2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: drck1000 on November 19, 2019, 07:38:08 AM
-
Listened to about 20 mins of the questioning this morning. My first impression is Lt Col Vindman is extremely sketch. So many inconsistencies brought up and easy consistencies with some even from his opening statement, but even more so from his deposition. That’s all facts. It’s in the record.
Then my opinion is that he appear to have been coached. Some key things showing up and at least two instances of a “start over” after a question from a Dem. Again, my opinion from my albeit limited experience in preps before a deposition where my statements could be damning for my organization and for me personally.
Jennifer Williams seemed fine, but most of the questions were for Vindman.
-
Listened to maybe 30 mins this afternoon. The below about sums it up.
-
Listened to about 20 mins of the questioning this morning. My first impression is Lt Col Vindman is extremely sketch. So many inconsistencies brought up and easy consistencies with some even from his opening statement, but even more so from his deposition. That’s all facts. It’s in the record.
Then my opinion is that he appear to have been coached. Some key things showing up and at least two instances of a “start over” after a question from a Dem. Again, my opinion from my albeit limited experience in preps before a deposition where my statements could be damning for my organization and for me personally.
Jennifer Williams seemed fine, but most of the questions were for Vindman.
From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.
I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.
These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.
-
From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.
I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.
These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.
Fixed it for you.
The MAJORITY PARTY in the House is the Democrat Party. They started this circus without a vote, then held a vote to continue it a month later which only Dems (and the one Independent who caucuses w/the Dems) voted for. Two Dems were honest enough to vote against it.
The RIGHT didn't "schedule" anything. They want this Schiff Show to be disbanded.
Here's the tally from the joke ... I mean vote ... that Pelosi called:
(https://i.imgur.com/EhQzucJ.png?1)
-
Fixed it for you.
The MAJORITY PARTY in the House is the Democrat Party. They started this circus without a vote, then held a vote to continue it a month later which only Dems (and the one Independent who caucuses w/the Dems) voted for. Two Dems were honest enough to vote against it.
The RIGHT didn't "schedule" anything. They want this Schiff Show to be disbanded.
Here's the tally from the joke ... I mean vote ... that Pelosi called:
Ok, you got me. The right didn't schedule it but my point was that the hearings aren't fact finding missions, they are both sides taking turns pontificating. Very few questions asked show any interest in trying to find some truth in the weeds but instead trying to attack or defend Trump. Their questions are not fact finding in nature.
-
Ok, you got me. The right didn't schedule it but my point was that the hearings aren't fact finding missions, they are both sides taking turns pontificating. Very few questions asked show any interest in trying to find some truth in the weeds but instead trying to attack or defend Trump. Their questions are not fact finding in nature.
There are only four (4) relevant facts, and they have not changed since the Schiff Show started:
1. The transcript showed there was no quid pro quo, no pressure, no linkage and/or no conditions (i.e. "you investigate or no security dollars") set by Trump for release of aid to Ukraine;
2. No one who was on the call heard Trump make any demands, which is what LtCol Vindman LATER tried to say Trump was "intending", yet Vindman provided EDITS to the transcript to his boss and to WH legal to include in the transcript, and not one of the edits included anything about a demand;
3. Ukraine didn't know about the delay in aid funding at the time of the call, and witnesses said the Ukrainians didn't hear about it until late August when Politico ran an article with it;
4. Finally, the Ukrainians didn't do ANYTHING -- no statement, no investigating, no promise -- and the aid was released.
Pelosi called Trump an "imposter". The Dems have never accepted that Clinton lost to Trump. They've been trying to obstruct and remove him since before inauguration.
You're not going to see any testimony that offers anything new. If you really took time to listen to the Republicans' questions, you'd have picked up on what I said above. They asked EVERY SINGLE WITNESS whether they had any evidence of quid pro quo, use of aid as leverage, Ukrainians DOING ANYTHING to get the aid released, or any other impeachable offense the President may have committed.
Without exception, they all testified under oath that they had no such evidence.
The Dems have not asked any actual questions. They used their time to smear Trump, make accusatory comments, and spin the testimony into sound bites.
-
The Dems have not asked any actual questions. They used their time to smear Trump, make accusatory comments, and spin the testimony into sound bites.
Don't forget to ask about feelings.
-
1) From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.
2) I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.
3) These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.
Had typed up a response, but lost it. So here goes again. . .
1) What you're describing is what I considering standard preparation for deposition (or testimony). What I meant by coaching is that Vindman appeared to be prepared to answer specific questions a certain way. There were at least two instances where he started, stopped, and continued with "I would to go back and start over" (or something like that). Having been deposed a few times (never had to testify), yes, there are various names, dates, statements being thrown at you. Luckily in my case, I was actually a pawn in lawsuits between two companies. However, my statements very much put myself and my organization at risk. That being said, were there more folks to testified coached, similar to my view of Vindman? Probably, but somehow Vindman came across to me as obvious about it. He's probably not as seasoned at doing it as those "career foreign service" folks. Just my opinion.
2) Cutting off someone before the finish answering your question is something I HATE. Steve Inskeep at NPR always does that when the person on his show is someone he doesn't agree with.
3) Of course there's going to be pontification. They are POLITICIANS! However, there's also smart use of the opportunity to get things on the records, such as testimony or transcripts that one side refuses to release. And then there's the approach of ask once, twice, three times, etc and get consistent responses. Then there were questions that brought up serious doubt on timelines, who said what, who reported to who, etc. To me, those were valuable questions.
-
The Dems have not asked any actual questions.
I think I heard on D Sen ask how the person testifying was doing. . . ;D
-
I think I heard on D Sen ask how the person testifying was doing. . . ;D
That's what I call hard-hitting fact-finding!!
Impeachment of a sitting President requires nothing less. :popcorn:
-
The "actual" substance of his testimony aside, Sondland was pretty entertaining. Deflecting questions with humor, which I really got a kick out of this one:
D Sen: ". . . where they referred to you as "Problem G"
Sondland: "that's what my wife calls me". . . "maybe they're colluding with each other" (or something like that)
I thought that was pretty funny. There was another as well in there that I caught while I was running errands at lunch.
Each time I gave depositions, it was a very serious affair. Yet, I do recall a number of times where I got my legal counsel, reporter, and moderator/mediator/neutral person/whatever there to laugh at my response. I wasn't meaning to be funny, but I guess they thought it was. ??? ::) :rofl:
-
The "actual" substance of his testimony aside, Sondland was pretty entertaining. Deflecting questions with humor, which I really got a kick out of this one:
D Sen: ". . . where they referred to you as "Problem G"
Sondland: "that's what my wife calls me". . . "maybe they're colluding with each other" (or something like that)
I thought that was pretty funny. There was another as well in there that I caught while I was running errands at lunch.
Each time I gave depositions, it was a very serious affair. Yet, I do recall a number of times where I got my legal counsel, reporter, and moderator/mediator/neutral person/whatever there to laugh at my response. I wasn't meaning to be funny, but I guess they thought it was. ??? ::) :rofl:
Some of the "clever" questions lawyers come up with often result in even more clever responses.
The question is the joke. The answer is the punchline.
-
Some of the "clever" questions lawyers come up with often result in even more clever responses.
The question is the joke. The answer is the punchline.
They definitely have clever questions. One lawyer tried to pull the two question one, but I was ready. It was obvious and my response to clarify that is what made them laugh. My attorney said she would've stepped in, but I responded so quickly, she didn't get a chance. There was literally a "play list" of what to expect and I swear this attorney tried over half of them.
-
They definitely have clever questions. One lawyer tried to pull the two question one, but I was ready. It was obvious and my response to clarify that is what made them laugh. My attorney said she would've stepped in, but I responded so quickly, she didn't get a chance. There was literally a "play list" of what to expect and I swear this attorney tried over half of them.
Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH. Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.
And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect. 1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom. He left and someone else walked in and took them. He came back asking who has his bags. No one knew this was a drill. The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place. 1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).
That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers). It helps me remember more details. And also to look for more details that are not common. If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue. But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.
-
That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers).
Wait, is that wassis? :o
:rofl:
-
Wait, is that wassis? :o
:rofl:
As long as you use the work papolo, it's not.
-
nothing to see here, move along
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niVeRv48-7g
-
Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH. Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.
And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect. 1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom. He left and someone else walked in and took them. He came back asking who has his bags. No one knew this was a drill. The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place. 1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).
That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers). It helps me remember more details. And also to look for more details that are not common. If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue. But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.
I'm one of those guys that prepares for SHTF situations.
One of the survival techniques is to be "Grey"( I prefer the English spelling).
Most people won't notice me anywhere. Old man, old clothes, old beater truck,
gray hair, beard , no Tats.
Blend in.
Most people are too obsessed with their immediate self
to keep an eye out for the "situation".
BTW get a better spellchecker. I knew what you meant,
but some people like to point out slight imperfections as a means
of minimizing your point.
-
Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH. Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.
And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect. 1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom. He left and someone else walked in and took them. He came back asking who has his bags. No one knew this was a drill. The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place. 1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).
That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers). It helps me remember more details. And also to look for more details that are not common. If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue. But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.
I don't have a problem remembering what someone looks like.
I have a pornographic memory. :thumbsup:
-
sundland's testimony is being touted as an "IED" "blowtorch" or "bombshell" by the fakestream media
of course they aren't showing this little tidbit
https://youtu.be/YSlX9m1iZ6M?t=234
-
shifty Schiff is one scary looking dude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIQL79G1vTM
-
sundland's testimony is being touted as an "IED" "blowtorch" or "bombshell" by the fakestream media
of course they aren't showing this little tidbit
https://youtu.be/YSlX9m1iZ6M?t=234
NoFocus
-
Old lawyer saying:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When neither is on your side, jump up on the table and yell.
Schiff has been ratcheting up the volume as the week unfolded. :shake:
He just got 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post for his adamant claim that the Whistle Blower has a statutory right to remain anonymous. Nunes asked Schiff before the end of yesterday's hearing to produce the statute that provided the WB those protections, and Schiff replied that he would.
Schiff can't, because such a statute doesn't exist.
"The case for Three [Pinocchios]: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity.
Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads.
"The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and
debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway
if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"
The three Pinocchios comes after Schiff was given four Pinocchios in October for claiming his panel had "not spoken
directly with the whistleblower," with the paper calling the claim "flat-out false."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim
-
Old lawyer saying:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When neither is on your side, jump up on the table and yell.
Schiff has been ratcheting up the volume as the week unfolded. :shake:
He just got 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post for his adamant claim that the Whistle Blower has a statutory right to remain anonymous. Nunes asked Schiff before the end of yesterday's hearing to produce the statute that provided the WB those protections, and Schiff replied that he would.
Schiff can't, because such a statute doesn't exist.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim
"more nuanced, and debatable"?
um, no
the whistleblower act protects the whistleblower from retaliation, thus negating the need for anonymity
five pinocchios from macsak!
-
Fiona Hill’s responses go on, and on, and on. Rashida Talib apparently idolizes her.
-
At the end of each hearing, Schiff takes time to make so-called closing remarks.
His closings sound pre-written, with Trump's guilt already a foregone conclusion. His staff merely peppers the statement with soundbites taken out of context from the day's testimony.
Schiff makes general, nonspecific statements about how no person, or president is above the law. How a President is not allowed to ask a foreign president to dig up dirt on a political opponent. How the American people have a duty to hold anyone who abuses the power of their office for personal gain accountable.
What Schiff leaves out of his rants is that nothing he said applies to the inquiry. There's been no evidence of anything he said. He's spouting conclusions based on no tangible facts. Not one witness has testified to any direct knowledge of anything impeachable. This contradicts Schiff's contention that the WB need not testify as the complaint has led them to firsthand accounts that support the WB's facts. So far, I've seen the exact opposite.
Schiff really is disgusting. This Schiff Show needs to end -- yesterday!
-
The Dems have not asked any actual questions.
They did but they were mostly interpretive in nature. They appeared to be laying the foundation for the argument that what Trump did should be understood to be quid pro quo. Now this isn't necessarily a bad argument to make but it is going to be more difficult because of the subjective nature. The same issue exists if it were a bribery case or a threat case in which the offense might be inferred from the statement.
Though in this case there isn't a jury to convince, just a senate full of people who have made up their mind before hearing all the facts then a few in the middle to sway one way or another.
If I had to put money on it all I would bet that Trump was absolutely looking for information that he could use against Biden, but perhaps he figured the cover story of investigating Biden was sufficient. I think Giuliani might have been playing Trump a bit for his own benefit as well. But as they say, it isn't what you know, it is what you can prove and the dems aren't doing a great job of proving it.
-
I’m hearing now that some Dems are backing off impeachment and want to move towards censure as I predicted in an earlier post. But Pelosi won’t allow this fracture in the party. No matter how it destroys the party. No matter what happens in the House, if this does go to the Senate it will turn even worse for the Dems. Because the Republicans are planning on calling the so called whistleblower, Hunter and Joe Biden and others that obviously have actions they have to account for. I don’t see any good coming from either tract Pelosi takes.
-
They did but they were mostly interpretive in nature. They appeared to be laying the foundation for the argument that what Trump did should be understood to be quid pro quo. Now this isn't necessarily a bad argument to make but it is going to be more difficult because of the subjective nature. The same issue exists if it were a bribery case or a threat case in which the offense might be inferred from the statement.
Though in this case there isn't a jury to convince, just a senate full of people who have made up their mind before hearing all the facts then a few in the middle to sway one way or another.
If I had to put money on it all I would bet that Trump was absolutely looking for information that he could use against Biden, but perhaps he figured the cover story of investigating Biden was sufficient. I think Giuliani might have been playing Trump a bit for his own benefit as well. But as they say, it isn't what you know, it is what you can prove and the dems aren't doing a great job of proving it.
Nope. Trump just spent 3 years being spied on, being investigated, turning over documents, having his people interviewed, being called a Russian agent and a traitor by the MSM daily, and so on.
- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.
- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors.
- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.
- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.
- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.
- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.
- More than 230 orders for communication records.
- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.
- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments
- 500 witnesses interviewed
- $25 million in posted costs as of February
Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia
Now the Dems are doing a "RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!" reboot using a call to the Ukrainian President. He's got a right to be pissed off.
I think he's trying to find out who did what as it relates to the Russian Collusion witch hunt/sham.
The IG is due to release his findings in the FISA process review in about 2 weeks -- Dec 9. He's also scheduled to testify before Congress on the 11th.
John Durham, who is now running a criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, will hopefully be submitting his report soon.
Under the supervision of Attorney General William Barr, Durham is conducting an investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, examining the conduct of the Justice Department, FBI, and intelligence community. Last month, Durham shifted his administrative review to a criminal investigation that allows his team the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments.
Giuiiani and Trump are trying to see if the new President of Ukraine is truthful about going after corruption in the Ukrainian government. Trump asked about meddling in the 2016 election over and over to his diplomats and to the new president there. He's not looking to "dig up dirt" on Biden. He's looking for the truth that Mueller obviously didn't have the balls to dig into during his investigation. Everything Mueller reported on was about Trump and his team. Nothing about the FISA warrants, which we now know at least one renewal contained false documentation, the Steele dossier, Fusion GPS (Mueller said in his testimony he wasn't even familiar with the law firm the DNC and the Clinton campaign hired to pay Steele ... really??), and so on.
Mueller had the DUTY to look into the Russia collusion allegations from all angles, but he, like the other swamp critters, protected the Democrats while throwing people who got tripped up on their interview answers in prison.
Yeah, Trump is pissed, and he's going after the people who went after him and his people. If Biden stayed out of the race, as he should have done, the corruption investigation Trump wants done would still be a topic he's interested in getting to the bottom of.
