2016 Postmortem

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)

26. Why? Because schumer thinks a bipartisan or non partisan

Reply to RKP5637 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 14, 2016, 09:33 AM

Dec 2016

Group is better at handling this, than house committees chaired by republicans??

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WTF Schumer on Russia Inquiry: I Dont Want This to Turn Into a Benghazi Investigation [View all] pbmus Dec 2016 OP

I want it to turn into Watergate myself bravenak Dec 2016 #1

Me too! get the red out Dec 2016 #3

I hope he at least gets nauseous bravenak Dec 2016 #5

Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #18

Yea get the red out Dec 2016 #23

i am going to guess he wants it done by a non partisan group La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #2

That is exactly what he said this morning on the CBS morning show. nt mtnsnake Dec 2016 #7

he rightfully wants it out of the house, because the house is republican controlled La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #8

Maybe, or he just wants to soft peddle it. He's always been to weak against the repugs for my taste. brush Dec 2016 #11

Do you have any proof of this attack on schumer La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #25

This is not anti-D nonsense. It's anti-Schumer. I would've preferred a stonger Dem leader brush Dec 2016 #28

He's much more pro Israel and anti Palestine La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #32

Got any examples of that? leftynyc Dec 2016 #27

Google his position on Netanyahu pulled that crap against the President by appearing before Congress brush Dec 2016 #29

Schumer was representing his constituents leftynyc Dec 2016 #31

It is in my book. I'm from NY. Most New Yorkers weren't in favor of the Netanyahu mess brush Dec 2016 #33

I wasn't in favor either leftynyc Dec 2016 #34

You asked for an example, I gave you one. You can google you know. brush Dec 2016 #35

I asked for EXAMPLES leftynyc Dec 2016 #41

You can still google. I give you that I should have said OFTEN brush Dec 2016 #42

YOU made the charge leftynyc Dec 2016 #47

I don't work for you. You can google as easily as I did the Netanyahu example brush Dec 2016 #51

So you got nothing leftynyc Dec 2016 #53

As I said, I don't work for you. For Schumer to say "I don't want this to be another Benghazi . . . brush Dec 2016 #59

Now you're just flailing leftynyc Dec 2016 #60

He should've said that. And stop with the ad hominem stuff. brush Dec 2016 #62

No - I don't take note of screen names ever leftynyc Dec 2016 #63

We have a different opinion on Schumer. brush Dec 2016 #64

Sorry, This is DU. We have to think the worst of the Dems. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #22

Ain't that the truth La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #24

Google his position on Netanyahu pulling that crap against the Obama by appearing before Congress brush Dec 2016 #30

Or you could post one thing six times as evidence he "always" fails.... bettyellen Dec 2016 #36

Nothing to do with the GOP? Who do you think invited Netayahu? brush Dec 2016 #39

One thing is always? Foremost, it had to do with NYC and Israel. He has constituents. bettyellen Dec 2016 #40

OK, I should have said OFTEN, but forget the constituents thing, Most New Yorkers . . . brush Dec 2016 #45

unless you had a list of things to point to... instead of repeating one thing that's debatable bettyellen Dec 2016 #48

It's not debatable that he urged Dems to attend the Netayahu debacle brush Dec 2016 #49

His constituents are heavily pro-Israel whether you approve or not... bettyellen Dec 2016 #50

I'm from NY. Most of his constituents were NOT in favor of the Netanyahu debacle brush Dec 2016 #52

I am also from NY and it's always been a pro-Ireal stronghold. Sounds like you're a one issue voter. bettyellen Dec 2016 #55

Giving an example does not make one a one-issue voter brush Dec 2016 #57

A singular example proves your "always" claim was incedinary bullshit though. bettyellen Dec 2016 #58

Didn't I concede to you I should have said "often". God, you're a pitbull with the "always". brush Dec 2016 #61

I hope he means that in this case 1) there is a point, and LisaM Dec 2016 #4

The democratic party needs new leadership!!! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2016 #6

Why? Because schumer thinks a bipartisan or non partisan La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #26

already?? wow. nt LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #9

Not what you think ... bettyellen Dec 2016 #37

I had a feeling Schumer would be too accomodating to the repugs. Backs down too easily brush Dec 2016 #10

If you read the article, his comment was about the fact that it is bipartisan and serious Squinch Dec 2016 #12

Yep. janx Dec 2016 #13

We'll see what he means. I'm from New York and am familiar with Schumer. brush Dec 2016 #20

Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #14

He's right, Benghazi was bullshit.. he doesn't want it turn into a bipartisan bullshit investigation uponit7771 Dec 2016 #16

Sadly, I wouldn't count on it. The numbers will be against us in the Senate Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #19

lol, and people wonder okieinpain Dec 2016 #15

Why the fuck not? Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #17

Benghazi was a partisan shitshow that obscured the issue to the point that no one cared about... SaschaHM Dec 2016 #21

Misleading headline! bettyellen Dec 2016 #38

Can Democrats even start an investigation on their own? NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #43

Yes, they can hold them BainsBane Dec 2016 #46

omg.. stop pullling the "both sides do it" chuck Cha Dec 2016 #44

He associated the two...he went there SHRED Dec 2016 #54

I would hope not. nt. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #56