The end of Kendra Horn's career as a House member from Oklahoma?

[Laramie]

Horn is not my Rep. so I do not have a dog in this. Your observation though is spot on. Bi-partisan does not mean being a member of one party and voting the majority of the time with positions of the other party. Horn appears to be representative of what is happening across the country in suburban districts that were red 6 years ago and that Orangeman carried in 2016. This is not unique to the Oklahoma 5th at all. Approving a bill to authorize an inquiry is not radical at all. What is though is seeing Republican Senators on TV say they will not read the transcripts even though they would be jurors in an impeachment trial. That is dereliction of duty.

+1

You would think representatives we send to Congress would arm themselves with information; at least listen to what is being said. Have some representatives become so polarized that they can't listen to what is being said.

[Quicker]

+1

You would think representatives we send to Congress would arm themselves with information; at least listen to what is being said. Have some representatives become so polarized that they can't listen to what is being said.

The Republican senators are hearing everything that’s being said and the way this entire thing has been handled by Adam Schiff in the house...a dog and pony show where the narrative is being tightly controlled and everything is being done behind secretive closed door testimony and followed by leaks from the dims in control...

They don’t need to see the transcripts...they have full control of how these things will be conducted in a Senate trial and the dims in the house will no longer be able to control anything...there is no such thing as nonpartisan in this environment. In a Senate trial, it won’t be about whether to impeach the president. It will be about exposing to the country just how completely ridiculous this scam has been and exposing those involved and every dirty detail under the threat of felony perjury.

I still find it very hard to believe that the dims in the house will be dumb enough to vote to impeach and then face the fate of what will then happen in the Senate...

[mkjeeves]

In a Senate trial, it won’t be about whether to impeach the president.

Dereliction of duty and making a mockery of the institution and the constitution, everything they have accused the House of doing. That hypocritical public display seeking to protect their criminal president won't work out well for them or the country.

[Midtowner]

But, to be fair, these checks and balances cut both ways. The Transcript is not even close to “Treason, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors” territory. You better hope the Liberal who wins The Oval in 2024 keeps his nose clean.

You're against our reps voting for an INQUIRY. You don't know the facts until there's an inquiry. You're ready to dismiss the charge before you know the facts. Your bootlicking reverence for the executive is on full display.

[Eric]

You're against our reps voting for an INQUIRY. You don't know the facts until there's an inquiry. You're ready to dismiss the charge before you know the facts. Your bootlicking reverence for the executive is on full display.

Honestly the House is ill equipped to conduct criminal investigation. Consider the "investigations" into the Russia thing by the House and Senate. They didn't even come close to scraping the surface of what Mueller was able to do.

Even with Nixon, the FBI found out about the wiretapping (a crime) and then the House got involved. It's all backwards and upside down with this House, and Schiff in particular. He's not looking for the truth, he's looking for something that he can move forward with impeachment with.

[Eric]

Or as congressmen Mo Brooks so eloguently put it:

This is about doing taxpayer-funded Oppo research in a secure environment.

[chuck5815]

You're against our reps voting for an INQUIRY. You don't know the facts until there's an inquiry. You're ready to dismiss the charge before you know the facts. Your bootlicking reverence for the executive is on full display.

The only facts that are material are contained in the transcripts.

Your deep devotion to turning America into a South American style Banana Republic is on full display.

[jedicurt]

The only facts that are material are contained in the transcripts.

Your deep devotion to turning America into a South American style Banana Republic is on full display.

hahahahahahhaha... o wait.. you weren't saying this sarcastically??? my bad

[chuck5815]

hahahahahahhaha... o wait.. you weren't saying this sarcastically??? my bad

Ah. You must trust the ever-changing story told by the highly credible Gordon Sondland?

Good for you, bro.

[jedicurt]

Ah. You must trust the ever-changing story told by the highly credible Gordon Sondland?

Good for you, bro.

no... i just trust the history of what has actually caused the issues in South America, and know that it was ruthless power hungry dictators who came in, accused everyone who wasn't showing support the enemy, radicalized the majority, attempt to quell new ideas, and had to control every aspect of everything.

but I can't let a good story that i want to believe, get in the way of historical facts, but hey, good for you, Bro...

I never mentioned the inquiry, in fact i have been on the record on here, that while i support the inquiry taking place (because the house has the constitutional right to do so), that i do think it is overall a waste of time that won't result in what they truly are looking for, which is to remove Trump from office.

But lets not also let my posts on here get in the way of you just living in your own bubble... Good for you, Bro.

[jedicurt]

Ah. You must trust the ever-changing story told by the highly credible Gordon Sondland?

Good for you, bro.

don't like people who are ever-changing their story, do you??? so guess you also are Anti-Trump. Good for you, Bro.

[chuck5815]

don't like people who are ever-changing their story, do you??? so guess you also are Anti-Trump. Good for you, Bro.

Lol, I can like what a man accomplishes without liking the man.