Several news agencies published stories long before Trump was looking into them about Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. trump didn't just think this stuff up to smear Biden (unlike the Russia collusion lies).
There's one "fact" people don't bring up. If you say Trump wants dirt on Biden, then you must believe Trump thinks Biden will (1) get the DNC nomination, and (2) has a good chance of winning in the General Election.
Trump isn't afraid of anybody. He'll go nose-to-nose with dictators he's insulted, Democrats in the Congress, and the press. He doesn't see ANYONE in the Dem primaries as a formidable threat to his reelection. If you think he needs dirt to beat Biden, you haven't been paying attention for a very long time - at least since 2015.
Trump took on Hildeabeast with mostly his own money, underspent her by more than half the $1.2B she spent, and won in what most honest people consider a landslide.
What "dirt" did he have on Hillary? Who was the FBI and DOJ helping in the 2016 election? Who were they spying on?
If you think Trump fears Biden, you need a reality check.
-
A good article by one of my fav satirists.
Journalists are shocked that impeachment has flopped:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/klavan-journalists-are-shocked-that-impeachment-has-flopped?itm_source=parsely-api?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=112919-news&utm_campaign=position6
-
Funny how the dnc is going after the guy who wants and investigation into corruptuon. Then want to vote for said corrupt (biden) person.
Shows that its 100% not about finding the truth, but about a witch hunt again.
How many peoples kids involved with a Ukraine power company? Biden, pelosi, kerry. I didnt know all had lots of power source experience. Crickets from the media.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
If you think Trump fears Biden, you need a reality check.
So Trump just suddenly had the desire to seek justice of possible corruption by Biden? 3 years after the incident when Biden is leading the election pool Trump just decides to follow up on a corruption lead in Ukraine and it has nothing to do with the effect it could have on the election. Yeah, that's totally believable.
-
So Trump just suddenly had the desire to seek justice of possible corruption by Biden? 3 years after the incident when Biden is leading the election pool Trump just decides to follow up on a corruption lead in Ukraine and it has nothing to do with the effect it could have on the election. Yeah, that's totally believable.
You really are blinded by your TDS, huh?
Trump COULD NOT DO ANYTHING related to the 2016 election meddling until after the Mueller witch hunt ended. Look at the timing. He started having people look into the Ukrainian election meddling and the reports of the DNC working with them the week after Mueller's Congressional testimony.
It's not rocket science. His hands were tied. Now they aren't. Get a clue.
-
You really are blinded by your TDS, huh?
Trump COULD NOT DO ANYTHING related to the 2016 election meddling until after the Mueller witch hunt ended. Look at the timing. He started having people look into the Ukrainian election meddling and the reports of the DNC working with them the week after Mueller's Congressional testimony.
It's not rocket science. His hands were tied. Now they aren't. Get a clue.
His hands weren't tied, he could have done the same thing and if wouldn't affect the Mueller investigation. Come on, you have to come up with a better defense than that.
It is always entertaining that you think anyone who doesn't have a blind loyalty to Trump therefore has "TDS". Don't code up to defend everything Trump says or does? TDS. Have a criticism of Trump? TDS.
-
His hands weren't tied, he could have done the same thing and if wouldn't affect the Mueller investigation. Come on, you have to come up with a better defense than that.
It is always entertaining that you think anyone who doesn't have a blind loyalty to Trump therefore has "TDS". Don't code up to defend everything Trump says or does? TDS. Have a criticism of Trump? TDS.
Yeah. And every member of the Dem party would have been screaming "OBSTRUCTION!!!!!!!!" :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake:
You need a reality check. Barr, Durham, Rudy, call to Zelensky... all AFTER the Mueller testimony. If Trump had tried to run a parallel investigation, the media would have been telling everyone Trump was covering up evidence, intimidating witnesses and anything else related to obstruction. He would have also been blasted for not waiting to see if Mueller already uncovered the things Trump wanted investigated.
Another factor -- the former corrupt Ukrainian president could not be trusted, since he and his people were meddling in the election trying to help Hildabeast win.
Once Mueller was shown to be a one-sided non-investigation, Trump knew he had to do what Mueller and the FBI failed to look into.
TDS is real. People who have it are often unable to recognize it in others, similarly to how you can't tell if someone else has been drinking if you've been partaking as well. :rofl:
-
So Trump just suddenly had the desire to seek justice of possible corruption by Biden? 3 years after the incident when Biden is leading the election pool Trump just decides to follow up on a corruption lead in Ukraine and it has nothing to do with the effect it could have on the election. Yeah, that's totally believable.
before that he dealt with North Korea, is continuously working with a trade deal with China, builds a wall on our Southern border, keeps fighting for America first by pulling us out of the Paris Accords,
yep our President has been busy. His accomplishments shadow that of at least 2 Presidents before him.
oh yeah, FISA case comes out in a week. Let's see who really is behind the corruption.
3.
2.
1.
pull the drain on the swamp
meanwhile the VP's drug addict of a son and Navy discharge officer pulls in millions a year for just being - Biden's son.
"Know anything about energy?" Hunter: "nope"
"Speak Ukranian?" Hunter: "nope."
one of foreign policy's principles IS quid pro quo. We don't give anything to another country for free. There is an exchange.
-
Schiff is only giving 24 hours to review impeachment report before voting according to this article.
https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breaking-schiff-is-only-giving-members-24-hours-to-review-the-impeachment-report-before-voting/?utm_source=mcotr
-
Schiff is only giving 24 hours to review impeachment report before voting according to this article.
https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breaking-schiff-is-only-giving-members-24-hours-to-review-the-impeachment-report-before-voting/?utm_source=mcotr
According to the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, the Intel Committee's report will be released sometime Monday. The vote to send the impeachment matter to Nadler's committee will likely be called around 6PM Tuesday evening, with the Judicial Committee hearings starting on Wednesday.
HOWEVER, Nadler only gave the Republicans until last Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, to submit their list of witnesses they want called. Obviously that's 5 days before they even get a chance to read the Schiff Show report! How the hell can they make a list of witnesses when they have no clue what the facts in the report are?
Just more ramrodding by the Dems. Impeachment is a foregone conclusion to them. The Constitutional process is just a formality. They'd skip everything and go straight to the trial if they could.
-
So Trump just suddenly had the desire to seek justice of possible corruption by Biden? 3 years after the incident when Biden is leading the election pool Trump just decides to follow up on a corruption lead in Ukraine and it has nothing to do with the effect it could have on the election. Yeah, that's totally believable.
Its not about the election. Its about the deep state going down. It was the media who got trolled and brought the corruption to light to those who are not awoke.
Many who dont believe the fake news knew about Ukraine years ago.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
White House won’t take part in first House Judiciary impeachment hearing
The White House informed House Democrats on Sunday that it will not participate in the Judiciary Committee’s
first impeachment hearing, excoriating Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as a “baseless” and “partisan” exercise
in scathing five-page letter to the panel’s chairman.
The decision indicates that President Donald Trump has listened to his allies and some congressional Republicans
who argued that a White House presence at the hearing would validate a process they have harangued as
illegitimate and partisan.
The complete letter to Nadler, with very direct language explaining what they have been told and why they don't intend to participate -- at least for now:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-c400-da31-ab7e-de482d550000
-
before that he dealt with North Korea, is continuously working with a trade deal with China, builds a wall on our Southern border, keeps fighting for America first by pulling us out of the Paris Accords,
yep our President has been busy. His accomplishments shadow that of at least 2 Presidents before him.
oh yeah, FISA case comes out in a week. Let's see who really is behind the corruption.
3.
2.
1.
pull the drain on the swamp
meanwhile the VP's drug addict of a son and Navy discharge officer pulls in millions a year for just being - Biden's son.
"Know anything about energy?" Hunter: "nope"
"Speak Ukranian?" Hunter: "nope."
one of foreign policy's principles IS quid pro quo. We don't give anything to another country for free. There is an exchange.
I think probably both the Biden's and Trump are guilty of improper dealings with/in Ukraine.
Trump may have had justification to request an investigation but the timing and the way he went about it sure look fishy.
-
Can’t find a good quote, but have a listen to NPR’s coverage of today’s proceedings, particularly Jonathan Turley. Crap on his past views however you want, but he brings up very logical facts. Dems have accused WH of withholding key witnesses and info (while doing so themselves with classified IG reports). Yet, how can they fully move forward with proceedings admitting that there’s evidence that has either not been provided or even allowed?
There was a quote that I was trying to find, but basically was about lowering the bar for impeachment for political purposes to essentially a British style of removing someone based on whims, because they don’t get along with the other side. Also about the history of bribery in the context of the UNITED STATES.
Anyways, will try to find the exact quote. But to me, that’s now getting to the point of all of this.
-
Rep. Matt Gaetz
@RepMattGaetz
If wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense, I look forward to reading that inspector general’s report, because maybe it’s a different president we should be impeaching.
-
Headline on yahoo is "3 of 4 constitutional law experts say Trump is impeachable". I wonder what those 3 say about the 2a. And IIRC, the 3 who said he is impeachable were all vetted by the DNC as their "experts".
-
Headline on yahoo is "3 of 4 constitutional law experts say Trump is impeachable". I wonder what those 3 say about the 2a. And IIRC, the 3 who said he is impeachable were all vetted by the DNC as their "experts".
The woman on the panel gave thousands to Warren, Obama, and Hillary (she received $2K -- more than the other two).
The lawyer is also the head of the Stanford Law School and was on Hillary's short list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
I guess this is her way of lashing out at Trump for ruining her shot at SCOTUS.
-
One point made during a FOX interview is how the Democrats and today's non-witnesses keep misquoting Trump.
They keep saying Trump's call with Zelensky contained the statement, "Do me a favor." That's a lie, pure and simple.
Trump said, "Do us a favor." The context shows he was clearly saying the "favor" was for the American people, NOT for personal reasons.
It's black and white.
I hate the Democrats in DC, and it takes A LOT for me to hate anyone.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/A6In08y.png)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOL_BF2jN58
-
I haven't watched all the hearings but have been catching at least half an hour every day on my way to work.
From what I have gathered it appears that the democrat case is essentially a circumstantial one. It is harder to prove but it can be done. Meanwhile the republican defense seems to be trying to suggest that this lack of direct evidence means no crime can be proven. Both sides have some merits to their arguments. Proving someone committed this type of crime is often going to rely on circumstantial evidence because a smart criminal is not going to come out and say they want to bribe the person, they are going to imply it.
I haven't heard enough where I could personally say whether I think the democrats are making a convincing case or not though.
-
https://youtu.be/9G3BTOwwqTs
https://youtu.be/cQ1LaoGBhmg
-
Well, the Dems in the House have announced two articles of impeachment being drafted:
1. Abuse of Power, and
2. Obstruction of Congress
The Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) were naming "BRIBERY!!" as the offense the last 3-4 weeks, saying the evidence of bribery is overwhelming.
Why was bribery not included in the articles of impeachment? They are using an ambiguous catch-all phrase instead.
They haven't identified a specific crime. They are lobbing an accusation based on nothing more than "we believe Trump was trying to use foreign aid to get help against a political opponent."
Thin, unprovable, and no evidence to support their beliefs.
-
Well, the Dems in the House have announced two article of impeachment being drafted:
1. Abuse of Power, and
2. Obstruction of Congress
The Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) were naming "BRIBERY!!" as the offense the last 3-4 weeks, saying the evidence of bribery is overwhelming.
Why was bribery not included in the articles of impeachment? They are using an ambiguous catch-all phrase instead.
They haven't identified a specific crime. They are lobbing an accusation based on nothing more than "we believe Trump was trying to use foreign aid to get help against a political opponent."
Thin, unprovable, and no evidence to support their beliefs.
"Thin, unprovable, and no evidence to support their beliefs."
Since when has that meant anything to Democrats?
This impeachment will play out. The next Democrat president
that has a Republican Congress had better watch his back.
Unlike Hawaii there are a few Republicans in America.
-
https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/ed-case-releases-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment/ (https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/ed-case-releases-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment/)
“I have supported the formal impeachment inquiry since the whistleblower’s report on the President’s dealings with Ukraine was provided to Congress in September. I have closely followed the inquiry, to include a full review of the Intelligence Committee’s 400-plus page majority and minority reports and personally attending the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. I have received thousands of responses from my constituents to my requests for their input. I believe that the facts revealed by the inquiry to date justify full U.S. House consideration of articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“However, I owe it to my country, my constituents and my own constitutional responsibilities to fully inform my decision before I vote on the articles. I’m not there yet because I haven’t reviewed all of the actual articles, the Judiciary Committee’s report and the full House debate. When I have done so, I will discharge my constitutional duty in this truly sad matter per my oath of office and to the best of my ability.”
clownery
-
https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/ed-case-releases-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment/ (https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/ed-case-releases-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment/)
“I have supported the formal impeachment inquiry since the whistleblower’s report on the President’s dealings with Ukraine was provided to Congress in September. I have closely followed the inquiry, to include a full review of the Intelligence Committee’s 400-plus page majority and minority reports and personally attending the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. I have received thousands of responses from my constituents to my requests for their input. I believe that the facts revealed by the inquiry to date justify full U.S. House consideration of articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“However, I owe it to my country, my constituents and my own constitutional responsibilities to fully inform my decision before I vote on the articles. I’m not there yet because I haven’t reviewed all of the actual articles, the Judiciary Committee’s report and the full House debate. When I have done so, I will discharge my constitutional duty in this truly sad matter per my oath of office and to the best of my ability.”
clownery
Saturday afternoon, Schiff's office dumped thousands of pages of impeachment information on the Judicial Committee members to read prior to the Monday morning hearings.
Just more evidence how this process was a rushed witch hunt.
According to Collins, this will go down in history as "The Focus-Tested impeachment."
Still, the Senate will never get 2/3rds to convict. And if there's a trial, the witnesses will not be blocked by the Schiff Show.
-
The newest rumors floating around is that there is a good reason why the USMCA was announced by Pelosi an hour after the announcement of the articles for impeachment. The rumor is she is trading votes for the USMCA in exchange for votes for impeachment. Apparently the 31 dem house reps that are in red states are nervous about losing their jobs. Supposedly Pelosi was holding up the USMCA due to her hatred towards trump and was being pressured by a lot of her constituents (Not just the 31) to get it in for a vote and they were threatening to vote against impeachment if she didn’t bring it up for a vote.
Otherwise it makes no sense to announce articles of impeachment and then hand trump a victory an hour later. Just goes to show how divisive impeachment is.
-
The newest rumors floating around is that there is a good reason why the USMCA was announced by Pelosi an hour after the announcement of the articles for impeachment. The rumor is she is trading votes for the USMCA in exchange for votes for impeachment. Apparently the 31 dem house reps that are in red states are nervous about losing their jobs. Supposedly Pelosi was holding up the USMCA due to her hatred towards trump and was being pressured by a lot of her constituents (Not just the 31) to get it in for a vote and they were threatening to vote against impeachment if she didn’t bring it up for a vote.
Otherwise it makes no sense to announce articles of impeachment and then hand trump a victory an hour later. Just goes to show how divisive impeachment is.
There you go with rationale thought as opposed to being blinded by emotion. . .
Is it just me or has Pelosi's speech patterns changed recently. Like she's slurring more words or something.
-
...Is it just me or has Pelosi's speech patterns changed recently. Like she's slurring more words or something.
