US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Why is Roberts even there? This isn't a trial. The SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with this. They are diluting the power of the Senate to unelected SCOTUS judges that the electorate have no choice in and who will never receive pushback from the voters. This is literally the opposite of what the Impeachment system was created for.
It is a Trial, just a very different one and Roberts as Lead Justice is the one who officiates it.

This got me interested in what the role Roberts plays in all of this. I found a pretty good post (Archive) from ScotusBlog (dissenting and in my opinion less convincing article by Politico).

The summary of the ScotusBlog post is that the Chief Justice plays a completely subservient role to the Senate, being able to be overruled by a simple majority vote. I would go as far as describing their role as solely facilitating the will of the Senate. The Chief Justice presides over the impeachment precedings with the same powers the Vice President presides over the Senate the rest of the time. In the context of impeachment that would mean powers like having the power to make temporary judgment calls which may later be overruled by Senate vote, such as blocking irrelevant evidence, and having the tie-breaking vote (though I don't think that would apply to the impeachment ruling vote).

This conclusion is based on the Senate having the sole authority to try all impeachments, therefore the Chief Justing being able to override the senate would violate this. And the outlined powers of the Vice President in their typical role of presiding over the Senate as its President.

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial said:
Sometime in the next week or two, the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will convene in the Senate. When it does, Chief Justice John Roberts will preside. There has been a good deal written about Roberts’ role, some of it intimating – or at least hoping – that Roberts could wrench control from the politicians who make up the Senate and transform the proceeding into a trial of the conventional judicial sort, with both sides able to compel the appearance of live witnesses and the production of documents and to inquire into any matter logically relevant to the charges against the president.

For better or worse, neither the Constitution, the rules of the Senate, historical precedent nor the personal predilections of Roberts himself make this the least bit likely. Instead, Roberts is most likely to serve as a dignified figurehead in an affair entirely dominated by the Republican senatorial caucus. Here’s why.

The Constitution specifies only four points about the Senate impeachment trial of a president: (1) The Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments”; (2) when sitting as a court of impeachment, senators “shall be on oath or affirmation”; (3) conviction of any accused officer requires “concurrence of two thirds of the members present”; and (4) when the president is the accused, “the Chief Justice shall preside.”

It is crucial to note why the chief justice appears only in presidential impeachment proceedings. The simple answer has to do with the often-forgotten constitutional power of the vice president to serve as president – meaning presiding officer — of the Senate. In any impeachment case other than that of the president, the vice president can preside, as Thomas Jefferson did in the very first impeachment, that of Senator William Blount in 1799, and as Aaron Burr later did in the 1805 trial of Justice Samuel Chase. However, the Framers recognized that it would be unseemly at best for the person who would assume the presidency in the event of conviction by the Senate to preside over the president’s trial. To prevent that obvious conflict of interest, they specified the chief justice as a stand-in presiding officer in presidential impeachment trials.

A good many discussions of the upcoming Senate proceeding have understandably, but incorrectly, inferred two things from the presence of a judge in the presiding officer’s seat: first, that having a judge preside implies that the process will be akin to a conventional judicial trial, and second, that the chief justice’s role will be akin to that of a judge in such a trial. Neither inference is supported by the constitutional text.

Impeachment trials of presidents may excite more public interest than impeachment trials of other “civil officers,” but they are no different in constitutional form. The standard of impeachable conduct is the same – “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” – as is the two-thirds threshold for conviction. The chief justice is inserted into presidential impeachments only to resolve the conflict of interest. His presence in the chair does not make the proceeding more “judicial” in character, nor is he accorded more “judicial” authority than the vice president or president pro tempore (meaning “president for a time”) of the Senate would possess in cases involving other officials. His role is merely to serve the same function they do in such cases. That function is delimited by Senate rules.

The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.

For example, if the presiding officer makes a ruling on the relevance of evidence proffered by either the House managers or counsel for the president, that ruling can be questioned by any senator and overruled by a simple majority vote (Rule VII). Unlike in an ordinary trial, there is no higher court to which such a senatorial judgment can be appealed. The Senate itself is the final authority on every procedural or evidentiary question.

The essential impotence of the presiding officer is exacerbated by the fact that the Senate impeachment rules are very general and contain no provisions similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence regulating the admission or exclusion of witnesses, exhibits or particular testimony. If such rules existed, the presiding officer could base his or her rulings on their text, which would make votes to overturn such rulings at least politically or psychologically difficult so long as the presiding officer’s interpretation of the rules seemed logically sound. But as matters stand, every question ultimately rests in the unguided, and inevitably politically driven, discretion of a majority of senators.