And I always took you as a Unitary Executive man, but I'm sad to see you're just a Banana Republic bro.

Oh, and sorry you're so Shook, Bro.

[jedicurt]

Lol, I can like what a man accomplishes without liking the man.

And I always took you as a Unitary Executive man, but I'm sad to see you're just a Banana Republic bro.

Oh, and sorry you're so Shook, Bro.

right... pretty sure i said that Congress has the authority to perform the inquiry, and thus provide oversight of the executive... so not sure how that is an Unitary Executive theory man, as it seems to be the exact opposite of that... Nor how me pointing out that places where there truly is a Unitary Executive and how it has been awful, makes me a Unitary Executive Theory man... and it isn't a theory in those places, but a fact of their Governments. but lets not let facts and knowledge about a theory get in the way of using it in conversation.

whatever helps you sleep at night. anyways.

so back to Kendra Horn

liking someone for what they accomplish without liking them, She did recently vote for the National Defense Authorization Bill, she also has be an champion of helping veterans get connections to mental health services, and is about to introduce a bipartisan resolution to help bring importance to the needs of veterans in the criminal justice system.

she continues to push for better benefits to veterans at the VA,

so yes, i will admit that i can like what someone accomplishes without liking the person. as you are 100% against Horn, is that mean that we can take it that you don't like the work she is doing to help veterans?

see, isn't actually having information and an education discussion of ideas better than just name calling and using words like Shook???

[Midtowner]

The only facts that are material are contained in the transcripts.

Your deep devotion to turning America into a South American style Banana Republic is on full display.

If you agree with that, then you agree that he conditioned U.S. aid to Ukraine on that country doing something to benefit him personally, which is a campaign finance violation.

[Eric]

If you agree with that, then you agree that he conditioned U.S. aid to Ukraine on that country doing something to benefit him personally, which is a campaign finance violation.

That's not what it said? and you would have to know his true intent to prove it. Which you may be correct, however, that's not what was actually verbally made clear.

Like has been shared previously, there is a legit scenario that phone call happens.

[Quicker]

If you agree with that, then you agree that he conditioned U.S. aid to Ukraine on that country doing something to benefit him personally, which is a campaign finance violation.

I guess that’s one way to look at it. Prove it.

While the Dims have been doing everything they can to control the narrative, leaking like crazy during the close door proceedings and desperately trying to make a case out of hearsay, rumor and innuendo, have you noticed how you never hear any leaks out of the Durham investigation?

I’m sure you saw the part where it’s now turned it into a criminal investigation... Have you also noticed that the release of IG Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse during the 2016 campaign keeps getting pushed back? Do you think that might be because of new information being shared by Durham that’s affecting his report? We’ll see where the chips fall when the results of those investigations have been released to the public...

This is from back in Sept...

“After the Department of Justice released the call transcript between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Wednesday morning, officials also reconfirmed U.S. Attorney John Durham is looking into Ukraine's role and potential interference in the 2016 presidential election.”

"A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating," DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kopek released in a statement.“

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...gated-n2553684

[dankrutka]

That’s really clever how you use Dims instead of Democrats. Did you come up with that on your own? I want to make sure to give you credit for such brilliance.

[Quicker]

That’s really clever how you use Dims instead of Democrats. Did you come up with that on your own? I want to make sure to give you credit for such brilliance.

Thanks buddy, I know it pales in comparison to being called a racist, white supremist, deplorable, facist or I’m sure we can both come up with worse things that have been said...because someone supports the president of the United States... But I agree, it’s subtle but kinda cute...

What’s worse though is that after everything that post entails , that’s all you got out of it...

[Oklapatriot]

OK, Ms. Horn got what she voted for, an impeachment inquiry. I would be interested in what she thinks of yesterday's testimony. Personally, and yes I'm a Trump supporter, I think this is all a complete waste of time and effort. I'm not basing my opinion on any news service or pundit suggesting what I might think, but on actually watching the hearing. Time to move on to things that matter to the Country. Ms. Horn, make a statement to your constituents regarding your thoughts on the first day testimony. Your position is in jeopardy.

[dankrutka]

Thanks buddy, I know it pales in comparison to being called a racist, white supremist, deplorable, facist or I’m sure we can both come up with worse things that have been said...because someone supports the president of the United States... But I agree, it’s subtle but kinda cute...

What’s worse though is that after everything that post entails , that’s all you got out of it...

So, your justification for using insults in political discussion is because other people do it? You seem to think insults used against conservatives are bad... so, why do you do it? You can do better than they-do-it-too rationale.

I am happy to dialogue with people of different political beliefs as long as they enter the discussion with an interest in honest and informed discussion. I did not read past the insult because I am going to engage those who are interested in learning from each other. Would you consider dropping the petty political insults as a good faith showing?

[Quicker]

So, your justification for using insults in political discussion is because other people do it? You seem to think insults used against conservatives are bad... so, why do you do it? You can do better than they-do-it-too rationale.