Not recent. She has been an alcoholic for a long time! :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
The newest rumors floating around is that there is a good reason why the USMCA was announced by Pelosi an hour after the announcement of the articles for impeachment. The rumor is she is trading votes for the USMCA in exchange for votes for impeachment. Apparently the 31 dem house reps that are in red states are nervous about losing their jobs. Supposedly Pelosi was holding up the USMCA due to her hatred towards trump and was being pressured by a lot of her constituents (Not just the 31) to get it in for a vote and they were threatening to vote against impeachment if she didn’t bring it up for a vote.
Otherwise it makes no sense to announce articles of impeachment and then hand trump a victory an hour later. Just goes to show how divisive impeachment is.
When the ACA passed, the Dems (lead by Obama) had a massive piggy bank under the guise of a "Stimulus Package" from which they bought bribed coerced incentivized rewarded negotiated traded for votes.
I was wondering what Pelosi was going to use this time to ... trade ... for their impeachment support.
Bernie got a house for being Hidabeast's sacrificial lamb. I wonder who in the Dem field is getting the new house after 2020?
-
Not recent. She has been an alcoholic for a long time! :shake: :shake: :shake:
It seems to have gotten worse in say the past 2-3 weeks. Or maybe I was just hearing more from her as I've been watching the TV news more.
Reminds me of this math professor I had in college. I swear she was a high functioning drunk and probably in early dementia and actually looked quite like Pelosi. Anyways, one day, she was trying to write the symbol for delta on the whiteboard. She drew it upside down. She sort of shrugged, shook her head and mumbled "wait, no". She then erased the upside down delta and said out loud "delta" and drew it upside down again. This did NOT go unnoticed by the class. She sort of shrugged again, shook her head, erased the upside down delta and finally wrote the delta right side up. The class was statistics and was pretty cake, but she certainly made it challenging. . . :shake:
-
It seems to have gotten worse in say the past 2-3 weeks. Or maybe I was just hearing more from her as I've been watching the TV news more.
Reminds me of this math professor I had in college. I swear she was a high functioning drunk and probably in early dementia and actually looked quite like Pelosi. Anyways, one day, she was trying to write the symbol for delta on the whiteboard. She drew it upside down. She sort of shrugged, shook her head and mumbled "wait, no". She then erased the upside down delta and said out loud "delta" and drew it upside down again. This did NOT go unnoticed by the class. She sort of shrugged again, shook her head, erased the upside down delta and finally wrote the delta right side up. The class was statistics and was pretty cake, but she certainly made it challenging. . . :shake:
In reality I have not noticed but I have not paid much attention to her lately. My comment about her being an alcoholic was a sarcastic remark since a lot of videos of her slurring her words have been doctored to make her look that way.
-
When the ACA passed, the Dems (lead by Obama) had a massive piggy bank under the guise of a "Stimulus Package" from which they bought bribed coerced incentivized rewarded negotiated traded for votes.
I was wondering what Pelosi was going to use this time to ... trade ... for their impeachment support.
Bernie got a house for being Hidabeast's sacrificial lamb. I wonder who in the Dem field is getting the new house after 2020?
Funny how shes getting credit for the trade deal, when it was Trump who planned it from day 1. It was being held up by the DNC.
-
Funny how shes getting credit for the trade deal, when it was Trump who planned it from day 1. It was being held up by the DNC.
but now mcconnell holding it up...
-
but now mcconnell holding it up...
He don't trust anything the DNC pushes through all of a sudden. Like when Hillary tweeted vaccines are good for children.
-
Funny how shes getting credit for the trade deal, when it was Trump who planned it from day 1. It was being held up by the DNC.
Pelosi admits the USMCA is a better program for the US than NAFTA ever was.
That's due to Trump's negotiations -- nothing at all to do with Congress. Anything Congress changes will be pork for their constituents. I can guarantee that.
So, even by Pelosi's characterization, the new Act is a major improvement, which would have never happened if Trump wasn't president. I can't imagine Hillary negotiating anything that doesn't include "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.
-
Watching as much of the Judicial Committee hearing as I can stomach.
Eric Swalwell (Stallsmell?) looks directly at the camera when speaking. House members have said that's against the Rules of the House.
When speaking, a member is supposed to direct their statements to the chair. Speaking the the television audience breaks that rule.
He should be sanctioned for breaking the rules.
-
"MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 23 AYES AND 17 NOES."
Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee voted down strict party lines to present the articles of impeachment to the full house (Fool House?) for a vote.
So much for Pelosi saying, "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something
so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan,
I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."
The only impeachment vote so far that was bipartisan was the vote AGAINST the impeachment inquiry. Two Dems voted against. Only Dems voted to move forward.
The Democrat party has no idea what a "principle" is nor how to abide by them. They are 100% outcome-oriented at all cost -- the rules/laws/Constitution/damage to the nation be damned.
-
"MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 23 AYES AND 17 NOES."
Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee voted down strict party lines to present the articles of impeachment to the full house (Fool House?) for a vote.
So much for Pelosi saying, "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something
so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan,
I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."
The only impeachment vote so far that was bipartisan was the vote AGAINST the impeachment inquiry. Two Dems voted against. Only Dems voted to move forward.
The Democrat party has no idea what a "principle" is nor how to abide by them. They are 100% outcome-oriented at all cost -- the rules/laws/Constitution/damage to the nation be damned.
I think Trump backed them into a corner when he put Barr into AG position. In other words, I think their plan was to put impeachment out there and if the poling din’t support it they were going to censure or just not impeach. But once Barr came in and put Durham on the case and it turned from an investigation into a criminal matter they really have no choice but to impeach and try to put Trump into bad graces with the voters. If Trump loses, Barr is gone and the criminal investigation and indictments go away. If Trump wins a lot of people are going down. This is why they are vowing to continue to throw out impeachment if he wins. The longer he stays in office the more people are going to get indicted and brought to justice.
And from what I think I read from Judicial watch they have memos showing Obama knew about the investigation and apparently did nothing to try and stop it. Not sure yet if they know he approved and put his stamp on the investigation? But he definitely knew about it at some point. Whether the beginning or later remains to be seen. Either way, if Obama knew at any point and did not try and shut it down, he was a part of the illegal activities. I think that ultimately, he is the one they are trying to protect if not his AG’s and Secretary of State as well.
-
Pelosi admits the USMCA is a better program for the US than NAFTA ever was.
That's due to Trump's negotiations -- nothing at all to do with Congress. Anything Congress changes will be pork for their constituents. I can guarantee that.
So, even by Pelosi's characterization, the new Act is a major improvement, which would have never happened if Trump wasn't president. I can't imagine Hillary negotiating anything that doesn't include "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.
I watched a youtube video that explained at least part of what the holdup is
NAFTA had a restriction on pharmaceutical patents of 12 years in the US, but only 5 years in Canada and mexico
so a drug company had the rights to that drug for that period of time before generics became available
obviously, the longer period favors the drug company because they can profit more
trump's USMCA had the limit at 10 years for Canada and mexico, and 12 years for the US
Pelosi at the last minute got it changed to ZERO years in Canada and mexico, meaning generics would be available immediately
Pelosi needed to release the news about USMCA for 2 reasons:
1 to show some news that the house was working on something other than impeachment
2 to give the dems in states that voted for trump something to show their constituents that they are helping with jobs. word was that these dems were threatening to vote no on impeachment, and this is the carrot for them to toe the party line.
I think it was the Huckabee video I posted yesterday that said them dems are talking about having a bunch of dems voting no, so that when it is only a handful, they can tout that as a victory...
-
I watched a youtube video that explained at least part of what the holdup is
NAFTA had a restriction on pharmaceutical patents of 12 years in the US, but only 5 years in Canada and mexico
so a drug company had the rights to that drug for that period of time before generics became available
obviously, the longer period favors the drug company because they can profit more
trump's USMCA had the limit at 10 years for Canada and mexico, and 12 years for the US
Pelosi at the last minute got it changed to ZERO years in Canada and mexico, meaning generics would be available immediately
Pelosi needed to release the news about USMCA for 2 reasons:
1 to show some news that the house was working on something other than impeachment
2 to give the dems in states that voted for trump something to show their constituents that they are helping with jobs. word was that these dems were threatening to vote no on impeachment, and this is the carrot for them to toe the party line.
I think it was the Huckabee video I posted yesterday that said them dems are talking about having a bunch of dems voting no, so that when it is only a handful, they can tout that as a victory...
and then right after Pelosi announced USMCA, she unveiled the healthcare bill that the house passed on party lines
my thought is that the republicans are holding up the senate vote on USMCA and going to use the zero year thing as a negotiating point against the healthcare bill
-
and then right after Pelosi announced USMCA, she unveiled the healthcare bill that the house passed on party lines
my thought is that the republicans are holding up the senate vote on USMCA and going to use the zero year thing as a negotiating point against the healthcare bill
Timing the passage of USMCA is important. There's a gov't funding bill needed by Dec 20 to either fund it for the remainder of the year through Oct 2020, or at a minimum another CSR (Continuing Spending Resolution) through February. If nothing gets done, we'd see a gov't shutdown less than a week before Christmas. Not a good situation for the Dems politically.
The second reason timing is important is the Senate MUST take up impeachment within 30 days of the articles being forwarded to them. While they are in "impeachment mode", the Senate is prohibited from taking up any other issues. Therefore, if there's no budget agreement/CSR before then, it can't be acted on until the impeachment trial ends. If the CSR runs out before the trial ends, they'll have to somehow call an emergency session to renew it assuming that's possible. Same is true for USMCA -- it sits until the trial ends.
While the Senate listens to the trial evidence, the Senators can't make any public statements. They must also be present in the chamber. That throws a wrench in the campaigns for Senators running for President: Booker Klobuchar, Warren and Sanders. So, for however long the trial goes on, two of the primary front runners will be off the campaign trail. Booker and Klobuchar could withdraw from the race using the trial as a factor even though they have little to no chance of winning.
That's a major reason Impeachment is being rushed. That, and the polls have been trending more and more against impeachment. If they wait too long, any support they have now will continue to erode.
-
Seems there is a defector in the ranks...
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036
-
Seems there is a defector in the ranks...
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036
If you look at the articles passed by the Judiciary Committee, they 100% abandoned a criminal impeachment and is instead forwarding articles outlining Constitutional violations only.
No quid pro quo.
No bribery.
No campaign finance law violations.
No obstruction of justice.
Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are all they can pretend to find.
There were 2 Dems voting against the impeachment inquiry. Jeff Van Drew was one.
I've seen 2 interviews with House Dems who won in Trump-supporting districts. They said their phones are ringing off the hook. One had to install a third line because they couldn't handle the volume of calls.
If that's indicative of the rest of the Trump-supporting districts, we might see enough Dems voting against the articles to avoid going to the Senate at all.
There are 31 Dem Representatives from Trump-supporting districts. Pelosi needs 17 of then to cross the impeachment hurdle, assuming the same number that voted for the inquiry remains the same.
That's about 55% chance of impeachment, 45% of it failing.
As bad as this sham is for the Dems already, I wonder if the Dems can't save a little dignity by stopping this crazy train before the Senate does.
How sad that the only 2 presidents impeached since 1869 will still be living if the House vote passes -- one for actually breaking the law, and one for trying to get to the bottom of the election interference HE was investigated for.
-
Oh no, it's happening.
(https://i.imgur.com/vVmitId.jpg)
-
In case anyone reading this missed the last 3 months of impeachment testimony in the House of Representatives, let me catch you up:
1. The Democrats want to impeach the President in order to protect the integrity of the 2020 election by overturning the results of the 2016 election;
2. There's no evidence Trump committed any crime, so the articles of impeachment are as broad as possible: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress;
3. The obstruction of Congress charge is based on Trump not handing over any evidence of crimes he's committed after cooperating for almost three years with the FBI and Mueller's investigations that found no evidence of any crime he's committed;
4. The FBI IG found that the FBI lied to the FISA court to continue trying to catch Trump committing a crime;
5. The Democrats refused to allow the Republicans or Trump's lawyers to participate fairly in the impeachment inquiry;
6. Now Chick Schumer is demanding his list of witnesses be allowed even before the articles have arrived in the Senate, totally tone deaf to the way the Democrats rammed the impeachment process through the House.
Most people have tuned this entire sham out, because the outcomes were guaranteed:
A. The House was going to vote to impeach no matter what the evidence showed, and
B. The Senate will vote to dismiss all charges. They only need 51 votes to do that. It'll never get to a vote to remove him from office, which needs 2/3rds of the Senate to do.
100% waste of our time, money and Congressional salaries. They've done little else other than try to take credit for some of Trump's achievements (USMCA). They haven't even been able to pass a budget ... again. We're facing a government shutdown this week because the House is too busy with "ORANGE MAN BAD" to do their actual jobs.
-
Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes POTUS
Pence selects Trump as his VP
Pence steps down and Trump is now POTUS again
Trump selects Pence as VP again
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
This is the first preemptive impeachment in history.
"We need to remove the President from office so he can't invite foreign interference in the 2020 Presidential election."
Right .. :wacko:
-
This is the first preemptive impeachment in history.
"We need to remove the President from office so he can't invite foreign interference in the 2020 Presidential election."
Right .. :wacko:
They are so worried about the foreign country interfering with the election in 2016 that one of the articles of impeachment is charging the president for asking the head of that same country to investigate the interference in our election in 2016. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
They are so worried about the foreign country interfering with the election in 2016 that one of the articles of impeachment is charging the president for asking the head of that same country to investigate the interference in our election in 2016. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I'd give anything for McConnell and the Senate GOP to pass the exact same rules the House used in their hoax hearings.
Then, when Crying Chuck Schumer runs to whine to the press about how unfair the rules are, McConnell can say where they came from!
:rofl:
-
So far, few if any in the news have drawn the line between the Mueller Report and the FBI IG Report.
Mueller testified he had no idea who Fusion GPS is.
The IG testified Fusion GPS was a central player in the Steele dossier and how the information was critical to getting warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, including FBI Agent Bruce Orr and his Fusion GPS Lawyer wife.
Mueller's team intentionally avoided all things related to the origins of the dossier to cover up the FISA abuses and the obvious connections to Clinton and the DNC.
Short story is Clinton, via her campaign and the DNC, commissioned opposition research on Trump from foreign sources, including Russians, which the FBI relied upon to defraud the FISA judges into rubber-stamping their surveillance warrants.
Everything that happened after that, including all prosecutions related to Trump's teams, should be overturned as "fruit of the poisonous tree".
I hope Durham's findings go there.
-
https://youtu.be/bZFH0eLIEpA
-
Trumps letter to Pelosi:
https://www.chicksonright.com/opinion/2019/12/17/read-trumps-letter-to-pelosi-its-one-for-the-history-books/?utm_source=mcotr
-
and then right after Pelosi announced USMCA, she unveiled the healthcare bill that the house passed on party lines
my thought is that the republicans are holding up the senate vote on USMCA and going to use the zero year thing as a negotiating point against the healthcare bill
They were talking about USMCA this morning in the context of how much work it takes to negotiate deals with countries. That Trump didn't really do anything substantial as he was only renegotiating terms of a previous agreement.
-
They were talking about USMCA this morning in the context of how much work it takes to negotiate deals with countries. That Trump didn't really do anything substantial as he was only renegotiating terms of a previous agreement.
