John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not a democrat so... there goes that theory.

And yet you still refuse to provide any statement/opinion/argument in furtherance of the core substance of this impeachment nonsense.

No wonder the majority of the public doesn't support this farce and especially no wonder most of us haven't even bothered paying attention other than to see how many times Jim Jordan could cause shiff's eyes to bug out. Maybe they need to be reminded how they swore up and down on the MSM 24/7 that Trump would be impeached/arrested for "Russia collusion" (which itself was totally unsubstantiated conjecture-at-best) and was completely 100% incorrect. All these "obvious" connections Mueller and his joke of a partisan team somehow missed



In vain, I invite you to discuss the substance of the impeachment argument and to provide at least one actual allegation (clearly spelled out) with supporting evidence (not conjecture, opinion, wishful thinking, etc). As it stands, Trump isn't even accused of doing anything wrong at the moment. All we've seen is a bunch of nobodies parading their personal feelings and opinions and a bunch of democrats working to impeach a President they promised to impeach 3 years ago. If you all don't think the American people see through this disruptive farce you all are sadly mistaken.

Fortunately, no matter what happens, we have the SCOTUS firmly under our control. Generations are now protected against the progressive agenda, which we will no doubt have eliminated completely before it can become a problem again. Thank God and good riddance. Much work to be done, no time for distractions arguing non-issues and non-facts

originally posted by: JBurns
And yet you still refuse to provide any statement/opinion/argument in furtherance of the core substance of this impeachment nonsense.

I think it is nonsense too, so why would I?

In vain...

You seem to have wasted your time.

Also, this thread is still about Solomon's article, despite your noted effort to make it about something else.

a reply to: JBurns

And don't forget..almost 30% of all circuit court judges were chosen by President Trump.

thefederalist.com...

Amazing feat, in less than 3 years!

a reply to: carewemust

Amazing feat, in less than 3 years!

Not really. When you understand that it is the Republican controlled Senate which confirms them. No matter how poor their qualifications are.

Who the hell is this John Solomon and why should anyone care about what some neckbeardy youtuber has to say about this?

Is he a first-hand witness?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Amazing feat, in less than 3 years!

Not really. When you understand that it is the Republican controlled Senate which confirms them. No matter how poor their qualifications are.

Obama left a lot of judicial seats open, as a gift for Hillary. Unless it was just plain negligence.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Who the hell is this John Solomon and why should anyone care about what some neckbeardy youtuber has to say about this?

He's one of the few 'investigative reporters" left in the USA.

originally posted by: carewemust
Obama left a lot of judicial seats open, as a gift for Hillary. Unless it was just plain negligence.

Right, like he couldn't have appointed whomever she told him to and then they would keep a hold on their "trifecta", as another thread called it.

a reply to: JBurns

... and it warms my heart to know that Congress could change the number of Supreme Court Justices tomorrow, and with a simple majority in both chambers, undo the unconstitutional acts of the current “Senate Majority Leader.”

Don’t gloat too much that your Party has temporarily overcome the Constitution. It won’t last.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Who the hell is this John Solomon and why should anyone care about what some neckbeardy youtuber has to say about this?

Is he a first-hand witness?

Yep, this post is a nice summary of how people have dealt with these facts

Not one person has been able to refute one point

originally posted by: Grambler
Yep, this post is a nice summary of how people have dealt with these facts

What do you expect people here to do with them?

Not one person has been able to refute one point

And you gained what from that?

a reply to: daskakik

I gained that many followers the people supporting trumps impeach chose to remain willfully ignorant of facts that don’t fit their narrative

originally posted by: Grambler
I gained that many followers the people supporting trumps impeach chose to remain willfully ignorant of facts that don’t fit their narrative

Did you really though or is that just what you want to believe?

You know people can want Trump out of the WH, which impeachment doesn't necessarily do, and also have no problem with Biden being investigated. It isn't an either/or deal.

a reply to: daskakik

Trump is being impeached for wanting to investigate Biden

If there is a reason to investigate Biden, then there is no case for impeachment

a reply to: Grambler
Honestly I think they are trying to get him on not going through the proper channels. That could stand even if there is a reason to investigate Biden.

It is how the game is played.

Nice

a reply to: Gryphon66

and it warms my heart to know that Congress could change the number of Supreme Court Justices tomorrow,

Until the SCOTUS simple majority ruled the act unconstitutional and struck it down without recourse which is their purview. Congress (with its thousands of unneeded laws) has needed put in its place for some time. The left needs put back in its place, too. Don't worry, it will be.

Warms my heart to know my position is the current and default, while yours is a major uphill battle just to be eventually subverted by our very-intelligent institutions such as the electoral college, pro-US SCOTUS and whatever other measures we can get away with.

Nothing matters more than marginalizing the left and their demonstrably false ideas. Not everyone shares the same vision, but their vision is objectively incorrect/especially invalid. They asked for "fundamental change" we said "HELL NO" we're perfect the way we are (minus cutting 99% of the government off, eventually)

a reply to: daskakik

Doesn't apply to POTUS - he IS the proper channel. All executive branch ABC agencies exist by Presidential appointment solely as an extension of the President to carry out HIS duties under HIS authority. They have no authority outside of the scope specifically given to each "agent" (actor on behalf of another) by POTUS

Sure, it isn't efficient for the POTUS to prosecute each case or arrest law breakers individually but nothing prevents him from doing just that. It isn't the DOJ's job, for instance, to enforce the law. It is actually the President's. The DOJ does not exist independently/outside the President.

The Executive Branch enforces the laws
The legislative branch writes the law (thousands of useless ones, read the USC)
The Judicial Branch determines if the law is Constitutional or not

THIS is separation of powers, between the branches. NOT between members of the same branch and especially not when it is the Chief Executive who can execute the laws and conduct diplomacy and fight wars.

Regardless neither the Senate or the American people give two hoots about these procedural/nonsensical/invented 'issues' out of thin air. You want to get our attention? Should've come up with a real crime, something other than hoaxes like "stormy" "russia" "drueler" "ukraine" and the dozens if not hundreds of other lies told by leftist garbage.

Take me for instance, I don't believe or disbelieve the things dems say about Trump: I simply don't give a [censored] Nothing but the shallow left's petty sour grapes over mere political differences is apparent to me. Destroying the nation over mere policy differences, classy.

After this display of mass-treason and mass-sedition, well.. lets just say I feel we should leave it up to the Lord to sort this mess out. Although I'm not opposed to our Executive arranging the meeting(s)