Townhall takes the leap

Hello Darth,

So, the objective is to impeach Trump lol?

The current objective for our country is to conduct an impeachment inquiry to determine if Articles Of Impeachment should be drafted and voted on.

And I have to say, the evidence looks pretty iron clad.

And it's probably a good thing I am saying so because I doubt you have any interest in even considering the evidence.

Just keep in touch. I'll fill you in on the latest.
 
In releasing the letter to the ranking member of the House intel Committee he alerted the world that he would “disallow” witnesses such as Hunter Biden (you know, the guy named in the phone call at the center of this proceeding) and the “anonymous whistleblower” (the guy Schiff coordinated with to launch this circus).

There is zero reason to deny the minority party access to either witness. For if everything that Schiff is doing is on the up and up such testimony would add to the “transparent case," The case being that the president committed such heinously criminal acts that violate the conscience of the people who elected him that the only remedy remaining is to regretfully remove him from office.

Hearing from the witnesses—if the case was legitimate—would bolster majority party claims and truly set in play a test in the Senate for a Constitutional crisis of duty.

Of course the monkey-grinder dance routine from Schiff is perhaps the least legitimate undertaking in the people’s House in perhaps the history of the nation.

No one believes it’s serious.

Even most people who hate the president know it’s a farce. They’re okay with it, of course, because they hate Trump and would use this or any means at their disposal to send him on his way. But get them talking and you’ll soon see them admit that it’s not fair—they just don’t care.

Which is why, when this idiocy fails, it will be time to return the House to common sense, and a legitimate investigation into the coordination, strategy, and origin of the #fauxpeachment must be commenced.

Key to that investigation would be an honest conversation with a man named Eric Ciaramella.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kev...licans-must-subpoena-eric-ciaramella-n2556225
_____________

But...it’s Townhall lol.

Precisely the point. A media outlier took the plunge and put Eric Ciaramella’s name in the headline.

How long will the News Fakers be able to run interference for Democrats on it? Even as we sit, CNN’s Zucker and his fellow media big wig weasels are discussing their strategy. I just can’t imagine what it would be. They’re already being rightly mocked and when that starts to happen—bye bye viewers.

I say by the end of the week Ciaramella will be fully outed.
I believe both Bidens should testify.

Right after trump does.
 
First off, the Democrats are playing by the rules established by the prior GOP House

Second, what does Biden's son have to do with Trump potentially abusing his power in asking, some say extorting, the Ukraine to investigate a political opponent? with inviting a foreign nation into our elections?

Third, why is the whistleblower even needed, nearly everything he said has been documented as valid in testimonies from numerous parties involved in the events? Why is it important to know who he is or why should he go public, especially considering the potentially dangerous backlash from Trump supporters? Why is he necessary?
Because fair is fair. After all...trump gave us his contact at Wikileaks.
 
Indeed.

Presidents, all presidents, have the duty to ensure that corruption (Biden and Son) is investigated with countries that receive billions of our tax dollars
Then why is trump protecting Saudi Arabia?
 
This is an impeachment hearing. Biden has nothing to do with it. There is no reason to call Biden, his son or any of the witnesses the reds want. It is a typical Repub deflection.
I would suggest the Repugs start their own investigation but that is what Barr, the pretend AG, is doing.

The whole point of the hearing is to cover for Quid Pro Joe's hearing.
 
Not true, BenghaziGate was conducted the exact same way, all of those investigations had private testimony employing the exact same rules that Schiff is using today, in fact, they initiated those rules. In Clinton's impeachment, they didn't have a preliminary inquiry because Starr gave them four years of investigation, all of it conducted behind closed doors. And in that impeachment, just like today, the majority ruled over everything

John Solomon is a talking head, nothing more, of course he has a conspiracy, had any demogogue not have "proof" of something, but even Volker shot down Solomon's fiction in his testimony

The IG did know that the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's office and that Schiff's office recommended he talk to an attorney, and anyone who worked in or near the White House longer than three years had "worked" for Biden just like they are now working for Pence, it is part of their job

Nothing, absolutely nothing, "screams for an investigation," and asking for Biden's son to testify is nothing more than a deflection, it ain't about Biden, it is all about Trump, he is the one who abused his power

John Solomon was consistently right in calling the Russian Hoax; never once, did he breathlessly—and falsely, claim ‘the walls were closing in on Donald Trump’ as so many of our other ‘journalists’ have in the past three years.

IOW, he’s an excellent source.

At any rate, you blew right through a Stop Sign. Why would Ciaramella go to Schiff AT ALL? Why is Adam Schiff necessary to file a WB report? The only necessary components to a WB report are the WB and the office of the IG.

But we have this Schiff appendage hanging around in Ciaramella’s report. What business does Schiff have doing there? Did Ciamarella need some ‘advice’ from Schiff? If so, what kind of advice? A WB shouldn’t need any ‘advice’. If their report is in error nothing happens to them—the whole point is to keep it secret. But in Ciamarella’s case he involved other people in crafting his report.

Why did Ciaramella go to Adam Schiff when Schiff has been trying to impeach Trump for years; he has *falsely* claimed to have slam dunk evidence of Russian collusion and has done so REPEATEDLY, right in front of national television cameras. So when Schiff claims he didn’t meet with Ciaramella, lots of voters are skeptical of the claim.

And we aren’t allowed to ask Ciamarella any questions?

Really lol?

Here’s my advice to House Democrats if they are actually serious about doing anything more than hanging the label ‘impeached’ around Trumps neck.

Number One: get rid of Adam Schiff. Like, today. The inveterate liar shouldn’t be allowed within a ten mile radius an impeachment proceeding involving Trump.

Number Two: since Democrats didn’t do Step One, Schiff needs put under oath. And it’s not negotiable since Pelosi stood by while Schiff made himself a fact witness. Same ditto for Ciaramella: since his interactions with Schiff and/or Team Schiff make him something besides a garden variety WB, Ciaramella needs to come before Congress and testify under oath.

Of course, House democrats don’t need to do these things. On the other hand, since they won’t, Senate republicans will be justified in declaring the whole thing DOA the minute it gets to the Senate. Democrats need to understand they will take a political hit when that happens.

Which will make it a just another colossal waste of time by the Resistance.
 
It’s quite conceivable we’ll be hearing more of that *proper* word in the coming months.

It’s not treason—it’s sedition.

The liberal congress critters handling of all this, brings this to mind:

From THE UNTOUCHABLES

Judge: [after Ness has discovered Capone bribed the jury to acquit him] Bailiff, I want you to go next door to Judge Hawton's court, where they've just begun hearing a divorce action. I want you to bring that jury in here, and take this jury to his court. Bailiff, are those instructions clear?

Bailiff: [puzzled] Yes, sir, they're... clear...

Capone: [to his attorney] What's he talking about? What is it?

Judge: Bailiff, I want you to switch the juries.

Bailiff: Yes sir.

Defense Attorney: Your honor, I object!

Judge: Overruled.

District Attorney: [when the Judge announces the switch of jury] What did you tell him?

Ness: I told him his name is in the ledger too.

[Close-up of the Judge, staring daggers at Ness from the bench]

District Attorney: His name wasn't in the ledger...
 
Back
Top