That Trump didn’t do anything substantial is a liberal talking point. Technically speaking USMCA is similar to NAFTA. But the negotiating stronger terms that are more favorable to the US is harder than changing a few numbers on a contract. Trump deserves ALL of the credit for the tough fight we are in to get these countries to sign an agreement that basically takes money out of their pockets and like it. He is brutal when it comes to negotiating. Just look at China. Their economy is hurt bad by this fight we are in. And its not over. JMHO
-
That Trump didn’t do anything substantial is a liberal talking point. Technically speaking USMCA is similar to NAFTA. But the negotiating stronger terms that are more favorable to the US is harder than changing a few numbers on a contract. Trump deserves ALL of the credit for the tough fight we are in to get these countries to sign an agreement that basically takes money out of their pockets and like it. He is brutal when it comes to negotiating. Just look at China. Their economy is hurt bad by this fight we are in. And its not over. JMHO
trump deserves no credit because orange man bad
-
trump deserves no credit because orange man bad
I think he looks a little more burnt orange today. But that's just me. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Actually, I am quite sad today. This is due to the fact that the president will be impeached. If not today then tomorrow. But still I feel it is a sad day for us here in the US. When Billy Bob Clinton was impeached I was glad he was and I was happy he was not removed from office. I felt then, as I still do that it would have hurt the US more to remove him than it did by letting him serve the rest of his term. I felt Nixon should have been impeached and removed. But he left before that occurred. It is just so sad that our party politics has come down to this where one party feels like they have to make shit up and go thru the process of impeachment in order to remove a political rival whom they despise. What a shame our party politics has come down to this. Shameful. :'( :'( :'(
-
That Trump didn’t do anything substantial is a liberal talking point. Technically speaking USMCA is similar to NAFTA. But the negotiating stronger terms that are more favorable to the US is harder than changing a few numbers on a contract. Trump deserves ALL of the credit for the tough fight we are in to get these countries to sign an agreement that basically takes money out of their pockets and like it. He is brutal when it comes to negotiating. Just look at China. Their economy is hurt bad by this fight we are in. And its not over. JMHO
The discussion was on NPR’s Morning sedition, so yeah, it was definitely from a biased viewpoint and spreading of opinion as “fact”. I’m sure we’ll see/hear more of that.
And don’t let the blue solo cups fool you. :P
I don’t know all of the details of the negotiation for USMCA, but analysts have broken down some of Trump’s past tactics and laid out the method to his madness. Not quite shock and awe, but strong negotiation. As it turns out in many cases, seemingly China included IMO as well, has appeared to be effective.
trump deserves no credit because orange man bad
You’re just jealous of his hair ;D
-
You’re just jealous of his hair ;D
heads
-
The discussion was on NPR’s Morning sedition, so yeah, it was definitely from a biased viewpoint and spreading of opinion as “fact”. I’m sure we’ll see/hear more of that.
morning sedition is about right...
-
morning sedition is about right...
Clips
-
The discussion was on NPR’s Morning sedition, so yeah, it was definitely from a biased viewpoint and spreading of opinion as “fact”. I’m sure we’ll see/hear more of that.
What they are saying about the 2 agreements being similar but with different numbers is not that far off except there is a lot more that they are not saying. In the USMCA are protections for the US (some of which are in NAFTA) but in the USMCA they are not only more comprehensive, they are much more specific, there are a lot more of them, but the biggie is that they are enforceable. There are no provisions in NAFTA to successfully enforce the weak protections that are in there. That is HUGE. But of course he doesn't get credit for it. Lying by omission is still lying.
Also, even tho the numbers have changed, some of those numbers are going to hurt the economies of China mostly and Mexico to some extent and of course, Canada. It forces them to pay minimum wages to workers in factories owned by American companies and in factories that make products for the American markets. Combine this with the enforcement protections written into the agreements and that is going to make American companies think twice before they build new factories in or buy from factories in those countries. Especially since the corporate tax liabilities have been reduced in America. Combine those and you have American companies bringing back manufacturing to the US and protections for those factory workers in the other countries. No more child labor and 15 cents/hour wages for making Nikes without being able to have some recourse.
And don’t let the blue solo cups fool you. :P
RINO!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don’t know all of the details of the negotiation for USMCA, but analysts have broken down some of Trump’s past tactics and laid out the method to his madness. Not quite shock and awe, but strong negotiation. As it turns out in many cases, seemingly China included IMO as well, has appeared to be effective.
Yes, the tariffs on China and threats of tariffs to Canada and Mexico have been VERY effective. But even more so is his standing firm and negotiating from a place of power. VERY VERY EFFECTIVE. Everyone knows he means what he says. That is REAL power.
You’re just jealous of his hair ;D
You are right. :o :o :o
-
What they are saying about the 2 agreements being similar but with different numbers is not that far off except there is a lot more that they are not saying. In the USMCA are protections for the US (some of which are in NAFTA) but in the USMCA they are not only more comprehensive, they are much more specific, there are a lot more of them, but the biggie is that they are enforceable. There are no provisions in NAFTA to successfully enforce the weak protections that are in there. That is HUGE. But of course he doesn't get credit for it. Lying by omission is still lying.
Also, even tho the numbers have changed, some of those numbers are going to hurt the economies of China mostly and Mexico to some extent and of course, Canada. It forces them to pay minimum wages to workers in factories owned by American companies and in factories that make products for the American markets. Combine this with the enforcement protections written into the agreements and that is going to make American companies think twice before they build new factories in or buy from factories in those countries. Especially since the corporate tax liabilities have been reduced in America. Combine those and you have American companies bringing back manufacturing to the US and protections for those factory workers in the other countries. No more child labor and 15 cents/hour wages for making Nikes without being able to have some recourse.
RINO!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yes, the tariffs on China and threats of tariffs to Canada and Mexico have been VERY effective. But even more so is his standing firm and negotiating from a place of power. VERY VERY EFFECTIVE. Everyone knows he means what he says. That is REAL power.
You are right. :o :o :o
Someone is wide awake this morning!
I’ll get there... 😜
-
Someone is wide awake this morning!
I’ll get there... 😜
Hurry up!!! The caffeine is wearing off!!! :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
Hurry up!!! The caffeine is wearing off!!! :shake: :shake: :shake:
Up the dosage.
-
Up the dosage.
More amps
-
OMG listening to San Fran Nans opening statement and about to gag. She talks about God, defending the Constitution and the Republic. So many things I could say, but instead I just hang my head and want to cry.
-
OMG listening to San Fran Nans opening statement and about to gag. She talks about God, defending the Constitution and the Republic. So many things I could say, but instead I just hang my head and want to cry.
I heard another Dem rant about oath to defend the constitution and I wanted to 🤮
-
OMG listening to San Fran Nans opening statement and about to gag. She talks about God, defending the Constitution and the Republic. So many things I could say, but instead I just hang my head and want to cry.
she wearing black because she's in mourning
I wish I was joking...
-
she wearing black because she's in mourning
I wish I was joking...
I wish you were too....
-
She should be worrying about this instead...
Don't lose your lunch....
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image001.png)
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image002.png)
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image003.png)
-
Listened to about 20 mins of coverage on my way to get lunch. Logic and facts vs emotion and allegations... 🤮
-
And enough of the stupid gentleman, gentlewoman, gentle lady bullshit...
-
Actually, I am quite sad today. This is due to the fact that the president will be impeached. If not today then tomorrow. But still I feel it is a sad day for us here in the US. When Billy Bob Clinton was impeached I was glad he was and I was happy he was not removed from office. I felt then, as I still do that it would have hurt the US more to remove him than it did by letting him serve the rest of his term. I felt Nixon should have been impeached and removed. But he left before that occurred. It is just so sad that our party politics has come down to this where one party feels like they have to make shit up and go thru the process of impeachment in order to remove a political rival whom they despise. What a shame our party politics has come down to this. Shameful. :'( :'( :'(
The silver lining is that while Nixon resigned before the official impeachment, and Clinton was tried and acquitted with a less-than-two-thirds vote to convict, Trump will be vindicated with a complete dismissal of charges before the trial progresses beyond opening statements.
With no Republicans in the House voting to impeach, the Senate has a duty to shut this Schiff Show down ASAP. If there was "overwhelming evidence" as the Dems keep parroting, at least ONE Republican would side with them. Instead, a few Dems have come over to the Republican side to vote against this debacle.
Just like any judge would do when the prosecutor files bogus charges, the Senate should move to dismiss at their first opportunity. No sense in wasting the country's time in yet another tax-funded venue to scream "Orange Man Bad!!"
I can't wait for the Durham criminal investigation to wrap up. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
She should be worrying about this instead...
Don't lose your lunch....
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image001.png)
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image002.png)
(https://www.kron4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/12/image003.png)
Maybe he asked to use the commode, and they said no. So really, its on them at that point.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Maybe he asked to use the commode, and they said no. So really, its on them at that point.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
According to witnesses, he walked (stumbled) in, went straight to the toilet paper aisle, opened a pack, and did his business. He was suspected to be intoxicated/high when he came in.
Is it your position that if I don't offer public restrooms in my business, it's my fault if someone defecates on my floor? Really? Human waste is considered a biohazard. Are you willing to clean it up if it happens every day?
-
:stopjack:
And the House impeached Trump. . . :o
Tulsi a "present"
Three Dems voted no
-
Maybe he asked to use the commode, and they said no. So really, its on them at that point.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
LOL :rofl: :rofl:
-
The silver lining is that while Nixon resigned before the official impeachment, and Clinton was tried and acquitted with a less-than-two-thirds vote to convict, Trump will be vindicated with a complete dismissal of charges before the trial progresses beyond opening statements.
With no Republicans in the House voting to impeach, the Senate has a duty to shut this Schiff Show down ASAP. If there was "overwhelming evidence" as the Dems keep parroting, at least ONE Republican would side with them. Instead, a few Dems have come over to the Republican side to vote against this debacle.
Just like any judge would do when the prosecutor files bogus charges, the Senate should move to dismiss at their first opportunity. No sense in wasting the country's time in yet another tax-funded venue to scream "Orange Man Bad!!"
I can't wait for the Durham criminal investigation to wrap up. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
My understanding is that Trump would prefer acquittal over dismissal. And I think McConnell agrees with that route as long as he has 51 votes to do it. Dismissing is easier and shorter but Acquittal can come shortly after the trial gets started but before anything evidentiary would be presented. And acquittal means more in the process. We’ll see how it plays out. My understanding is that the Senate has some obligation to go to trial without dismissal tho I am not too sure about that.
Durham criminal investigation probably won’t wrap up until right before the elections next year. Politically speaking sort of a bad time. At the same time if they wait, Trump could theoretically lose the election and then any indictments brought might be snubbed and for naught if he does lose. I think the best scenario would be to wrap it up right after Trump wins so the Dems can’t claim that Barr is working to elect Trump by releasing the report right before the elections. Let’s face it, Biden could easily be the Dems pick and if they release indictments right before the election it would look like Nazi Germany to those low information voters and would give the press and Dems fodder to claim Trump is truly a Nazi and here is the proof. Impeach orange man, again, and again, again, and again.......
-
My understanding is that Trump would prefer acquittal over dismissal. And I think McConnell agrees with that route as long as he has 51 votes to do it. Dismissing is easier and shorter but Acquittal can come shortly after the trial gets started but before anything evidentiary would be presented. And acquittal means more in the process. We’ll see how it plays out. My understanding is that the Senate has some obligation to go to trial without dismissal tho I am not too sure about that.
Durham criminal investigation probably won’t wrap up until right before the elections next year. Politically speaking sort of a bad time. At the same time if they wait, Trump could theoretically lose the election and then any indictments brought might be snubbed and for naught if he does lose. I think the best scenario would be to wrap it up right after Trump wins so the Dems can’t claim that Barr is working to elect Trump by releasing the report right before the elections. Let’s face it, Biden could easily be the Dems pick and if they release indictments right before the election it would look like Nazi Germany to those low information voters and would give the press and Dems fodder to claim Trump is truly a Nazi and here is the proof. Impeach orange man, again, and again, again, and again.......
Nah. The Pelosi Pause is the play :facepalm:
-
Nah. The Pelosi Pause is the play :facepalm:
Yes, I read that this morning. Some hack writer brought this up as how the Dems should play this. My guess is that she won’t do that but who knows with these people. TDS effects everyone differently. If she does play it this way I think it backfires on them even more than this impeachment has. Even tho the writer made it sound like that the Dems would hold power over the Senate/Repubs, I think it will make the Dems look more like the spoiled little children that they already are. I think the Dems base want to see a trial in the Senate. But you may be right, she might run the pause play. We should know in the next couple of days I would think.
-
When Pelosi read the vote results impeaching Trump, a good many on the Dem side of the chamber started clapping and cheering.
Pelosi gave them the evil eye and made a "cut it out" gesture.
So much for "this is a solemn and sad decision" the Dems have been parroting.
We all know better. They've been screaming at the sky for 3 years. They finally have Trump where they wanted him.
Such f**king liars and hypocrites. How anybody watching stays with that Socialist Party is beyond comprehension. The only thing I can figure out is they all have the same unscrupulous desire to have their people in power at any cost.
-
When Pelosi read the vote results impeaching Trump, a good many on the Dem side of the chamber started clapping and cheering.
Pelosi gave them the evil eye and made a "cut it out" gesture.
So much for "this is a solemn and sad decision" the Dems have been parroting.
We all know better. They've been screaming at the sky for 3 years. They finally have Trump where they wanted him.
Such f**king liars and hypocrites. How anybody watching stays with that Socialist Party is beyond comprehension. The only thing I can figure out is they all have the same unscrupulous desire to have their people in power at any cost.
How else do you expect them to win? Honesty? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Yes, I read that this morning. Some hack writer brought this up as how the Dems should play this. My guess is that she won’t do that but who knows with these people. TDS effects everyone differently. If she does play it this way I think it backfires on them even more than this impeachment has. Even tho the writer made it sound like that the Dems would hold power over the Senate/Repubs, I think it will make the Dems look more like the spoiled little children that they already are. I think the Dems base want to see a trial in the Senate. But you may be right, she might run the pause play. We should know in the next couple of days I would think.
Personally I think, or maybe I’m hoping, it’s really a no win situational this point for her. Went down this path so far and didn’t quite get the effect I think they were looking for. But now too late to go back. Talked all that shit while making her way up to the top of Waimea rock. Now at the edge and go time, but water looking shallow. Jump, maybe hit bottom and disaster. Back out, other consequences.
-
How else do you expect them to win? Honesty? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Trump may not be the first President to be impeached and (soon-to-be) acquitted/have articles dismissed, but he's the first to be impeached in his first term.
That sets him up to be the first impeached President to be reelected!! :geekdanc:
WINNING!! :thumbsup:
I can't wait until the day after the 2020 elections. The Socialist Progressive losers will have backed another nominee who can't beat Trump -- even AFTER they impeached him! LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Personally I think, or maybe I’m hoping, it’s really a no win situational this point for her. Went down this path so far and didn’t quite get the effect I think they were looking for. But now too late to go back. Talked all that shit while making her way up to the top of Waimea rock. Now at the edge and go time, but water looking shallow. Jump, maybe hit bottom and disaster. Back out, other consequences.
I believe that it is already a no win situation for them. I think they are grasping at straws at this point. They are desperate. And it shows IMO. In the end, it may not even matter which path they take. I think this has backfired on them. And hopefully it will show how much it backfired at the polls next year. I think it is too much to ask that we get the house back. It probably won’t happen. It may but I think it is a long hard climb that a lot of good things have to happen all at once and I doubt that much good will happen. If it does and we get the house back, it will mean the Dems lost BIG. They hopefully will lose big no matter which way the house goes. Now if we win back a bunch of seats in the house in 2020 but not control, I do see a path to gain it back in 2022.
I think we will hold on to the senate. I think we are going to continue to see these shenanigans until at least 2022 - 2024.
