Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If he committed felonies, you should let Nancy know ASAP.  She left them out of the articles.

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Views 223.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

  • DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

  • Longhorn_Fan68
    Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

He'll probably answer.  It will just be a lie or an obfuscation.

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If he committed felonies, you should let Nancy know ASAP.  She left them out of the articles.

If? Is there any doubt he wrote those checks or doubt about the purpose of the payment?

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

Why if? We do know. It’s a fucking fact.

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why if? We do know. It’s a fucking fact.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think Trump committed a felony.  It's a fair baseline question (except for the fact that he'll probably lie).

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He'll probably answer.  It will just be a lie or an obfuscation.

Fuckboi gonna fuckboi

He also voluntarily wound up his sham charity he and his children abused in violation of state and federal law. The President of the United States is barred from running a charity in NY. 

6 minutes ago, troph said:

That’s not what I’m referring to, this is the first time there has been any - as in a single vote of - bipartisan support.  To me that’s closer than the likely one vote difference compared to Johnson.

I don’t know about that. Johnson is a unique case since he didn’t really have a party to speak of at the time-he was a Democrat, but ran with Lincoln on the “National Union” ticket in 1864. And in the aftermath of the war, only 10 out of 54 Senators were Democrats, if you could still call that his party.

It took 10 Republicans breaking from their party to acquit him. I’d say that’s closer, in my opinion.

Man, if we could have held on to that Florida senate seat last year and if Beto would have one we would at least have had witnesses and majority guilty verdicts.

 


lol didn’t take long

4786cebcc4abe7b8528f7295c045554a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think Trump committed a felony.  It's a fair baseline question (except for the fact that he'll probably lie).

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This President committed felonies while in the White House and no one gave a shit (writing checks to pay Cohen back for hush money covering up his affair with a porn star was a violation of federal election laws).
 

This President regularly abuses his office to personally profit, and not one elected GOP official gives a shit.

This President has abused the clearance and top secret classification process at an alarming rate and not one elected GOP official gives a shit.

This President, without authority, withheld Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation into the Bidens. And that’s apparently A-OK. 
 

Nothing matters. Only power matters. 

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

Just now, Skyline said:

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

Obama also put kids in the same facilities.  I guess he was just a little bit pregnant though.

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

Yeah. It’s Schiff and Pelosi. Not the republicans voting against witnesses in a fucking trial. Way to go, detective. 

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

lulz, the old feigned ignorance defense. 

tenor.gif?itemid=10241030

followed up with:

just.

asking.

questions.

so transparent.

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Obama also put kids in the same facilities.  I guess he was just a little bit pregnant though.

As a followup, I dare you to tell me the difference between Obama's policies and Trump's regarding children being detained at the border.

You seriously go out of your way to make this man look as good as possible.  That reflects horribly on you.  The truth is a great defense -- try it sometime.

20 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Blaming Dems for GOP abdicating all integrity sure is rich

I'm not blaming them for the GOP's conduct.  I'm merely noting that their actions and statements gave the GOP tremendous fodder to support their similarly (in type although far more egregious in scale) unjustified arguments against removal.

Both sides came across as hypocritical when their prior positions were presented (Lindsay Graham arguing that if a President does something that hurts somebody else he should be impeached, while Schumer and Nadler both made arguments against moving forward with an impeachment without bipartisan support).

To not see that the Clinton impeachment paved the way for the current outcome is myopic.

On 2/4/2020 at 9:25 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

the only farce in this whole shitshow has been on the R side. there is no disagreeing. the R's have gaslit the fuck out this country so most rubes don't know which end is up. But those of us with half a brain see through the bullshit. The R's stonewalled this entire process and so sure, to the dumbass masses, it looks like it was a sham and a farce.

>

On 2/4/2020 at 5:13 AM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Every accusation is a confession.  Every. Single. Time.  It's truly unbelievable.

It's true, every accusation is a confession.

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Manchin a yes. Dems hold the line +1

This actually surprises me.  Good on him.

Just now, 4th&Five said:

Yeah. It’s Schiff and Pelosi. Not the republicans voting against witnesses in a fucking trial. Way to go, detective. 

Republicans did not control the articles of impeachment nor decide which witnesses to call before the house.  Schiff and Nancy did.  I am genuinely curious why, if this felony occurred, did Nancy and Adam not include them as one of the articles of impeachment?

So Romney voted guilty on the first but not guilty on the 2nd. 

9 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

 


lol didn’t take long

4786cebcc4abe7b8528f7295c045554a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yesterday: Government is a serious place and class and decorum must be followed at all times.  Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed of her outburst.

Today: MITT ROMNEY IS A POOOOSSAAAYYYYYYY 

1 minute ago, Mo Horn said:

So Romney voted guilty on the first but not guilty on the 2nd. 

That’s dumb. Obstruction of Congress was the easiest one

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

That’s dumb. Obstruction of Congress was the easiest one

Because that one is, of the two, just far more questionable.

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Because that one is, of the two, just far more questionable.

Now you’re obviously trolling. 

13 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

 


lol didn’t take long

4786cebcc4abe7b8528f7295c045554a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But...but.... DECORUM!!!!

tenor.gif

11 minutes ago, Skyline said:

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

This, absolutely this. 

