willful misrepresentation by a former man



If there is evidence against Trump lets see it.
I never said i'm not worried about him or not opposed to any authoritarian policies he has or supports.

Hyper-statist establishment loyalists like yourself are not my target audience and aren't persuaded to see reason and advocate liberty regardless of my takes on secret impeachment hearings led by bad actors.
You simply dont support liberty. It has nothing to do with me not being a 'real libertarian' in the eyes and lies of socialists and neocons.
I will not be dishonest in my beliefs to try to convince you or anyone else i'm a real libertarian or real anti-authoritarian based on false and absurd purity tests.
I am consistently anti-authoritarian and pro-libertarian. Nothing I have said here indicates otherwise.



I'm not wrong. Schiff doesn't belong in congress at all after what he has done, let alone leading secret impeachment proceedings. Thats a difference of opinion.
I do not subscribe to your subjective interpretation of the holy texts of the US government.

Schiff is a bad actor by your own admission.
Taking issue with a bad actor running secret impeachment proceedings and lying about classified information is perfectly valid for libertarians and people of all stripes.
Opposing bad actors lying and leading secret sham hearings doesnt mean i oppose checks on the executive branch.

I pointed out the obvious incongruity and hypocrisy between your claims of me being hysterical and a hack and you immediately calling to remove several republicans from office.
Making up bullshit about this hurting my credibility is hardly a classy or relevant response.


>Congressmen breaking minor rules to advocate transparency? REMOVE THEM FROM CONGRESS
>Actual war crimes, heads of government agencies committing perjury, unconstitutional destabilizing wars? meh

Its not my credibility that is in question here.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 23 2019 04:10pm

EDIT: Perhaps you could give this a read instead since the information is more concise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Closed-door_depositions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

Volker:
https://www.axios.com/kurt-volker-closed-door-interview-giuliani-fc9b670b-0b05-4e5c-932c-a39f03fad356.html
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf

Sondland:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/us/politics/gordon-sondland-testimony.html

Hill:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-fiona-hill-testimony/index.html

Taylor:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-taylor-opening-statement-read-the-full-text-of-the-top-us-diplomats-statement-to-congress/

It's a lot of information and I'm not sure if you're familiar with all of it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

This post was edited by thundercock on Oct 23 2019 04:16pm

That's a good one.

I can't remember you objecting to closed door hearings with Benghazi either.

Have you decided post-Benghazi and Russiagate that transparency is good? Or should we go with the more obvious answer to explain the inconsistency?

Yes, yes it is. How do you do it Hillary?



A: "I just delete all the older ones".

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 23 2019 04:46pm

here's a good source and serious source (plus it's moderated right paper).

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/destitution-des-elus-republicains-interrompent-un-temoignage-au-congres-americain-20191023

let's google translate:


Republican congressional officials, furious at not being sufficiently involved in the Democratic investigation into a Donald Trump impeachment proceeding, closed a closed-door testimony on Wednesday, creating a rare chaos in the US parliament. More than twenty Republican elected representatives of the House of Representatives burst into a secure room, delaying the testimony of a Pentagon official, as part of the Democratic investigation that could lead to an indictment (" impeachment ") of President Trump.
[...]
In violation of the House's security rules, parliamentarians entered this room with their mobile phones. Some protesters have even written messages on Twitter from this secure room
[...]
Wednesday's incident comes two days after the New York billionaire has called on Republican lawmakers to "harden" and "fight" the impeachment process against him.



This is completely irresponsible to support this kind of behavior, they want riots or something ? Lock'em up.

Maybe you need to read the twitter in post #24.




/e I will admit that the paragraph he shows, doesn't really show the context, but I doubt he'd show it if it was that easily rebuffed.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 23 2019 04:53pm

There's no reason to read a SHIT; these democrats are hearing people, not torturing them. They also have the majority in your congress.

Maybe the trump core republicans are afraid that highly ranked personal could start to talk. If trump get smashed out their career could be over ? Who are the people of this group exactly ?

This hearing is definitely justified: there's this damn phone recording and your diplomats confirmed it already. You have zero arguments to defend what they did.

Scusi?

You don't give the police passes for killing people etc so I like you.

I'm not thinking about you when I say this.

I also want more Black Panther-esque militant bearing of arms.

/e I'm also probably the grandpa of libertarians in PaRD. I'd like to think people think of me when making sweeping generalizations of my brethren.

This post was edited by Santara on Oct 23 2019 06:23pm