-
SNIP
I can't wait until the day after the 2020 elections. The Socialist Progressive losers will have backed another nominee who can't beat Trump -- even AFTER they impeached him! LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Didn’t they promise revolution 😳
But seriously, more and more are starting to see how radical that “band” of people have become. Look who are keeping somewhat of a low profile these days and not being so blatant about their radical ideals. Even many Dems pointing that out.
-
I believe that it is already a no win situation for them. I think they are grasping at straws at this point. They are desperate. And it shows IMO. In the end, it may not even matter which path they take. I think this has backfired on them. And hopefully it will show how much it backfired at the polls next year. I think it is too much to ask that we get the house back. It probably won’t happen. It may but I think it is a long hard climb that a lot of good things have to happen all at once and I doubt that much good will happen. If it does and we get the house back, it will mean the Dems lost BIG. They hopefully will lose big no matter which way the house goes. Now if we win back a bunch of seats in the house in 2020 but not control, I do see a path to gain it back in 2022.
I think we will hold on to the senate. I think we are going to continue to see these shenanigans until at least 2022 - 2024.
I thin and hope so too. I am just wondering how much folks listened and ate up the crap the Dems were shoveling today. It really was 🤮🤮🤮
-
I thin and hope so too. I am just wondering how much folks listened and ate up the crap the Dems were shoveling today. It really was 🤮🤮🤮
thin?
-
Trump may not be the first President to be impeached and (soon-to-be) acquitted/have articles dismissed, but he's the first to be impeached in his first term.
That sets him up to be the first impeached President to be reelected!! :geekdanc:
WINNING!! :thumbsup:
I can't wait until the day after the 2020 elections. The Socialist Progressive losers will have backed another nominee who can't beat Trump -- even AFTER they impeached him! LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Listening to Ben Shapiro podcast this morning, he was saying that Bernie is gaining on Biden and almost in a dead heat (Warren is falling off) and it could easily be Bernie vs Trump next year. He was laughing and making fun of him. The voice he makes imitating Bernie is hilarious. Can you imagine all the hate Bernie spews against all the positive things Trump stands for. It could be Trump trumps hate in the next election. From my own perspective Bernie’s health is in play. Just his having a heart issue not too long ago is enough to keep me from voting for him (Not that I would anyway). At least Trump is relatively healthy eating McDonalds and drinking Diet Coke.
-
thin?
An interesting take on the democrat games being played:
"As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place."
So they voted for a impeachment inquiry, not to impeach and send to the Senate. So this really is NOT a impeachment, only approving a investigation.
Not that most of the MSM and Democrats care. Then they get to impeach him several times until he is actually impeached."
As if the traitorous bastards have not "investigated" enough after three years+.
-
Pelosi said tonight that she may not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
She said she will hold them until she knows what the Senate rules will be. :wtf:
If I were McConnell, I'd make the rules so lopsided for Trump that Pelosi decides not to forward them. That'll really put the cherry on this crap sundae! If she doesn't forward the articles, it proves what a sham circus this Schiff Show was from the start.
-
thin?
ThinK
-
Pelosi said tonight that she may not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
She said she will hold them until she knows what the Senate rules will be. :wtf:
If I were McConnell, I'd make the rules so lopsided for Trump that Pelosi decides not to forward them. That'll really put the cherry on this crap sundae! If she doesn't forward the articles, it proves what a sham circus this Schiff Show was from the start.
can they even make the rules if they don't have the articles?
lol
heads
-
Side note, Tulsi is getting slammed on HNN article on her “present” vote.
There are come classic comments too. There’s even this one chick that is vowing to “campaign against” her father! Because they don’t like Tulsi. That’s some logic there. 🤦🏻♂️
-
Side note, Tulsi is getting slammed on HNN article on her “present” vote.
There are come classic comments too. There’s even this one chick that is vowing to “campaign against” her father! Because they don’t like Tulsi. That’s some logic there. 🤦🏻♂️
they are WAYCIST das Y!
anyways, another local for impeaching Trump
https://www.kitv.com/story/41473026/senator-kai-kahele-issues-statement-regarding-vote-to-impeach-president-trump (https://www.kitv.com/story/41473026/senator-kai-kahele-issues-statement-regarding-vote-to-impeach-president-trump)
“As someone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States both as a lieutenant colonel in the Hawai'i Air National Guard and as an elected official, I understand the heavy burden and responsibility placed on public servants who are entrusted to protect the core pillars of our democracy. Instead of draining the swamp, President Donald Trump’s corrupt actions have eroded the public’s trust in our government.
like Rush's take on LTC Vindman..."Oh say can you see...." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
ThinK
foKus
-
they are WAYCIST das Y!
anyways, another local for impeaching Trump
https://www.kitv.com/story/41473026/senator-kai-kahele-issues-statement-regarding-vote-to-impeach-president-trump (https://www.kitv.com/story/41473026/senator-kai-kahele-issues-statement-regarding-vote-to-impeach-president-trump)
“As someone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States both as a lieutenant colonel in the Hawai'i Air National Guard and as an elected official, I understand the heavy burden and responsibility placed on public servants who are entrusted to protect the core pillars of our democracy. Instead of draining the swamp, President Donald Trump’s corrupt actions have eroded the public’s trust in our government.
like Rush's take on LTC Vindman..."Oh say can you see...." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Bwahahahah! This impeachment, along with the entire Mueller/Ukraine BS investigations, are a direct result of Trump draining the swamp.
Does LtC Kai Kahele think if Clinton were to have won, the FISA abuses and FBI corruption would have ever been exposed?
Even the FISA court is trying to cover its ass by blasting the FBI for lying and omitting exculpatory info from their applications.
In fact, the FISC was notified in Feb 2018 by Devin Nunes that the FISA warrants on Carter Page were based on fabrications and misinformation, and it would be prudent to review all FBI FISA warrants to see if this is a systemic pattern of behavior.
Now the FISC is acting like, "Oh, my! The IG made us aware of problems with the FBI. We must hold the FBI accountable and make sure this can't happen again!"
Swamp critters never take responsibility. They just ask for more money to fix problems they themselves caused -- often intentionally.
-
https://youtu.be/UI-2jlSMVyA?t=120
-
Conway reacts to Pelosi's threat to stall Senate impeachment trial
https://youtu.be/ByKZ_-r3P-c
-
Tulsi said she voted present because she couldn't vote "no" -- she said the president is "guilty of wrongdoing"; and she couldn't vote "yes" -- she said the bipartisan process further divides the country.
What she didn't elaborate on is whether the president is guilty of THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, namely "Abuse of Power" and "Contempt of Congress."
There are House members giving speeches about "all the other bad things the orange man did before Ukraine", like "ripping babies from their mothers' arms", attacking the press, etc. It's like listening to a wife of 20 years going through a divorce and listing every single thing the husband did for 20 years that made her mad. none of it has anything to do with the actual impeachment "crimes".
In fact, some are saying the only thing they fear is that he's going to "cheat in the 2020 election using foreign interference." Isn't that like Minority Report?
"Trump didn't break a law, yet. But we KNOW he's going to UNLESS WE STOP HIM!!!!" :shake:
-
The Trump campaign just announced they raised $5Million yesterday, the day of Trump’s impeachment.
Winning :thumbsup:
-
The Trump campaign just announced they raised $5Million yesterday, the day of Trump’s impeachment.
Winning :thumbsup:
Waiting for Bloomberg to go on CNN and scoff at Trump's fund raising.
If anyone has a "grassroots" campaign, it's Trump -- based on the number of small, individual donors giving to him and the GOP.
-
Waiting for Bloomberg to go on CNN and scoff at Trump's fund raising.
If anyone has a "grassroots" campaign, it's Trump -- based on the number of small, individual donors giving to him and the GOP.
Just got a my pillow cause he didnt cave to sjw's when he was blasted by the media.
Use promo code kssk for bogo free.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilDj1JcdpVE
-
Interesting article from Bloomberg.
Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
Which means that technically, Trump has NOT been impeached!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Just got a my pillow cause he didnt cave to sjw's when he was blasted by the media.
Use promo code kssk for bogo free.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I have had a My Pillow for 2 years now. Love it! Also wash it regularly. It’s great!
-
I have had a My Pillow for 2 years now. Love it! Also wash it regularly. It’s great!
Don't forget your binky. . . :rofl:
-
Don't forget your binky. . . :rofl:
Heads
-
Enjoy!!!
-
:rofl:
-
Happy Anniversary Mr. President and Mrs. Not My President
(https://scontent.fslc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79480699_1273745682831464_3299684517224120320_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=csJ_bPBKk_sAQkqTE7OGV3Icr2HyyNj4JVYHgmqoxqO1LtgUKj37NtKTA&_nc_ht=scontent.fslc2-1.fna&oh=100c868484ca977cf23e1c8cb939a597&oe=5E6629EC)
-
Sounds like McConnell and Trump are calling Pelosi's bluff.
Trump said he wants a YUUUUGE list of witnesses called, and he wants the trial to start immediately.
So, the ball is in her court. Reminds me of a student who didn't study for a final exam. She's looking for any excuse to delay the inevitable.
She said the Dems want to call more witnesses, including those who took their Congressional subpoenas to court. NOW Nancy is saying she might wait to see what the court rules before forwarding the articles of impeachment.
LOL!! She rammed this thing through before Christmas with no desire to involve the courts. If the witnesses are so important, (1) they would have waited for the courts before passing articles of impeachment, and (2) she's admitting her case against Trump is so weak they need more fact-finding to prop it up.
Sham process. Thin evidence. Partisan bullcrap waste of time and money.
All to cover up the real crimes by the Dems, and because they know they can't beat Trump at the ballot box.
Nancy and the House Dems just handed a majority win to the GOP.
-
She threw crap up on the wall and it stuck. For now. They ware maximizing the “crap time”.
-
Pelosi looking to swing votes b4 she submits. Her team needs time to find stuff for blackmail.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Pelosi looking to swing votes b4 she submits. Her team needs time to find stuff for blackmail.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Pelosi: I'm not going to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate until I'm satisfied the trial process will be fair.
McConnell: No problem. We have better things to do.
Trump: Thanks for proving what a sham the entire inquiry was.
So, Nancy thinks she gets to dictate to the Senate majority leader how to run their Constitutionally directed impeachment hearings? LOL! Maybe she didn't read far enough ahead to realize she would have to let the Senate try the case? "We have to impeach President Trump before we decide what to do after the House votes on it."
I must have missed the part of the House hearings where Nancy let McConnell tell her what to do.
-
Pelosi: I'm not going to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate until I'm satisfied the trial process will be fair.
McConnell: No problem. We have better things to do.
Trump: Thanks for proving what a sham the entire inquiry was.
So, Nancy thinks she gets to dictate to the Senate majority leader how to run their Constitutionally directed impeachment hearings? LOL! Maybe she didn't read far enough ahead to realize she would have to let the Senate try the case? "We have to impeach President Trump before we decide what to do after the House votes on it."
I must have missed the part of the House hearings where Nancy let McConnell tell her what to do.
I think McConnell said how can Pelosi hold the articles over his head when he doesn’t want them. :rofl:
I was listening to the council for the president this morning. They agree with the Harvard Law Professor that was a main witness for the Dems for impeachment that said if Pelosi doesn’t deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the House process has not been completed and therefore Trump has technically not been impeached. But they also brought up another tact McConnell can take. And that is to go forward with the trial. Even if the articles never get delivered. He should invite Pelosi to deliver the articles and send over her managers and make the trial completely open to the House to participate in. Apparently, there is nothing that says the articles have to be delivered to the Senate in order for the senate to have the trial. The President wants his day in court so he is acquitted.
-
I think McConnell said how can Pelosi hold the articles over his head when he doesn’t want them. :rofl:
I was listening to the council for the president this morning. They agree with the Harvard Law Professor that was a main witness for the Dems for impeachment that said if Pelosi doesn’t deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the House process has not been completed and therefore Trump has technically not been impeached. But they also brought up another tact McConnell can take. And that is to go forward with the trial. Even if the articles never get delivered. He should invite Pelosi to deliver the articles and send over her managers and make the trial completely open to the House to participate in. Apparently, there is nothing that says the articles have to be delivered to the Senate in order for the senate to have the trial. The President wants his day in court so he is acquitted.
Yeah, McConnell invoked Uncle Remus' Br'er Rabbit, referring to the "brier patch".
"Oh no! Don't hold onto those Articles of Impeachment, Ms. Pelosi! That's the last thing we'd ever want you to do!"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Based on my understanding of the Nixon situation, he was never officially impeached, because the House didn't deliver the articles they drafted to the Senate, either. In fact, they stopped the process 2 weeks after Nixon announced his resignation which prevented the full House from voting on the articles.
This is like a prosecutor not filing charges after a grand jury votes to indict a suspect. He's not indicted until the charges are filed with the court.
In the Trump case, the Senate is the court, Pelosi is the prosecutor, and the House is the grand jury.
That's how I see it, anyway.
-
Yeah, McConnell invoked Uncle Remus' Br'er Rabbit, referring to the "brier patch".
"Oh no! Don't hold onto those Articles of Impeachment, Ms. Pelosi! That's the last thing we'd ever want you to do!"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Based on my understanding of the Nixon situation, he was never officially impeached, because the House didn't deliver the articles they drafted to the Senate, either. In fact, they stopped the process 2 weeks after Nixon announced his resignation which prevented the full House from voting on the articles.
This is like a prosecutor not filing charges after a grand jury votes to indict a suspect. He's not indicted until the charges are filed with the court.
In the Trump case, the Senate is the court, Pelosi is the prosecutor, and the House is the grand jury.
That's how I see it, anyway.
What I find interesting is that the constitutional lawyers all seem to agree that Pelosi has not completed the House’s impeachment process by not transmitting the articles to the Senate. And that until she does, Trump is not impeached. Those who are merely just lawyers seem to think it doesn’t matter if she transmits the articles or not, he is impeached. It is so hard to get most of the constitutional lawyers to all agree. Especially considering the bias in DC seems to influence their interpretation of the constitution. An opinion piece on Fox News today theorized Pelosi is doing this on purpose just to make Trump mad. If true, she is doing a good job. Trump is a proud man. He feels this is a black mark on his presidency. Which is why he wants his day in court and get an acquittal. Then I heard on the radio on the way home that Pelosi extended an invitation to Trump to give the State of the Union Address in the House this year. Go figure. [/facepalm]
-
What I find interesting is that the constitutional lawyers all seem to agree that Pelosi has not completed the House’s impeachment process by not transmitting the articles to the Senate. And that until she does, Trump is not impeached. Those who are merely just lawyers seem to think it doesn’t matter if she transmits the articles or not, he is impeached. It is so hard to get most of the constitutional lawyers to all agree. Especially considering the bias in DC seems to influence their interpretation of the constitution. An opinion piece on Fox News today theorized Pelosi is doing this on purpose just to make Trump mad. If true, she is doing a good job. Trump is a proud man. He feels this is a black mark on his presidency. Which is why he wants his day in court and get an acquittal. Then I heard on the radio on the way home that Pelosi extended an invitation to Trump to give the State of the Union Address in the House this year. Go figure. [/facepalm]
She did the invitation as a matter of tradition and protocol. She invited him last year, then withdrew it when the Gov't was shutdown over budget squabbles.
In response, Trump canceled her flight to Afghanistan at the last minute after she'd already left for the air field! LOL!
I don't think she purposely tried to make him mad. I think she never wanted to impeach, but did it because Schiff promised he could nail Trump with the non-whistle blower complaint. Had she waited to read the transcript -- just a day or so later -- I don't think this goat rodeo would have been allowed.
She made a strategic error by not anticipating Trump releasing the real transcript. He's playing chess while the Dems are playing musical chairs. :rofl:
-
I've been trying since last night to figure out Pelosi's strategy. She's been in this DC swamp far too long to not have a plan for something as big as impeachment.
