I don't need convincing that the impeachment hearings are about a serious topic, but you will never convince me that the House Democrats are serious people or at all sincere in their concerns.
-
-
Now do the 1994-1998 house GOP. We'll wait.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
An unbiased observer would actually make an argument that went beyond assertion and vitriol. But then you’d be forced to concede that Schiff has had the facts on his side all along, when the others have been doing jazz rifts on dishonesty & bad faith. Ergo the partisan hack route
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
what
@majorajam said ought to cover it....Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For the sake of argument I will agree with you about Schiff. But who is more of an "untrustworthy partisan hack"? Adam Schiff or Devin Nunes? Worry about the facts at hand. Not that there are partisan hacks in Washington.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That may be true but it’s telling that not even you will defend the bozos he criticized or deny that Schiff, despite being a partisan hack is less of a joke than them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now do Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes.
-
Wait. Meadows and Jordan and Nunes are running this kangaroo court?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Show your math; otherwise your usefulness in public discourse as a “thoughtful and learned” pundit os that of a ball of twine wrapped in rawhide.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Based on...what?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.