Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
You clearly claimed that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses. I can't find that evidenced anywhere in the article you posted, just opinions.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
You clearly claimed that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses. I can't find that evidenced anywhere in the article you posted, just opinions.
Time will tell how well of an impeachment trial manager Roberts is. Or judge.
Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
You clearly claimed that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses. I can't find that evidenced anywhere in the article you posted, just opinions.
Time will tell how well of an impeachment trial manager Roberts is. Or judge.
So you take back your statement that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses? There's enough hearsay around here to spread myths based on opinion pieces.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
You clearly claimed that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses. I can't find that evidenced anywhere in the article you posted, just opinions.
Time will tell how well of an impeachment trial manager Roberts is. Or judge.
So you take back your statement that Roberts has hinted an aversion to calling witnesses? There's enough hearsay around here to spread myths based on opinion pieces.
Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
except he very well could rule in favor on any issue raised. only to be voted down or overruled by simple majority.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mitt confirms again he will vote to hear from Bolton
one defection. how many more do they need? 3? 4 total?
4. I bet he knows there are the votes so he's not out on an island by himself.
And, yeah it is January already isn't it?!
yeah he wants to be landlocked for sure.
yeah i keep writing that it is 2019 still.
Im not sure that Pence is a tiebreaker for procedural votes. I think they need 51. Be curious if someone knows for sure.
I have read that is correct. Something about him not being able to break the tie for his own boss or something?
Chief Justice fills that role in presiding over the trial.
And I’m hearing Roberts is adverse to calling witnesses. The fix continues to be in and Putin on the ritz wins.
source?
I'm viewing this as Moscow Mitchy Baby bitch slaps his repub colleagues to deny witnesses, dems appeal to Roberts during trial and Roberts says, "sorry, I don't make the rules," despite seemingly having the ability to say, "yes, I'll allow witnesses as they're germane to the dems' case, the Team Trump Treason Administration stonewalled and the Clinton impeachment investigation had witnesses and dispositions and documents. If Roberts is a rubber stamp and the dems are forced to litigate via the time consuming courts process, then Team trump Treason is above the law and you can't remove a president. If that's the case, putin on the ritz wins. If it was a "perfect" phone call, why wouldn't Team trump Treason allow for witnesses that exonerate him?
If Democrats press the point that Roberts is able to rule on allowing witnesses but is declining to do so, they could follow the lead of Schiff, who in the November CNN interview indicated that such a decision by the chief justice would amount to a partisan act.
“It will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one,” Schiff said.
However, it’s not even clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have enough Republican votes to deny Democratic demands for witnesses. He would need a simple majority to do so, but there may be enough Republican senators who decide to support a motion for some witnesses. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Monday told CNN he is open to calling witnesses.
The question then would be, which witnesses? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested four witnesses who were blocked by the White House from testifying to House investigators: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; Michael Duffey, Office of Management and Budget associate director for national security; and Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff.
except he very well could rule in favor on any issue raised. only to be voted down or overruled by simple majority.
But that's not his role in the trial. Anything voted in by a majority is the rule of the trial. Roberts has no power over those rules. He should not be ruling on any issue unless there is a question as to whether it runs afoul of the rules of the trial, voted on by the Senate. In fact, the Parliamentarian probably has more power in this trial than Roberts. That person will determine whether motions, actions, etc. are in line with Senate history and parliamentary rules.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
i find chris hayes annoying, but this was the first thing that popped up <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING NEWS: House releases incredibly incriminating trove of documents from Rudy Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/inners?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#inners</a> <a href="https://t.co/rWop6XtJDw">pic.twitter.com/rWop6XtJDw</a></p>— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) <a href="
Sort of. Text messages make it sound like that creep Hyde was tracking her movements. Possibly more beyond that but it's not clear.
Really strange....
So strange. The best description of all this stuff I've heard is that Trump and Giuliani thought they could treat the Ukrainian President like he was the Brooklyn Land Commissioner.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
I wouldn’t trust him one iota. His connections and friendships didn’t dissolve upon leaving the party.
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
As someone who has followed and supported Amash vigorously for a few years, this is not the case at all. You can disagree with his positions, but what you see is what you get. He was calling for impeachment based on the Mueller report, which was way ahead of many Democrats.
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
I wouldn’t trust him one iota. His connections and friendships didn’t dissolve upon leaving the party.
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
As someone who has followed and supported Amash vigorously for a few years, this is not the case at all. You can disagree with his positions, but what you see is what you get. He was calling for impeachment based on the Mueller report, which was way ahead of many Democrats.
That's where I'm at. I think he recognizes the bigger-than-issues implications of what's going on here and he'd put the Republic over the party that he left. Hell, I think it would be great if he threw in a "socialism sucks...but fascism is worse" or something; let people know that it's not just a bunch of crazy liberals. Nancy, more often than not, has been on the ball (even when we thought she wasn't)...but I wonder whether this is a missed opportunity.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
I wouldn’t trust him one iota. His connections and friendships didn’t dissolve upon leaving the party.
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
As someone who has followed and supported Amash vigorously for a few years, this is not the case at all. You can disagree with his positions, but what you see is what you get. He was calling for impeachment based on the Mueller report, which was way ahead of many Democrats.
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
I wouldn’t trust him one iota. His connections and friendships didn’t dissolve upon leaving the party.
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
As someone who has followed and supported Amash vigorously for a few years, this is not the case at all. You can disagree with his positions, but what you see is what you get. He was calling for impeachment based on the Mueller report, which was way ahead of many Democrats.
Who does he caucus with?
Isn't a lone wolf now, voting with whom he agrees? I don't think that distinction is important like it is in the Senate, as the HOR is generally not so close in numbers like the Senate.
Edit - he has no committee seats this congress, which makes sense because neither leader would put him there. No upside politically to handing one of your chair seats to someone who is a wild card.
I'm kinda surprised and disappointed by that. Having GOPexiter may have bumped the credibility with the center a bit.
I wouldn’t trust him one iota. His connections and friendships didn’t dissolve upon leaving the party.
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
As someone who has followed and supported Amash vigorously for a few years, this is not the case at all. You can disagree with his positions, but what you see is what you get. He was calling for impeachment based on the Mueller report, which was way ahead of many Democrats.
Who does he caucus with?
Isn't a lone wolf now, voting with whom he agrees? I don't think that distinction is important like it is in the Senate, as the HOR is generally not so close in numbers like the Senate.
I'm not sure but I wouldn't trust a former repub on something as important as this. It'd be a slap in the face to any capable/qualified dem. Its not about optics, its about putting forth the best possible team from your party's bench. I can see the spin now, "dems don't have enough ability, they had to appoint a former repub............"
"Indies" are partly responsible for why we're where we are today.
Comments
I don't feel tardy/hot for teacher/1984
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-release-documents-eve-impeachment-233730577.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
good thing trump doesn't know him.
and this jabroni Hyde. may as well end his campaign right now. sounds like he is going to have some problems.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Nancy aiming squarely at the purple states and those vulnerable repub senators and house members. I like this team. Who’s Team Trump Treason got?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468170-1/speaker-pelosi-announces-impeachment-managers
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Edit - he has no committee seats this congress, which makes sense because neither leader would put him there. No upside politically to handing one of your chair seats to someone who is a wild card.
"Indies" are partly responsible for why we're where we are today.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©