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Now you’re obviously trolling. 

No.  There are serious separation of powers issue on that.  I think of the two, that one was by far the weakest claim as to whether obstruction of congress can be a high crime or misdemeanor without first securing a judicial ruling on the testimony or documents sought.

 

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

You know the answer. 

38 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

He also engaged in witness tampering.

I supported Clinton's impeachment and removal as well.

The Democrats paved the way for the result here by choosing to keep their popular president instead of make a tough decision like Romney.

I supported Clinton’s impeachment and removal as well. But of course I was young 20 something and a total ignorant dumbass back then. He did commit a crime lying under oath about getting his dick sucked. That is not a high crime though. 
 

What Mitt Romney did today took balls and may actually save the senate itself. His speech shows how cowardly guys like Lamar Alexander and the rest of the Republican turds are acting. They know trump is guilty and abused his office. For political reasons and of course the almighty dollar, they let him get away with it. 
 

I will raise a glass to Mitt Romney tonight. 

3 minutes ago, troph said:

after further consideration, I agree actually.

 

still I'm happy with this outcome, on a realistic basis.  

 

Hey, a changed mind on this board! Miracles CAN happen!

To think Romney was the GOP's nominated candidate at one time, and now he's on an island.

Cue the SNL Gilligan's Island sketch where only 2% of their millennial viewership will get the the reference.

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

No.  There are serious separation of powers issue on that.  I think of the two, that one was by far the weakest claim as to whether obstruction of congress can be a high crime or misdemeanor without first securing a judicial ruling on the testimony or documents sought.

So you think a co-equal branch of government exercising constitutionally mandated oversight should be constrained by abuse of the appellate court system to table an investigation for an indeterminate period of time?

In your world, does Congress not have a constitutional mandate to oversight? To inform the public and solicit consent for their actions? Or is it just divine rule to the unitary executive?

Just now, Captainant said:

So you think a co-equal branch of government exercising constitutionally mandated oversight should be constrained by abuse of the appellate court system to table an investigation for an indeterminate period of time?

In your world, does Congress not have a constitutional mandate to oversight? To inform the public and solicit consent for their actions? Or is it just divine rule to the unitary executive?

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

Trump didn't claim executive privilege in court. He refused to comply. 

And you didn't answer my question: should a president be allowed to table any investigation for any period of time by abusing the appellate courts? There's been subpoenas churning through the courts for almost a year, oversight stops being effective when you can delay actual transparency for years and then destroy the evidence in the interim. 

  • Popular Post
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Happy acquittal day lads!

I hope a bird shits on you.

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

If only said privilege was actually asserted.

  • Popular Post
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

I hope a bird shits on you.

In his mouth.

"Using their power to try and affect a Presidential election" 

CNN - guilty as charged

House Democrats - guilty as charged

 

 

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

I think it's a reasonable position to believe that what is covered by executive privilege is not "everything".  Once again, you bob and weave and fail to take a stand for what is right.

Just now, Captainant said:

Trump didn't claim executive privilege in court. He refused to comply. 

And you didn't answer my question: should a president be allowed to table any investigation for any period of time by abusing the appellate courts? There's been subpoenas churning through the courts for almost a year, oversight stops being effective when you can delay actual transparency for years and then destroy the evidence in the interim. 

You claim executive privilege when you resist producing testimony or witnesses.  That is all the needs to be done.  The party then seeking the information must seek redress in the courts.  So yeah, he did not claim executive privilege in court.  Because the democrats decided not to seek redress in the courts.

Pretty much how discovery works for most privileges.  You claim privilege.  Other side either sets the issue for hearing in a court.  Or the privilege stands. 

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's a reasonable position to believe that what is covered by executive privilege is not "everything".  Once again, you bob and weave and fail to take a stand for what is right.

Whatever it is, the requesting party is not the arbiter of privilege.  That's not how that shit works.  If Trump was abusing executive privilege, challenge it in court and move for sanctions.

lol. party on america. the look is really fucking bad from over here. but you know that.

Every day the knife is put deeper into what we, and most of the world, once believed in. We all know its coming but damn if it ain't sad. 

Hopefully more of you wake up to the war you are in. Nothing matters. The man in the black pajamas is working overtime to remove your say in governance. The Sacks and Tahoes of the world actually want this. Do you get that yet? 

While it is a a war we appreciate you not using nukes. thanks, rest of civilized world. Have a good fucking day my Gs

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Whatever it is, the requesting party is not the arbiter of privilege.  That's not how that shit works.  If Trump was abusing executive privilege, challenge it in court and move for sanctions.

Challenge it in court during an election year?  Wait, I thought everything was off limits BECAUSE it's an election year?

Fuck you and fuck Trump.  You don't have the best interest of this country at heart and you should pray to God this doesn't go where it's clearly headed.

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Challenge it in court during an election year?  Wait, I thought everything was off limits BECAUSE it's an election year?

Fuck you and fuck Trump.  You don't have the best interest of this country at heart and you should pray to God this doesn't go where it's clearly headed.

Hysterics.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.