Despite the formal powerlessness of the role, one could imagine a chief justice thrust into the presiding officer seat who wanted to make a principled statement about the constitutional merits of the case against the president, even if that statement flew in the face of the preferences of a senatorial majority. Such a chief justice might take every available opportunity to rule in favor of, for example, the issuance of subpoenas or the production of witnesses and documents by the president. It seems improbable that Roberts would take this course. Whatever his personal views about Trump, his most likely priority will be to avoid any appearance of partiality, which might imperil his own posture of judicial neutrality and with it the Supreme Court’s institutional legitimacy.

Happily for the chief justice, the Senate rules give him an easy way of avoiding any expression of view on any difficult issue. Whenever presented with a question on the admissibility of evidence, the presiding officer need not even make a provisional ruling but instead can immediately “submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate” (Rule VII).

What little precedent we have in such cases suggests that chief justices keep their heads down and, so far as possible, defer assiduously to the will of the Senate majority. In the 1868 trial of President Andrew Johnson (which was a real trial, with extensive witness testimony and presentation of exhibits), Chief Justice Salmon Chase was consistently deferential to the Senate, often making provisional rulings and immediately inviting senators to register dissent. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was similarly meek during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, although he was called upon to do less because the case was effectively submitted to the Senate on stipulated facts. The exceptional degree of partisanship that has characterized the Trump impeachment may counsel even greater caution from Roberts.

I can foresee only two circumstances in which Roberts’ judgment on any important question would have a dispositive effect.

First, if he were to render a provisional ruling on a procedural or evidentiary point – say admitting contested evidence – under the rules, his ruling would stand unless a majority of the Senate voted to the contrary. Thus, on a 50-50 split, Roberts’ ruling would prevail. However, before this situation could arise, Roberts would have to have made a ruling himself, rather than immediately deferring to a Senate vote.

Second, if a procedural issue were to arise on which Roberts had not made a ruling – say whether any subpoenas should issue to White House witnesses — and the Senate were evenly divided, 50-50, Roberts should – I think – have the “casting vote.” That is, he could break the tie. This result flows from the fact that the chief justice, when acting as presiding officer, is not a judge, but instead assumes the role otherwise played by the vice president in nonpresidential impeachments. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” It is not absolutely certain that this provision extends to impeachment proceedings, but I would hard-pressed to formulate a contrary argument. And we know that Chase did break a procedural tie during the Johnson impeachment, and his exertion of authority was upheld by the Senate.

That said, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can maintain complete control over every aspect of the upcoming proceeding so long as they maintain a solid block of 51 votes.

In the end, I doubt that Democrats have much to hope for from Roberts, or that Republicans have much to fear. The smart money is that he will strive to replicate Rehnquist’s approach of doing “nothing in particular and [doing] it very well.”
 
Meanwhile, on social media:

1580379945597.png

Just in case you thought Silicon Valley was going to let you fucking disgusting plebs in the flyover states talk about voting against them this time. Orange man BAD, and if you disagree that's a HATE CRIME, you disgusting alt-right dudebro.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump–Ukraine_scandal (archive) I-it's all a conspiracy, right?

Read the talk page for more good stuff, especially when it claims to be neutral.
Utter madness in there...it's like the autistic version of seeing the Virgin MAry in bunrt toast.

Lot's of little gems for sure in the talk:

Yes, with determination you can synthesise something from reality based reporting that looks, if you squint hard enough, something like the conservative narrative. But that only works if you ignore the full facts of the issues. We follow reliable sources in characterising things like Crowdstrike and "Ukraine hacked 2016" as conspiracy theories, and the rest as things that either happened or, in some cases, provably didn't despite insistence to the contrary. Like Biden wanting Shokin fired to protect Hunter, which makes no sense at any level. Guy (help!) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to really think there is an unhealable rift in how large groups of the world experience reality, and the two can't co-exist.
 
Meanwhile, on social media:

View attachment 1122213

Just in case you thought Silicon Valley was going to let you fucking disgusting plebs in the flyover states talk about voting against them this time. Orange man BAD, and if you disagree that's a HATE CRIME, you disgusting alt-right dudebro.

How long before they realized then they wasted 8 years of their lives for a big nothing burger? :thinking:
 
I'm starting to really think there is an unhealable rift in how large groups of the world experience reality, and the two can't co-exist.
How could you doubt this? Obama missile strikes on every day of his presidency, gave guns to Mexican cartels that ended up in Paris terrorist attacks, used the IRS to harass conservative groups, and so many other really fucking insane things and has his presidency hailed as scandal-free! Ever since November 9, 2016 the Democrats and the media have been pushing a narrative of Orange Man Bad, with Russia as an ally and that the Mueller report would take him down, the piss tape is totally real, and dissenting voices on social media had to be removed.

Their useful idiot voters buy every ounce of it and if they were told that Bob Ross was a rapist and Nazi they would believe it.
 