1. The Senate has a Republican majority, which is enough votes to quash any impeachment with a simple motion to dismiss. No need to worry about a 2/3 vote to convict/remove.
2. The case against Trump is paper thin. Not one Republican voted to impeach, as she must have known would happen.
3. Several Dems voted against the articles of impeachment, and in Tulsi's case, one vote was withheld from the passing total. Again, she had to have known this was going to happen. That's the job of the Party Whip -- to ensure there are no surprises when a vote is called.
4. If the case goes to the Senate, not only will Trump have a 99% chance of being acquitted, but any additional witnesses Trump's defense team calls could make the Dems look worse or even bring out the truth about Hunter Biden's association with both Ukraine and China, the 2 countries Obama appointed VP Biden to handle. Coincidence? I think not.
So, how does she impeach Trump but avoid the embarrassment of a sham impeachment and public airing of Biden's dirty laundry?
Answer: Drag Trump's name through the mud, pass the articles of impeachment, but don't present them to the Senate. She gives her Trump-hating supporters what they wanted, but avoids the humiliation of trying to defend it in a trial. When asked why she didn't go trial, she can say, "The trial is rigged by the majority in the Senate. Since I knew we couldn't win there, we decided to not give Trump the opportunity to unfairly beat the charges."
She believes she can have her cake and eat it, too.
I'm starting to wonder if she can't be accused of vetoing a House vote which might be an abuse of her power and obstruction of Congress. :rofl:
-
Don’t if this is real or not, but...
-
Don’t if this is real or not, but...
That letter is a fake.
But this one is real .....
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/uz9NF92.png)
-
That letter is a fake.
But this one is real .....
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/uz9NF92.png)
Yeah, pretty sure the one I posted was not real. I posted cuz it is funny! 😆
-
Pelosi: I'm not going to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate until I'm satisfied the trial process will be fair.
McConnell: No problem. We have better things to do.
Trump: Thanks for proving what a sham the entire inquiry was.
So, Nancy thinks she gets to dictate to the Senate majority leader how to run their Constitutionally directed impeachment hearings? LOL! Maybe she didn't read far enough ahead to realize she would have to let the Senate try the case? "We have to impeach President Trump before we decide what to do after the House votes on it."
I must have missed the part of the House hearings where Nancy let McConnell tell her what to do.
It could be political angling. By not sending it through to the senate then there is never a trial and Trump never gets to call his witnesses or make his arguments.
-
It could be political angling. By not sending it through to the senate then there is never a trial and Trump never gets to call his witnesses or make his arguments.
The Constitution is clear.
Impeachment is a process run by CONGRESS -- i.e. BOTH CHAMBERS.
It is not a "whim" the House can use to smear their political foes without at least the most basic of evidence and facts to see it through to a trial.
The HOUSE passed the articles of impeachment. Now the speaker is abusing her power by overriding the legitimate (albeit partisan) vote of the House of Representatives.
The SENATE was created to ensure the HOUSE did not abuse its power. The founders were afraid a Congress of only representatives could do anything they wished, even subvert the Constitution, unless there was a Senate designed to protect the nation and the Constitution. That's why there are 2 Senators from each state. They do not represent the "will of the people" as the House does. They are a "stop gap measure" to oversee the bills and resolutions passed in the House.
I'm sure Nancy has political reasons for her actions, but at some point, she and her party will need to show their hands when McConnell calls their bluff.
-
The Constitution is clear.
Impeachment is a process run by CONGRESS -- i.e. BOTH CHAMBERS.
It is not a "whim" the House can use to smear their political foes without at least the most basic of evidence and facts to see it through to a trial.
The HOUSE passed the articles of impeachment. Now the speaker is abusing her power by overriding the legitimate (albeit partisan) vote of the House of Representatives.
The SENATE was created to ensure the HOUSE did not abuse its power. The founders were afraid a Congress of only representatives could do anything they wished, even subvert the Constitution, unless there was a Senate designed to protect the nation and the Constitution. That's why there are 2 Senators from each state. They do not represent the "will of the people" as the House does. They are a "stop gap measure" to oversee the bills and resolutions passed in the House.
I'm sure Nancy has political reasons for her actions, but at some point, she and her party will need to show their hands when McConnell calls their bluff.
Impeachment votes have always been partisan. In the history of presidential impeachments no person of the same party of the president has ever voted for impeachment.
Mitch Moconnell has already said he won't be an impartial juror even though the oath he will have to take says he will be one so there is reason for Nancy to not trust the Senate to do their job properly. McConnell hardly has any high ground over Nancy if he is refusing to do his job correctly either.
Personally I don't agree with a decision to withhold transferring it to the house. I don't know if that play will work well for them but on principle I think she should send it to the senate.
-
It could be political angling. By not sending it through to the senate then there is never a trial and Trump never gets to call his witnesses or make his arguments.
Pelosi has already harpooned at least three of the Democrat impeachment lies:
1. We need to get impeachment passed in the House as quickly as possible. Trump is a national security threat and is trying to interfere in the 2020 election. We can't wait for the courts to rule on Congressional subpoenas. We'll just rule on that ourselves and call it "Contempt of Congress."
Now, Pelosi is slow walking impeachment after getting almost all the Dems to vote for it -- whether they wanted to or not. January is the deadline for primary candidates to declare. Nancy was threatening anyone who was in a Trump 2016 district with "being primaried" if they voted against impeachment. Had this not gone to a vote before January, she would lose that "stick".
I guess this matter wasn't so urgent after all.
2. Trump is in contempt of Congress for not turning over subpoenaed documents and telling subpoenaed staffers to not testify. Some did testify while others asked to courts to decide if Executive Privilege applies. As I said, the speaker decided not to wait for the courts.
Now that the articles are in hand, Nancy wants to call at least two of the witnesses who asked the courts to decide if they have to appear. All of a sudden, Nancy says we may have to wait for the courts. Really? If that testimony is so important, then why did she refuse to wait before the vote? (see #1 above for a clue)
3. For over a month, we've heard that the evidence to impeach and remove President Trump is overwhelming, compelling and undisputed. Forget the fact that their own witnesses disputed the evidence. If the case is so overwhelming, why do they feel they need to call more witnesses in the trial at all? They can't have it both ways. Either they already reached the standard for impeachment and removal from office when they voted, or they voted for impeachment based on a weak set of facts. It can't be both.
This whole thing is giving Kabuki Theater a bad name.
-
Impeachment votes have always been partisan. In the history of presidential impeachments no person of the same party of the president has ever voted for impeachment.
Mitch Moconnell has already said he won't be an impartial juror even though the oath he will have to take says he will be one so there is reason for Nancy to not trust the Senate to do their job properly. McConnell hardly has any high ground over Nancy if he is refusing to do his job correctly either.
Personally I don't agree with a decision to withhold transferring it to the house. I don't know if that play will work well for them but on principle I think she should send it to the senate.
Source?
The Republican controlled House of Representatives decided with a bipartisan vote of 258–176 (31 Democrats joined Republicans)
to commence impeachment proceedings against Clinton on October 8, 1998.
Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the
House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote; 223-5 R, 5-200 D,
0-1 independent)[26] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote; 216-12 R, 5-199 D, 0-1 independent).[27] Two other
articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[28] and one accusing Clinton
of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[29] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached;[30][31] the first was
President Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868. He is also the third president against whom articles of impeachment have
been brought before the full House (the second having been Richard Nixon in 1974).
The vote to open the Clinton inquiry was NOT partisan, and the fact the articles voted on by the House had members from both sides of the aisle voting against their parties' majority position also demonstrates the vote was NOT down party lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Facts are hard.
-
1) Impeachment votes have always been partisan.
2 Personally I don't agree with a decision to withhold transferring it to the house. I don't know if that play will work well for them but on principle I think she should send it to the senate.
1) Negative ghost rider. Pattern is full.
That’s one of the biggest issues of this recent proceedings. Look up the history of previous (not precious) proceedings. The strictly partisan angle is huge...
2) Again, do you not see the angle that is being played there. Again consider the timing. She wants it to”stick” as fact for the time being. Are you that obtuse?
-
That’s one of the biggest issues of this recent proceedings. Look up the history of precious proceedings. The strictly partisan angle is huge...
insert Gollum meme
-
insert Gollum meme
Impeachment precious
-
Impeachment precious
Orange Man My Precious
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bD12XrT.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bD12XrT.jpg)
heads
-
So the Ukraine testimony was a fizzle, now the fake news this morning is saying they have 150 emails that link a QPQ about withholding money. Why wasn't this brought up earlier? Oh yeah, they're still fishing.
-
So the Ukraine testimony was a fizzle, now the fake news this morning is saying they have 150 emails that link a QPQ about withholding money. Why wasn't this brought up earlier? Oh yeah, they're still fishing.
Schiff also had irrefutable evidence that absolutely, undeniably proved Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. I guess Shifty Schiff forgot to forward that evidence to Mueller.
Even after Mueller testified, Schiff continued to push his lie, because he was talking about "collusion", not "conspiracy". :wtf:
Responding to attacks by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, Rep. Adam Schiff on Sunday insisted
his criticism of the Trump administration was not wrong, saying there was “ample evidence of collusion in plain
sight.”
“I use that word very carefully,” the California Democrat said on ABC’s “This Week,” “because I also distinguish
time and time again between collusion, that is acts of corruption that may or may not be criminal, and proof of a
criminal conspiracy. And that is a distinction that Bob Mueller made within the first few pages of his report. In fact,
every act that I’ve pointed to as evidence of collusion has now been borne out by the report.“
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-1283786
However, here's what Mueller said in his report:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Mueller also chose his words carefully. How can there be "collusion" according the Schiff if there was no "coordination" according to Mueller? :wacko:
Swamp critters count on the voters being too lazy to read the report for themselves.
Don't believe evidence of anything exists re: Trump until it's made public and can be verified as authentic (call back to the GW Bush Air National Guard phony documents).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
-
Don't believe evidence of anything exists re: Trump until it's made public and can be verified as authentic (call back to the GW Bush Air National Guard phony documents).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
Like how the top forensic lab in the nation said that Barry's birth certificate is a fake. #tinfoil
I thought GW didn't get sent to Nam, but his entire unit did?
-
Like how the top forensic lab in the nation said that Barry's birth certificate is a fake. #tinfoil
I thought GW didn't get sent to Nam, but his entire unit did?
Source? Details?
Based on what I've seen and read, National Guard units were not assigned to Vietnam, but many individuals volunteered to go.
Almost 23K Army and Air Guardsmen were called up to active duty, but only about 8,300 went to Vietnam. The rest presumably served in the US or at other geographic areas in support roles.
As a matter of witness accounts, Bush inquired about a program that allowed National Guard pilot volunteers to go to Vietnam, but his total of flight hours in the F-102 was less than the 500 hours needed to go. Plus, the F-102 was about to be withdrawn from the Vietnam theater that year anyway (1968).
Bush continued his part time National Guard duties until 1972 recording 336 flight hours in the F-102.
We did the same for Desert Storm. Active duty deployed to the war zone, and Reserve and National Guard were called up to "backfill" the billets they vacated.
-
After watching every anchor, opinion peddler and members of past impeachment teams, I've decided McConnell needs to exclude testimony from HOUSE witnesses who did not give testimony in the Schiff Show.
The only new witnesses in the Senate trial should be DEFENSE witnesses for Trump.
No new accusations or "evidence" FOR impeachment should be allowed. The House did the investigation. The Senate tries the case on those facts and on the evidence offered by the President's legal team.
If the Dems want fair, that's what fair looks like.
-
Impeachment is a dead cat. Stop playing with it!
Bury it. It's going nowhere.
--Senator Lindsey Graham
:rofl: :rofl:
-
Trump is the 3rd President to have been impeached by the House of Representatives.
If the scuttle-but is true, he may also be the 4TH IMPEACHED PRESIDENT, too!! :wacko:
Now the Dems want to add impeachment article/s because they argue his former White House Counsel MIGHT have testimony of Trump "trying" to obstruct justice by wanting Mueller fired. They don't have the testimony which the court has to compel because the players are invoking Executive Privilege.
So, the Dems are thinking of "piling on" an ATTEMPTED obstruction charge without evidence, even though he did not remove Mueller -- WHICH he had the 100% legal right to do!! He would have obstructed NOTHING, because if Mueller was fired, another special prosecutor would have simply been appointed in his place. As we saw in Mueller's testimony before Congress, his staff did everything for him anyway.
Obstruction of justice usually includes lying, destruction or altering of evidence, and witness tampering. Firing the lead counsel (which he could not do if he didn't have that right) is not obstruction.
The Democrats in the House are just digging this failed impeachment fiasco deeper and deeper. What kind of moron thinks it helps their case to pass another article of impeachment before they've sent the first to to the Senate for a trial?
I guess Ukraine wasn't a big enough nothing burger. Now they want to order a side nothing fries!! :rofl: :rofl:
-
QUESTION:
At what point are your eyebrows considered part of your hairline?
(https://i.imgur.com/MLQZpjo.png)
-
Answer: When you have had a few too many...
(https://i.imgflip.com/38zjc1.jpg)
-
headline on Yahoo was Trump staffer lawsuit for being fired for being pregnant. I expect more stories like this to popup because of the failed Russia and Ukraine story.
I didn't read the full story, but something about she had an affair with a tech guy and got preggers. Then once the campaign found out, communications with her stopped.
-
headline on Yahoo was Trump staffer lawsuit for being fired for being pregnant. I expect more stories like this to popup because of the failed Russia and Ukraine story.
I didn't read the full story, but something about she had an affair with a tech guy and got preggers. Then once the campaign found out, communications with her stopped.
When you're hired "at will" and are let go, no explanation is needed. Unless someone with DIRECT (not hearsay) knowledge acknowledges the firing was for reasons protected under federal law (EEOC, etc), she has no case.
Playing the "Bun in the Oven" card :rofl:
-
When you're hired "at will" and are let go, no explanation is needed. Unless someone with DIRECT (not hearsay) knowledge acknowledges the firing was for reasons protected under federal law (EEOC, etc), she has no case.
Playing the "Bun in the Oven" card :rofl:
Courts struck her down, shes appealing.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Courts struck her down, shes appealing.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
What does her appearance have to do with it?
:wave:
-
Trump is the 3rd President to have been impeached by the House of Representatives.
If the scuttle-but is true, he may also be the 4TH IMPEACHED PRESIDENT, too!! :wacko:
Now the Dems want to add impeachment article/s because they argue his former White House Counsel MIGHT have testimony of Trump "trying" to obstruct justice by wanting Mueller fired. They don't have the testimony which the court has to compel because the players are invoking Executive Privilege.
So, the Dems are thinking of "piling on" an ATTEMPTED obstruction charge without evidence, even though he did not remove Mueller -- WHICH he had the 100% legal right to do!! He would have obstructed NOTHING, because if Mueller was fired, another special prosecutor would have simply been appointed in his place. As we saw in Mueller's testimony before Congress, his staff did everything for him anyway.
Obstruction of justice usually includes lying, destruction or altering of evidence, and witness tampering. Firing the lead counsel (which he could not do if he didn't have that right) is not obstruction.
The Democrats in the House are just digging this failed impeachment fiasco deeper and deeper. What kind of moron thinks it helps their case to pass another article of impeachment before they've sent the first to to the Senate for a trial?
