quotes a Trump friend as
saying.
Before he was president, Trump would have
his secretary ask the friend to drop by
his office, where he would subject him to
"more or less constant sexual banter,"
according to "Fire and Fury: Inside the
Trump White House," a copy of which was
obtained by The Post.
With the wife listening in on speakerphone,
Trump would say: "Do you still like having
sex with your wife? How often? You must
have had a better f–k than your wife? Tell
me about it."
http://tinyurl.com/ybw4g5dm
Rudy Canoza
Nov 5, 2019, 2:47:37 PM11/5/19
to
On 11/5/2019 11:19 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
"Most museums (the Getty excepted) have small acquisitions budgets."
Don Martin
Nov 5, 2019, 4:58:44 PM11/5/19
to
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:19:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizont.net> wrote to beam me up snottily:
>> NO, but I would have excepted it....
>
> "excepted" isn't even a word, you
>illiterate right wing knuckle dragger
I have been reading the exchanges with this bozo for pretty much the
first time, since I killfiled him at first blush some years ago, and I
am impressed with the breadth and depth of his ignorance,
embarrassingly exposed time after time by the tedious length of his
posts. This country (U.S.A.) once led the world in the rate of
literacy. As President P. Grabber might say, "Sad."
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
<noe...@verizont.net> wrote to beam me up snottily:
>> NO, but I would have excepted it....
>
> "excepted" isn't even a word, you
>illiterate right wing knuckle dragger
first time, since I killfiled him at first blush some years ago, and I
am impressed with the breadth and depth of his ignorance,
embarrassingly exposed time after time by the tedious length of his
posts. This country (U.S.A.) once led the world in the rate of
literacy. As President P. Grabber might say, "Sad."
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Don Martin
Nov 5, 2019, 4:58:45 PM11/5/19
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 6, 2019, 3:03:09 AM11/6/19
to
On 11/5/19 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
And I don't do spelling and punctuation and typo flames until people
decide to to pick on me for mine.
But then I don't need to distract from the content by making a big deal
out of the delivery of the truth.
In fact I just responded to someone and I fixed a few typos in both the
other persons and ny own text..... so that it was easier reading. I
figured neither one of us were doing a lot of proof reading to correct
errors and even when I do proof read I pass over the same mistakes
because they look OK just as when I typed them. Possibly some form of
dyslexia or simply a lack of ability to see the small font clearly.
At any rate, I get called worse than whet you type when I spell it all
correct and get perfect punctuation and don't make any typos... just
for tellig the truth. If you think a spelling flame is worth it then I'm
sure you are really really busy on the internet and I can't imagine you
have enough time to flame all of the mistakes people make.. so I feel
priveleged that picked mine to highlight. It means you actually read it.
Which most of the Liberals don't do when they call me names. They
usually just become triggered by my name and spew a Tourette's riddled
flame to try to distarct from the truth, because they know that's what I
type and I get the truth right even when I commit a spelling faux-pa or
a typo or miss punctuation. I have even been known to mispronunce a
word or two when speaking to people face to face.... but perfection
isn't my goal, the truth is.
There I didn't proof read so you have some seriouscorrections to flame...
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
self-sufficiency and responsible behavior.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 6, 2019, 3:08:36 AM11/6/19
to
On 11/5/19 2:22 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:CPjwF.1566$6v7....@fx23.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:CPjwF.1566$6v7....@fx23.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
person he hired.....
He seems to look for people NOT under his employment for sex.
Unlike the Democrats pointed out in this thread who were predatory and
looking to use their power as a boss to make the sex possible.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 6, 2019, 3:11:21 AM11/6/19
to
On 11/5/19 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
Actually. Or misspelled the word accepted. ;)
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
NoBody
Nov 6, 2019, 8:24:25 AM11/6/19
to
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 03:03:05 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 11/5/19 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>>
>>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 11/5/19 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>>
>>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>>> an
>>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
>>>> an
>>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
NoBody
Nov 6, 2019, 8:24:42 AM11/6/19
to
lordofal...@gmail.com
Jul 13, 2022, 10:58:09 PM7/13/22
to
> brother dano...@netzero.net wrote:
>
> >Jesus did not say the world would end in his lifetime he said the
> >generation that saw the signs of his coming would not pass away
> >untill all is fulfilled.
>
> Actually, He did say either of those things and you just
> added words to the Bible. (:
Actually, HIS Words in the Bible include Revelation.
Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
You may possibly have only until 03:03:2007 (Revelation 03:03 - 20:07)
when the whole moon will likely turn blood red as predicted by
astronomers and as foreseen by Apostle John in Revelation 6 in his
describing the imminent wrath of the Lamb.
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water curing our
diabetes, depression, anxiety, or panic so that we can love our
neigbors a little more and LORD Jesus Christ a great deal more, dear
neighbor Archie whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
0 new messages