I am happy to dialogue with people of different political beliefs as long as they enter the discussion with an interest in honest and informed discussion. I did not read past the insult because I am going to engage those who are interested in learning from each other. Would you consider dropping the petty political insults as a good faith showing?

Haha...absolutely, you are so right and I apologize if I offended you.... I guess I just didn’t stop and contemplate the impact it would have on you. It was a funny little spelling of one word...But obviously packed quite a punch.

...but seriously, after all that, You know, that one word... You still haven’t responded to anything else I posted... Are you interested in honest and informed discussion?

[Midtowner]

Honestly the House is ill equipped to conduct criminal investigation. Consider the "investigations" into the Russia thing by the House and Senate. They didn't even come close to scraping the surface of what Mueller was able to do.

Even with Nixon, the FBI found out about the wiretapping (a crime) and then the House got involved. It's all backwards and upside down with this House, and Schiff in particular. He's not looking for the truth, he's looking for something that he can move forward with impeachment with.

I don't recall you whining about the House being ill equipped to conduct a criminal investigation when Clinton was testifying about Benghazi.

[Midtowner]

I guess that’s one way to look at it. Prove it.

I mean.. all of the testimony does prove it. The transcripts prove it. Words have meaning and when the plain meaning of the spoken words is applied, Trump conspired to extract something of value for his campaign by using the power of his office. It happened. It's that simple. You're either okay with the President acting like some mafioso character, using the Presidency to attack his political opponents like some Banana Republic dictator or you're not.

You want to raise a bunch of other potential crimes and abuses. That's cool. Those should be prosecuted too. If Obama committed crimes, he should be prosecuted. If Clinton committed crimes, she should be prosecuted. Let's get that out of the way. If they're not being prosecuted by AG Barr, let's just agree that there's nothing to prosecute them for because he'd be doing exactly that if crimes had been committed.

[Quicker]

I mean.. all of the testimony does prove it. The transcripts prove it. Words have meaning and when the plain meaning of the spoken words is applied, Trump conspired to extract something of value for his campaign by using the power of his office. It happened. It's that simple. You're either okay with the President acting like some mafioso character, using the Presidency to attack his political opponents like some Banana Republic dictator or you're not...

Haha... Adam Schiff’s got nothing on you. You oughta consider becoming a lawyer...

You want to raise a bunch of other potential crimes and abuses. That's cool. Those should be prosecuted too. If Obama committed crimes, he should be prosecuted. If Clinton committed crimes, she should be prosecuted. Let's get that out of the way. If they're not being prosecuted by AG Barr, let's just agree that there's nothing to prosecute them for because he'd be doing exactly that if crimes had been committed.

I don’t wanna start any conspiracy theories or anything but rumor has it that Barr’s looking in to it...and that he may actually have real evidence and everything! 😏

[Midtowner]

Haha... Adam Schiff’s got nothing on you. You oughta consider becoming a lawyer...

You're not denying the evidence is true. If you simply take what former Ambassador Yavanovich testified to, that should be terrifying--and my description as the President acting like some mafioso punk works. While Yavanovich was on the stand, the President was raging on Twitter against her, which resulted in Yavanovich stating that she was intimidated. She also testified that the President's lawyer actually travelled to Ukraine to initiate a smear campaign against her. Staff actually overheard the President and EU Ambassador Sondlund and Trump discussing the Bidens and getting an investigation started. And you're fine with the President withholding money from a country to attempt to get something of benefit for his campaign. Maybe you're fine with all of this today, but if you are fine with a Republican who does things you like doing this, someday, it'll be a Democrat doing the same thing. We should be standing on principle regardless of politics. It seems some of you are so brainwashed that you are incapable of being objective enough to say this isn't okay.

And that's why I keep making references to our Banana Republics, because that is exactly the kind of thing tearing down democracy in South America and Central and Eastern Europe. Read your history--any society which has allowed a virtually unrestrained executive hasn't fared well. For every Augustus, there's a Nero, a Commodus, or a Caligula.

I don’t wanna start any conspiracy theories or anything but rumor has it that Barr’s looking in to it...and that he may actually have real evidence and everything! 😏

I'm great with that! I hope that if the Clintons, the Bidens, or anyone is misusing the trust of the American people, they should be punished. I'm not optimistic Barr will find anything on the Clintons as they have to be the most investigated couple of folks on the planet. Any Democrat who doesn't believe that if the Clintons were involved in criminal activity provable beyond a reasonable doubt, they're just as much a part of the rot in our system that Republicans who would still be in favor of Trump even if corrupt behavior and intent could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as far as the Bidens go, if you want to start locking up politicians because their kids get hired for jobs they aren't qualified for, we have a systemic and bipartisan problem in that, and it's going to be awful difficult to determine whether every board hiring every Congressman's kid is doing it because of access to a member of Congress or because the kid is a good fit for the position. Or if they're a good fit for the position because of their relationship to their parents, then again, that seems like an awfully slippery slope to be on.

And as to your retort, I am a lawyer.