I guess Ukraine wasn't a big enough nothing burger. Now they want to order a side nothing fries!! :rofl: :rofl:
I am not sure if you remember this, but Mueller was compromised in his investigation. If my memory serves me correctly, Mueller had some sort of financial dealing with Trump a long time ago. And apparently it didn’t go well. And there apparently was some animus by Mueller towards Trump. He should have never taken the job and Trump should have fired him immediately. With that said, hindsight is 20/20 so it turned out well for Trump due to Mueller not being the person he used to be mentally.
What I find interesting is some of my friends with TDS admit the impeachment articles are weak. And that the accusations are trumped up. But TDS is so strong emotionally in them, they want everything possible thrown at Trump in the hopes something might stick. It doesn’t matter the implications that Trump is not guilty of anything. Nor do they care how this is hurting the country. They just want him gone. We are in a sad state in this country right now.
-
I am not sure if you remember this, but Mueller was compromised in his investigation. If my memory serves me correctly, Mueller had some sort of financial dealing with Trump a long time ago. And apparently it didn’t go well. And there apparently was some animus by Mueller towards Trump. He should have never taken the job and Trump should have fired him immediately. With that said, hindsight is 20/20 so it turned out well for Trump due to Mueller not being the person he used to be mentally.
What I find interesting is some of my friends with TDS admit the impeachment articles are weak. And that the accusations are trumped up. But TDS is so strong emotionally in them, they want everything possible thrown at Trump in the hopes something might stick. It doesn’t matter the implications that Trump is not guilty of anything. Nor do they care how this is hurting the country. They just want him gone. We are in a sad state in this country right now.
More recently, Mueller was asked under oath if he was expecting Trump to offer HIM the FBI Director job. When that didn't happen, it became at least a potential conflict for him to investigate Trump.
If I recall from the testimony, there was evidence given on the record that that was the case, even though Mueller initially tried to deny it.
Unnamed sources reported to Fox News that there are government documents showing that Mueller had been
vying to replace ex-FBI Director James Comey when he met with President Donald Trump, but knew days before
that he could become special counsel if the FBI job fell through.
The news comes as emails that were released through a Freedom of Information Act by the conservative Judicial
Watch indicated Mueller knew he could be put in charge of the Russia investigation, reports Fox.
A source close to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein confirmed he'd had several confidential
conversations with Mueller about serving as special counsel, beginning on May 12, 2017, four days before Mueller
met with President Donald Trump on May 16.
Comey had been fired just days before the Mueller-Trump meeting, and the day after they met, Mueller was named
as special counsel to oversee the investigation.
Trump has often claimed that Mueller, the FBI director under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, had
met with him about returning to his former job, saying it was a conflict of interest for Mueller to oversee the Russia
investigation.
"Hire me."
"No."
(To himself) "That's okay. I'll be investigating you soon."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/robert-mueller-comey-fbi-trump/2019/10/09/id/936281/
-
Whats more important is that mueller said iraq had wmds. We based an entire war off of that false intel. Not even a fart in a jar was found.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Whats more important is that mueller said iraq had wmds. We based an entire war off of that false intel. Not even a fart in a jar was found.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Incorrect.
They found WMDs, but in amounts that did not rise to the level of a realistic threat against Iraq's neighboring countries.
The intelligence INFORMATION may have been incorrect, but a large part of that blame lies with Hussein for refusing UN required inspections in 1998-2002. We get information wrong all the time, often because of counter-intelligence/misinformation efforts. We have to make decisions on the information we have at hand. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than getting it wrong.
If you were the leader of Iraq, and you knew allowing UN inspections again would stop the war, why would you not?
-
Iowa Caucus is scheduled Monday, Feb 3rd.
New Hampshire is Tuesday, Feb 11.
Senators running still in the primary:
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Amy Klobuchar
And, if one of the drop-outs, like Corey Booker or Kamala Harris, are tapped by the nominee as a running mate, they can also be tied up in a prolonged impeachment trial -- or even with multiple trials if the House keeps up their shenanigans -- while trying to campaign.
When the Senate is involved in an impeachment trial, the Senate is not allowed to take up any new issues until impeachment proceedings are completed. They are also required to be in attendance, meaning they can't be off campaigning, holding rallies and fundraisers, or doing talk shows and returning to DC just to cast a vote once in awhile.
As it stands, one could argue that Pelosi through impeachment, while possibly trying to help Trump lose in November, could also be preventing the Dem frontrunners , 3 of them Senators, from winning, too.
-
Iowa Caucus is scheduled Monday, Feb 3rd.
New Hampshire is Tuesday, Feb 11.
Senators running still in the primary:
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Amy Klobuchar
And, if one of the drop-outs, like Corey Booker or Kamala Harris, are tapped by the nominee as a running mate, they can also be tied up in a prolonged impeachment trial -- or even with multiple trials if the House keeps up their shenanigans -- while trying to campaign.
When the Senate is involved in an impeachment trial, the Senate is not allowed to take up any new issues until impeachment proceedings are completed. They are also required to be in attendance, meaning they can't be off campaigning, holding rallies and fundraisers, or doing talk shows and returning to DC just to cast a vote once in awhile.
As it stands, one could argue that Pelosi through impeachment, while possibly trying to help Trump lose in November, could also be preventing the Dem frontrunners , 3 of them Senators, from winning, too.
Damn didn't know that. So there is more than 1 alternate motive to holding the impeachment vote results.
-
Damn didn't know that. So there is more than 1 alternate motive to holding the impeachment vote results.
Yep. Pelosi might have been trying to get the trial over before the Democrat primaries start, to help her Dem Senators.
But, now with her delaying the process, that motive might not hold as much water. She's juggling too many knives.
That assumes they WANT to help Bernie, Liz and Amy. They might be pulling a 2016, and doing whatever they can to help Biden -- like they did carrying Hildabeast to the finish line.
Take the Senators out of contention, and Biden gains a LOT of distance in the first place position.
-
Yep. Pelosi might have been trying to get the trial over before the Democrat primaries start, to help her Dem Senators.
But, now with her delaying the process, that motive might not hold as much water. She's juggling too many knives.
That assumes they WANT to help Bernie, Liz and Amy. They might be pulling a 2016, and doing whatever they can to help Biden -- like they did carrying Hildabeast to the finish line.
Take the Senators out of contention, and Biden gains a LOT of distance in the first place position.
Maybe Biden can debate himself in the next Dem debates? Think that’s funny? He might lose. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Maybe Biden can debate himself in the next Dem debates? Think that’s funny? He might lose. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I'm surprised the debates haven't been rescheduled to earlier in the day ... you know, to avoid "sundowners syndrome". :wave:
And I'm not just talking about ONE of the candidates, either!
-
Maybe Biden can debate himself in the next Dem debates? Think that’s funny? He might lose. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Debate between AOC and Biden with xynax pelosi asking the questions.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I'm surprised the debates haven't been rescheduled to earlier in the day ... you know, to avoid "sundowners syndrome". :wave:
And I'm not just talking about ONE of the candidates, either!
There’s always methamphetamines. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Get this, Schiff is now gathering evidence against Vice President Pence. Is this so they can impeach him as well? The coup is in full swing. Next in line? Nancy Pelosi. If this isn’t an obvious coup attempt now, I don’t know what is.
Now an article came out saying Pelosi should hold on to the articles until after the 2020 elections hoping to gain control of the senate?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/two-reasons-pelosi-will-probably-delay-impeachment-until-after-the-election/
So obvious this is an attempted coup. >:( >:( >:(
-
Get this, Schiff is now gathering evidence against Vice President Pence. Is this so they can impeach him as well? The coup is in full swing. Next in line? Nancy Pelosi. If this isn’t an obvious coup attempt now, I don’t know what is.
Now an article came out saying Pelosi should hold on to the articles until after the 2020 elections hoping to gain control of the senate?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/two-reasons-pelosi-will-probably-delay-impeachment-until-after-the-election/
So obvious this is an attempted coup. >:( >:( >:(
Alternative scenarios:
1. McConnell schedules the trial without waiting for Pelosi to transmit the articles. That transmission process is based on a SENATE RULE, and we all know rules are made to be changed in the Senate. Right, Harry Reid?
2. The articles of impeachment actually include the phrase: "Resolved ... that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate." Based on their own resolution, the articles MUST BE TRANSMITTED to the Senate, or else Pelosi is abusing her power and obstructing Congress.
3. Pelosi adds more articles to the initial 2, just to pile on as many smears as possible without actually caring if the trial ever happens. All she cares about is weaponizing impeachment to give their eventual nominee as much ammunition against Trump as they can fabricate.
-
it's getting so even the Dems in the Senate are getting tired of Pelosi's impeachment games.
"The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes. So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over."
-- Senator Diane Feinstein (D), CA
That's coming from a Senator from Pelosi's own state, too.
I doubt Pelosi has some grand, masterful strategy. Otherwise, Feinstein would be aware of it and would not be making a public comment like this.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dianne-Feinstein-Nancy-Pelosi-impeachment-delay-14959626.php
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/3lntmz.jpg)
-
it's getting so even the Dems in the Senate are getting tired of Pelosi's impeachment games.
"The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes. So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over."
-- Senator Diane Feinstein (D), CA
That's coming from a Senator from Pelosi's own state, too.
I doubt Pelosi has some grand, masterful strategy. Otherwise, Feinstein would be aware of it and would not be making a public comment like this.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dianne-Feinstein-Nancy-Pelosi-impeachment-delay-14959626.php
There are a lot more Dems getting on her about it now. Last I heard 8 or 10?
-
Great article by Trey Gowdy today.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-trial-democrats-trey-gowdy
-
There are a lot more Dems getting on her about it now. Last I heard 8 or 10?
I first read that as 8 OUT OF 10. . . Wish things would get there.
The more she appears on TV, the more I 1) can't believe how stupid she comes of when she give impromptu statements and 2) how much darn cosmetic surgery she must have had. . . :rofl:
-
I first read that as 8 OUT OF 10. . . Wish things would get there.
The more she appears on TV, the more I 1) can't believe how stupid she comes of when she give impromptu statements and 2) how much darn cosmetic surgery she must have had. . . :rofl:
She has age spots on top of age spots. :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/01/10/pelosi-said-house-will-move-send-impeachment-articles-senate-next-week/
Either way, let’s just get this 💩 over with. Hopefully it comes back to bite people like Pelosi and others in the ass, but just this crap has gone on too long.
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/01/10/pelosi-said-house-will-move-send-impeachment-articles-senate-next-week/
Either way, let’s just get this 💩 over with. Hopefully it comes back to bite people like Pelosi and others in the ass, but just this crap has gone on too long.
The very first sentence of that article: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will take steps next week to sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial."
What does that mean "will take steps"? Does that mean it is going to happen or is she going to continue to hang on to them while she works on it? What a hag....
-
Notice how the fake news doesn't say "complete", but uses "take steps".
-
Notice how the fake news doesn't say "complete", but uses "take steps".
Yeah, but that is Pelosi's direct quote. So she said it.
-
The very first sentence of that article: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will take steps next week to sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial."
What does that mean "will take steps"? Does that mean it is going to happen or is she going to continue to hang on to them while she works on it? What a hag....
In her press conference, she said she will send them over once she's satisfied with the way the trial will be handled. She also said this impeachment is different than the Clinton impeachment, and therefore those rules are not good enough for this trial. Of course, she didn't elaborate on which rules or why they aren't good enough.
She said she expects to send over them "soon" but gave no timeframe.
In my opinion, if she tried to force McConnell to do one thing regarding the trial, whether it's to allow certain witnesses, go to court to enforce subpoenas, or even what color chairs to use, she is failing to abide by the Constitution. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. The House is overstepping their Constitutional duties and limits.
-
The very first sentence of that article: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will take steps next week to sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial."
What does that mean "will take steps"? Does that mean it is going to happen or is she going to continue to hang on to them while she works on it? What a hag....
Don't speak of rk's crush like that. :rofl:
-
Don't speak of rk's crush like that. :rofl:
They're the same age, right? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
They're the same age, right? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl:
-
Any bets on how many days the Senate will take to move to dismiss the impeachment?
My guess: Pelosi will send the articles over on Friday before the 3-day holiday weekend, just to drag it out some more.
The next Tuesday, the House Managers will present their piddly little case. At that time, I expect the Republicans to make a motion to dismiss based on lack of supporting evidence and direct testimony.
If that doesn't happen, the I expect all the main players to be summoned to testify: Schiff, Nadler, the WB/Informant, the IG, the lawyer for the WB, and the Bidens. I believe there was never a real whistleblower. Schiff recruited an informant and had him file an IG complaint to make it appear as if he/she tried to follow the prescribed process. The IG is being looked at for changing the "direct knowledge" requirement to "hearsay" and back-dating the complaint. It'll all fall apart at that point.
-
Any bets on how many days the Senate will take to move to dismiss the impeachment?
My guess: Pelosi will send the articles over on Friday before the 3-day holiday weekend, just to drag it out some more.
The next Tuesday, the House Managers will present their piddly little case. At that time, I expect the Republicans to make a motion to dismiss based on lack of supporting evidence and direct testimony.
If that doesn't happen, the I expect all the main players to be summoned to testify: Schiff, Nadler, the WB/Informant, the IG, the lawyer for the WB, and the Bidens. I believe there was never a real whistleblower. Schiff recruited an informant and had him file an IG complaint to make it appear as if he/she tried to follow the prescribed process. The IG is being looked at for changing the "direct knowledge" requirement to "hearsay" and back-dating the complaint. It'll all fall apart at that point.
Your timeline might be pretty accurate. It may also be that the trial starts and the analysis of the articles is presented and without any witnesses called they would vote to acquit. I think the president deserves an acquittal at the very least. Dismissal would be quick and easy but I think the Republicans still respect the office of the president even if they don’t like Trump.
Right now Devin Nunes is on Sunday Mornings with Maria Bartiromo. He is saying that if witnesses are called they should call the ICIG in order to get to the bottom of all of speculation around the WB/Informant and the change in the form requirements right before the ICIG released their analysis of the complaint. I think we will find some corruption there. Nunes has been 100% right on every fact he has discussed regarding this coup attempt.
-
Kevin McCarthy was on Sunday Mornings with Maria Bartiromo this morning as well. His conspiracy theory #TinFoilMoment is that the DNC still is conspiring to keep Bernie from getting the nomination. It is more than coincidental that the senate trial, if it goes longer than a week, that Bernie will be stuck in the Senate during the Iowa caucus (2/3) and possibly the New Hampshire primary (2/11). It could even go as long as a month which would take Bernie out of the Nevada caucus (2/22). This is his premise as to why Pelosi is taking so long to send the articles over to the senate. The timing is very suspect according to McCarthy.
Could it be the DNC is still trying to rig the nominations for their candidate, AGAIN? Could it be that the DNC is so out of touch with reality that they think that Biden is a stronger candidate than Bernie? WOW just WOW
-
Would be funny as soon as she hands it over, they already go the denial letter in the other hand.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Kevin McCarthy was on Sunday Mornings with Maria Bartiromo this morning as well. His conspiracy theory #TinFoilMoment is that the DNC still is conspiring to keep Bernie from getting the nomination. It is more than coincidental that the senate trial, if it goes longer than a week, that Bernie will be stuck in the Senate during the Iowa caucus (2/3) and possibly the New Hampshire primary (2/11). It could even go as long as a month which would take Bernie out of the Nevada caucus (2/22). This is his premise as to why Pelosi is taking so long to send the articles over to the senate. The timing is very suspect according to McCarthy.
Could it be the DNC is still trying to rig the nominations for their candidate, AGAIN? Could it be that the DNC is so out of touch with reality that they think that Biden is a stronger candidate than Bernie? WOW just WOW
It is not so much Biden, watch who becomes the VP. That
is who they want as president. Biden, if elected won't last long.