That's if Pence will be the presidential nominee in 2024 but I guess it might be the same results if it might be Rand Paul or someone else.

It will be the same results if it's literally anyone. They don't change the playbook. They literally just wipe off the whiteboard marker and ink in the new guy's name.

This will continue until screaming RACIST at the other side doesn't:

1. Cause the other side to flinch
2. Cause everyone moderate to left to retreat
3. Fire up the base because they're allowed to express their suppressed emotions towards acceptable targets such as ISTs.
 
How could you doubt this? Obama missile strikes on every day of his presidency, gave guns to Mexican cartels that ended up in Paris terrorist attacks, used the IRS to harass conservative groups, and so many other really fucking insane things and has his presidency hailed as scandal-free! Ever since November 9, 2016 the Democrats and the media have been pushing a narrative of Orange Man Bad, with Russia as an ally and that the Mueller report would take him down, the piss tape is totally real, and dissenting voices on social media had to be removed.

Their useful idiot voters buy every ounce of it and if they were told that Bob Ross was a rapist and Nazi they would believe it.
I guess I'm just beginning to see that no-one is ever coming to their senses (previously thought more optimistically long term) out of this and there are two irreconcillable reality tunnels.
 
I guess I'm just beginning to see that no-one is ever coming to their senses (previously thought more optimistically long term) out of this and there are two irreconcillable reality tunnels.

I think beyond anything else he's said, "two movies on one screen" by Based Dilbert Merchant will go down as one of his most astute observations.
 
Why is Roberts even there? This isn't a trial. The SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with this. They are diluting the power of the Senate to unelected SCOTUS judges that the electorate have no choice in and who will never receive pushback from the voters. This is literally the opposite of what the Impeachment system was created for.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
 
I'm starting to really think there is an unhealable rift in how large groups of the world experience reality, and the two can't co-exist.

It's because the hard left deals in FEELS and how they would be happy in an IDEAL world, and that such an impossible utopia CAN be possible if the idea it's "right around the corner" is constantly reinforced by acts of near-religious devotion to the tenants that will bring it about: "I BELIEVE IN COMPLETE EQUALITY! I WILL MAKE A SOCIETY WHERE EVEN THE SEXES WON'T EXIST!"

When raw facts butt up against this, they can only cry because now we ruined the dream, and the only way "out" is to claim the facts are really conspiracy theories started by Russian trolls.

The left has spent the last 10 years, slowly rejecting reality and substituting the idea that all the probelms they've caused, all the unrest they sparked, all the cities they've economically and socially ruined with their policies will STILL work if we just keep at it a little longer, and when people present them with the graphs showing 10-year declines in every metric, they can only scream "Hater! Troll! Conspirator!"
 
It's because the hard left deals in FEELS and how they would be happy in an IDEAL world, and that such an impossible utopia CAN be possible if the idea it's "right around the corner" is constantly reinforced by acts of near-religious devotion to the tenants that will bring it about: "I BELIEVE IN COMPLETE EQUALITY! I WILL MAKE A SOCIETY WHERE EVEN THE SEXES WON'T EXIST!"

When raw facts butt up against this, they can only cry because now we ruined the dream, and the only way "out" is to claim the facts are really conspiracy theories started by Russian trolls.

The left has spent the last 10 years, slowly rejecting reality and substituting the idea that all the probelms they've caused, all the unrest they sparked, all the cities they've economically and socially ruined with their policies will STILL work if we just keep at it a little longer, and when people present them with the graphs showing 10-year declines in every metric, they can only scream "Hater! Troll! Conspirator!"

that idealized world is real. since George Zimmerman's trial, a lot of people that are hee hawing about injustice don't even read or watch the events. As recently as the horowitz report on the FISC warrants, it was obvious the left hasn't read the report at all, including the conclusion that everything is up and up. They just imagine everything was on the up and up or had an approved authority figure tell them so and they were happy.

You have leftists say Pam Bondi's Biden-Ukraine timeline was debunked and leave it at that. no further explanation needed.
 
I guess I'm just beginning to see that no-one is ever coming to their senses (previously thought more optimistically long term) out of this and there are two irreconcillable reality tunnels.
Just go to any of these posts with double digits comments to disabuse you of that notion:

Here, to keep on topic, I'll grab from the impeachment post.
Screenshot_20200130-093040.jpg

They don't even question whether their data is off and how to correct it if it was.
 
Just go to any of these posts with double digits comments to disabuse you of that notion:

Here, to keep on topic, I'll grab from the impeachment post.
View attachment 1122384

They don't even question whether their data is off and how to correct it if it was.

"Catholicism requires open borders" is a completely predictable position for a moribund religion that desperately craves the immense tithe-bucks from the Hail Mary-ing throngs of illiterates pouring in from Mexico and regions south. It's the self-righteous priggery of it that rankles.
 
Back