Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

^^^^


concern troll
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

In more simple terms, TMan can't argue the points Feinstein made.

[Unregistered]

A walk down memory lane....

Republicans and Democrats raise serious questions about Trump's national security adviser pick John Bolton

https://www.businessinsider.com/repu...JHrUaKfcrpPBB8


Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, who served under both Bush and former President Barack Obama: "I actually don't know how it can't (change US foreign policy). I am concerned if I believe Mr. Bolton's rhetoric, where he's talked about pre-emptive strike or even pre-emptive war in North Korea. He's obviously very strongly opposed to the nuclear deal on Iran."

Former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley: "On the issue of a lot of concern about whether Bolton will take the country to war."

Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine: "Reports surfaced right after the was named about a speech that he gave in Russia in 2013 at the request of a Russian oligarch who is very close to Vladimir Putin. These kinds of contacts with foreign governments … raise real questions in my mind whether he would get a full security clearance or not."

[Unregistered]

A walk down memory lane....

Republicans and Democrats raise serious questions about Trump's national security adviser pick John Bolton

https://www.businessinsider.com/repu...JHrUaKfcrpPBB8


Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, who served under both Bush and former President Barack Obama: "I actually don't know how it can't (change US foreign policy). I am concerned if I believe Mr. Bolton's rhetoric, where he's talked about pre-emptive strike or even pre-emptive war in North Korea. He's obviously very strongly opposed to the nuclear deal on Iran."

Former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley: "On the issue of a lot of concern about whether Bolton will take the country to war."

Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine: "Reports surfaced right after the was named about a speech that he gave in Russia in 2013 at the request of a Russian oligarch who is very close to Vladimir Putin. These kinds of contacts with foreign governments … raise real questions in my mind whether he would get a full security clearance or not."

Serious concerns about EVERYONE involved ...Trump too

So I’m down it’s bringing them ALL in and putting them under oath Bolton Mulvaney Trump Vindman Biden

Bring it!

[Unregistered]

Lindsey Graham making the latest case that what Bolton says doesn’t matter in trial. “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office.”

Looks like we are finally at the, “He did it, so what?” Phase of GOP response.

That didn’t take * nearly * as long as I thought it would

[Unregistered]

Looks like we are finally at the, “He did it, so what?” Phase of GOP response.

That didn’t take * nearly * as long as I thought it would

Or, as the point made by the Constitutional Scholar - it's not an impeachable offense. Which was the case for many all along.

I think the reason why it took so long as it took a long time to get through the thick skull.

[Unregistered]

Or, as the point made by the Constitutional Scholar - it's not an impeachable offense. Which was the case for many all along.

I think the reason why it took so long as it took a long time to get through the thick skull.

The only "Constitutional Scholar" in the entire United States who said the opposite twenty years ago. Every other Constitution Scholar disagrees. As did the senate in Johnson's impeachment (he was impeached for it), Clinton's impeachment (he was impeached for it) and Nixon's articles of impeachment.

It's without any doubt an impeachable offense. Every one of our senates has agreed for the last 150+ years.

[Unregistered]

Or, as the point made by the Constitutional Scholar - it's not an impeachable offense. Which was the case for many all along.

I think the reason why it took so long as it took a long time to get through the thick skull.

What comstituional scholar ?

Laurence Tribe is a constitutional scholar so I’ll see you and raise you until we know yours isn’t. Phantom or lightweight

Come on con ...belly up

[Unregistered]

The only "Constitutional Scholar" in the entire United States who said the opposite twenty years ago. Every other Constitution Scholar disagrees. As did the senate in Johnson's impeachment (he was impeached for it), Clinton's impeachment (he was impeached for it) and Nixon's articles of impeachment.

It's without any doubt an impeachable offense. Every one of our senates has agreed for the last 150+ years.

And, yet, only one is stating it so the rest is noise.

I really thought we've moved past the mantra of innuendo and vague statements as a means to make a point.

As mentioned, I'll take his opinion over someone with an agenda all day every day. Guy doesn't even like Trump, but he understands the issue better than anyone else...especially on here.

[Unregistered]

What comstituional scholar ?

Laurence Tribe is a constitutional scholar so I’ll see you and raise you until we know yours isn’t. Phantom or lightweight

Come on con ...belly up

I don't know what comstituional scholar. I'll have to defer to you on that one.

[Unregistered]

I don't know what comstituional scholar. I'll have to defer to you on that one.

So you claimed an authoritative source and then can’t name when asked ?

😂😂😂😂😂

[Unregistered]

So you claimed an authoritative source and then can’t name when asked ?

😂😂😂😂😂

No, I don't know any comstituional scholars

[Unregistered]

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Hunter Biden, is a relevant witness for the Senate's ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.

"I don't have a problem there because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he can clear himself, what I know, what I've heard. But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong, no matter if you're a Democrat or Republican."

[Unregistered]

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Hunter Biden, is a relevant witness for the Senate's ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.

"I don't have a problem there because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he can clear himself, what I know, what I've heard. But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong, no matter if you're a Democrat or Republican."

^^^^

Concern trolling since con isn’t discussing fact that cons could call a vote on Bidens and issue a subpoena right away.

Do it! Please!

You keep barking about it. Do it! Individual votes on witnesses ! Cons have 53 votes so vote to bring Bidens in and NOT Bolton if you like!

Stop saber rattling and buck up and do it! Just know that it will all out and live with the vote.

That’s good ! Gonna call your bluff con

[Unregistered]

New York Times reported that Trump ‘wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.’ The Democratic narrative is that President Trump should be removed from office for trying to force Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf. Joe Biden was supposed to be Trump’s target, and the way to weaken Biden was by getting Ukraine to announce an investigation involving Biden’s son. But on Bolton’s account, that isn’t what Trump was doing: the key words in the Times report are ‘Democrats’ — plural — ‘including the Bidens’. If Trump wanted investigations into multiple Democrats, only one of whom had a link to the 2020 election, it can hardly be said that swaying the election was his clear motive.

[Unregistered]

^^^^

Concern trolling since con isn’t discussing fact that cons could call a vote on Bidens and issue a subpoena right away.

Do it! Please!

You keep barking about it. Do it! Individual votes on witnesses ! Cons have 53 votes so vote to bring Bidens in and NOT Bolton if you like!

Stop saber rattling and buck up and do it! Just know that it will all out and live with the vote.

That’s good ! Gonna call your bluff con

Blowhard or child rapist.

Which is it, Tee Hee?