He will quit due to health reasons.
I bet that he will select a woman to be VP.
-
It is not so much Biden, watch who becomes the VP. That
is who they want as president. Biden, if elected won't last long.
He will quit due to health reasons.
I bet that he will select a woman to be VP.
Ok, that’s interesting. Any guesses as to which woman he will choose, assuming he gets the nomination? Supposedly, Pelosi agreed to only one term as speaker, she could end her career as president if Joe picks her and wins then quits. Or worse, Hillary!!! Kamala Harris? Tulsi? I don’t think Warren is a good match for Joe.
-
I dont know why the Dems take so long for what ever reason as we have less than 12 years left on this planet. Why arent they building a modern Noahs Ark?
-
I dont know why the Dems take so long for what ever reason as we have less than 12 years left on this planet. Why arent they building a modern Noahs Ark?
It’s Trump’s fault.
-
It’s Trump’s fault.
Or according to certain economists the US will meet its demise anyways. Id like to know when.
After reading Trumps book, The Art of the Deal he doesnt have confidence in economists as he never met a wealthy one
-
I dont know why the Dems take so long for what ever reason as we have less than 12 years left on this planet. Why arent they building a modern Noahs Ark?
If you want to see TDS in all its glory, we should push for Trump to be convicted and removed in the impeachment trial.
Then, when Pence becomes the President, and likely the 2020 Presidential candidate, the mob will turn on him, too, as if he's even worse than "Literally Hitler Orange Man".
If a Dem wins the White House, it'll be whiplash-inducing the speed at which the "12 years to doomsday" clock suddenly stops. Climate change will still be an issue, but even without following the "Green New Socialist Deal", the Earth will have been saved from a 12 year expiration date.
-
Trump has done more his first year in office than the past few presidents in 2 terms. Dem gets ellected, it will revert back to feel good policies and actions that do nothing. Market will drop and TDSers will celebrate rise in unemployment.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
The latest Democrat talking point is "If the Senate votes to dismiss impeachment, they will be involved in a cover-up."
Seriously? The cover-up started when Schiff refused to call the so-called whistle blower to testify in the House inquiry. What did Schiff know, and when did he know it?
-
I predicted the articles of impeachment would be formally presented to the Senate Friday, just prior to the 3-day holiday weekend.
According to the news, the articles were walked over today by the House. The Senate will have the House managers present the articles to the Senate in a formal setting tomorrow.
I missed it by a day. :geekdanc:
Since the Senate will likely be on a short day Friday to leave for the holiday weekend, the Senate won't be taking up the matter until Tuesday. This week, the presiding judge Chief Justice Roberts will be sworn in as well as all 100 Senator jurors.
The Senate has 30 days to take up impeachment and begin the process of holding the trial. Once they start, they can't take up any other matter. Senators are barred from speaking inside the hearing and outside. All questions from the Senators must be submitted to the Chief Justice in writing.
Pelosi just handed Biden a less competitive Iowa caucus in 2 1/2 weeks, since Bernie and Pocahontas are stuck in the impeachment trial.
Pelosi said this impeachment will be a permanent stain on the Trump presidency regardless of the trial outcome.
That's really all this was about since it started 3 years ago. She isn't interested in the damage this can do to the nation. She's only interested in political power and who gets to use it.
-
I predicted the articles of impeachment would be formally presented to the Senate Friday, just prior to the 3-day holiday weekend.
According to the news, the articles were walked over today by the House. The Senate will have the House managers present the articles to the Senate in a formal setting tomorrow.
I missed it by a day. :geekdanc:
Since the Senate will likely be on a short day Friday to leave for the holiday weekend, the Senate won't be taking up the matter until Tuesday. This week, the presiding judge Chief Justice Roberts will be sworn in as well as all 100 Senator jurors.
The Senate has 30 days to take up impeachment and begin the process of holding the trial. Once they start, they can't take up any other matter. Senators are barred from speaking inside the hearing and outside. All questions from the Senators must be submitted to the Chief Justice in writing.
Pelosi just handed Biden a less competitive Iowa caucus in 2 1/2 weeks, since Bernie and Pocahontas are stuck in the impeachment trial.
Pelosi said this impeachment will be a permanent stain on the Trump presidency regardless of the trial outcome.
That's really all this was about since it started 3 years ago. She isn't interested in the damage this can do to the nation. She's only interested in political power and who gets to use it.
Pretty much was their goal from the day after the election. The Rep from GA covered much of the "evidence" on that on Monday I think in his testimony (or whatever that was) in the House. That along with the obvious hypocrisy of an "emergency that MUST be addressed NOW" to "oh, we have to be sure to take our time and make sure we got this right" after they rushed things to "finish" the impeachment articles.
Some views based on logic and rational thought (like many here). Others based on irrational emotional "must do something" responses (like a couple here).
-
Pelosi stated previously that it's sad to have to do this. But when signing her part, she had a pretty good smile going. Like when pierce Morgan fired his first AR, or Feinstein was meeting with Trump to talk about gun control.
-
Pelosi handed out commemorative souvenir pens to the Dems watching her sign the articles of impeachment.
Did any REPUBLICANS get a pen? No? That kind of tells us all we need to know about this "serious, solemn, and prayerful" impeachment as Pelosi tries to repeatedly characterize it. A purely partisan fraud.
Lots of laughs, smiles and holding up the pens like it's a rock concert.
Democrat leaders are disgusting people.
(https://i.imgur.com/ckp2maB.png)
-
Wait I thought the media said Trump was already impeached
Heck it was even parroted on here that he was impeached.
Is he being impeached again?
Hahaha. Just goes to show how wrong they were.
I can't wait till the republicans can call the witnesses, like the whistleblower to testify.
-
Wait I thought the media said Trump was already impeached
Heck it was even parroted on here that he was impeached.
Is he being impeached again?
Hahaha. Just goes to show how wrong they were.
I can't wait till the republicans can call the witnesses, like the whistleblower to testify.
No matter what happens, Trump will not be found guilty and he will not be removed from office.
We all see the weak case for what it is -- a political smear job in a presidential election year. We all see why -- because they can't compete for the Presidency against Trump legitimately.
Nancy was harping several times on the fact that "Trump is impeached forever. Nobody can change that".
Trump will also go down in history as the First President in over 200 years to be impeached AND win reelection.
That, too, will last forever. Winning!! :thumbsup:
-
So now that the impeachment is complete, does this mean Warren and Sanders cannot campaign anymore until the hearing is done? What about Tulsi?
-
Wait I thought the media said Trump was already impeached
Heck it was even parroted on here that he was impeached.
Is he being impeached again?
Hahaha. Just goes to show how wrong they were.
I can't wait till the republicans can call the witnesses, like the whistleblower to testify.
Interesting choice of animal. . . :rofl:
I am also looking forward to how things will go in the Senate. What information comes out, the mad scramble to either cover up or divert, etc. Who will end up on a plane that is shot down by Iranian missiles. . .
-
Interesting choice of animal. . . :rofl:
I am also looking forward to how things will go in the Senate. What information comes out, the mad scramble to either cover up or divert, etc. Who will end up on a plane that is shot down by Iranian missiles. . .
US citizens, posing as Canadian citizens. Which organization does this as common practice?
-
So now that the impeachment is complete, does this mean Warren and Sanders cannot campaign anymore until the hearing is done? What about Tulsi?
Don't forget Senators Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet.
Yep. They are required to be in DC until the trial ends. Plus, they can't discuss the impeachment trial. But they can still campaign remotely through their volunteers and paid supporters.
But while the Massachusetts senator [Warren] has said for months that “some things are more important than politics” — like impeachment — she now admits that with three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, there’s simply no substitute for being there.
That would be more believable if at least one Republican in the House voted for impeachment. Even some Dems voted "no" or "present", because they know this is a partisan assault on the President.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/trump-impeachment-2020-campaigns-096886
-
It appears that dismissal is off the table now. Which I think is a good thing. There are enough Republican Senators that want to see the House’s case against the president before voting to acquit or call witnesses. This is reasonable in my opinion. I think acquittal is in the president’s best interest over dismissal. However, I also believe that a quick trial is also in the country’s best interest. It is obvious to me that the timing of the transmitting of the articles was done purposely in order to keep Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail. I would really hate to see witnesses called in order to extend the trial. If the democrats get their way, the trial could feasibly go beyond the 2020 election. Another clown show will go awry. The transcript is the president’s best piece of evidence. Also, the way the House investigation was conducted is also in his best interest. I hope that after the House presents their case that the Senate votes to acquit and get this clown show over with.
If witnesses are called I hope the Senate only calls witnesses that will expose the corruption on the Democrat side. And they should only allow the same witnesses that were called during the House investigation. Any new witnesses from the House Democrats will turn what I already consider a clown show into a shit show. If the Senate allows witnesses to be called they need to remember that the Senate needs to take their jobs seriously and not allow the House Democrats run the show.
In the meantime I scratched my head over the decision to have Dershowitz and Starr join the president’s defense team. Both of these guys have a past that is questionable to some extent. I heard Dershowitz say he was going to present some of the oral arguments. I hope they keep Starr out of the limelight and keep him in the back. Otherwise the Democrats and MSM could have a field day with these two due to their past. I kinda get why they chose Dershowitz. He is very much a liberal Democrat. But he is also a constitutional expert that realizes what the Democrats are doing here. And if they are successful it will weaken the presidency for all future presidents. This will in turn give more power to the Congress and particularly the House. He has some cred on the Democrat side. What I don’t understand is what Ken Starr brings to the team? Hopefully, he brings some impeachment experience that is helpful to the team but I really think they should keep him in the background.
-
It appears that dismissal is off the table now. Which I think is a good thing. There are enough Republican Senators that want to see the House’s case against the president before voting to acquit or call witnesses. This is reasonable in my opinion. I think acquittal is in the president’s best interest over dismissal. However, I also believe that a quick trial is also in the country’s best interest. It is obvious to me that the timing of the transmitting of the articles was done purposely in order to keep Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail. I would really hate to see witnesses called in order to extend the trial. If the democrats get their way, the trial could feasibly go beyond the 2020 election. Another clown show will go awry. The transcript is the president’s best piece of evidence. Also, the way the House investigation was conducted is also in his best interest. I hope that after the House presents their case that the Senate votes to acquit and get this clown show over with.
If witnesses are called I hope the Senate only calls witnesses that will expose the corruption on the Democrat side. And they should only allow the same witnesses that were called during the House investigation. Any new witnesses from the House Democrats will turn what I already consider a clown show into a shit show. If the Senate allows witnesses to be called they need to remember that the Senate needs to take their jobs seriously and not allow the House Democrats run the show.
In the meantime I scratched my head over the decision to have Dershowitz and Starr join the president’s defense team. Both of these guys have a past that is questionable to some extent. I heard Dershowitz say he was going to present some of the oral arguments. I hope they keep Starr out of the limelight and keep him in the back. Otherwise the Democrats and MSM could have a field day with these two due to their past. I kinda get why they chose Dershowitz. He is very much a liberal Democrat. But he is also a constitutional expert that realizes what the Democrats are doing here. And if they are successful it will weaken the presidency for all future presidents. This will in turn give more power to the Congress and particularly the House. He has some cred on the Democrat side. What I don’t understand is what Ken Starr brings to the team? Hopefully, he brings some impeachment experience that is helpful to the team but I really think they should keep him in the background.
More likely, it was because Nancy's souvenir pens hadn't come back from the supplier yet.
:rofl:
-
Cocaine Mitch creates “Kill Switch” for impeachment trial...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-creates-kill-switch-to-end-impeachment-if-it-becomes-circus-run-by-adam-schiff?itm_source=parsely-api%3Futm_campaign%3Dben_shapiro_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_hB86Zesx38MBqNL7LJu9h_sQE3vM60-mBbTeQK-Gjkl0AIv84Qax3uVJt6fUHTUOAuQTaIYKIlHdpHglPOMa6xvlDCw&_hsmi=82143828
Looks like McConnell has put in a “Kill Switch” in case Schiff and the House Dems start turning the trial into a shit show. This is a great idea!!!
-
More likely, it was because Nancy's souvenir pens hadn't come back from the supplier yet.
:rofl:
I heard the pens are going for $1k somewhere. :rofl:
-
I heard the pens are going for $1k somewhere. :rofl:
Trump is the President of "Firsts":
First to be impeached in his first term.
First to be impeached with absolutely no underlying criminal statutes as the basis.
Soon he'll be the first reelected after being impeached. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
New members added to Trump’s impeachment team:
Reps Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, and Lee Zeldin.
Most of them were present during the secretive witness testimonies and if anything is brought up from those testimonies, I am sure the truth will be brought out.
-
New members added to Trump’s impeachment team:
Reps Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, and Lee Zeldin.
Most of them were present during the secretive witness testimonies and if anything is brought up from those testimonies, I am sure the truth will be brought out.
Moves and counter moves.
Don’t really care of McConnell, but liked his opening statement. Or at least the portion I listened to.
-
Moves and counter moves.
Don’t really care of McConnell, but liked his opening statement. Or at least the portion I listened to.
To me McConnell is a mixed bag. He has given in way too many times to the Democrats during his time as Senate Majority Leader. More recently he has found his balls and stood up to them. But I don’t trust that he won’t allow this to become a circus. At least to a small extent if not to a larger extent. Because he is not as solid as I would like to see him, and due to his desire to run a “Fair” trial, I think he will give in a little to the Democrats. I hope he realizes his mistakes early and puts the brakes on it quickly or the clown show will turn into the shit show faster than Mac can say “heads”.
-
To me McConnell is a mixed bag. He has given in way too many times to the Democrats during his time as Senate Majority Leader. More recently he has found his balls and stood up to them. But I don’t trust that he won’t allow this to become a circus. At least to a small extent if not to a larger extent. Because he is not as solid as I would like to see him, and due to his desire to run a “Fair” trial, I think he will give in a little to the Democrats. I hope he realizes his mistakes early and puts the brakes on it quickly or the clown show will turn into the shit show faster than Mac can say “heads”.
The mixed bag aspect is a big part of why I don't care for him. I don't think things will turn into a circus, but the more it does I think it will venture deeper into areas where at least one side won't want it to go. I do think the fair trial aspect is good over the dismissal up front.
-
I find it hilarious how the fake news and DNC are all saying "we must abide by the constitution" or "the constitution is clear" and blah blah blah.
-
I find it hilarious how the fake news and DNC are all saying "we must abide by the constitution" or "the constitution is clear" and blah blah blah.
It actually is very clear. It is the House's duty to investigate and call witnesses and if necessary, write the articles of impeachment, vote for them, then transmit them to the Senate. It is the Senate's duty to try the articles. Not add to the articles for the House, not investigate more for the house, the senators are nothing more than jurors. The House presents it's case via the articles. Once the articles are written and transmitted there is not supposed to be adding more to them or helping the House make a better case for the House. That is solely the Houses's duty. If the Senate does their job as clearly stated in the Constitution then there should be no witnesses called except those called in the articles in case clarification is necessary. The entire case are the articles of impeachment. All witnesses that needed to be called have been called already. If more are needed then the House needs to deal with it in the House. Not the Senate. The Constitution is clear IMHO.
The MSM is lying. But you already now that. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Holy Mr. Hypocrite Nadler. He really seems to believe the BS he’s shoveling. :grrr:
-
Holy Mr. Hypocrite Nadler. He really seems to believe the BS he’s shoveling. :grrr:
Schiff, too.
-
Schiff, too.
That was earlier and yeah. 🤮
Sekulow blistered Nadler. How can Nadler say that stuff? Really...
-
One of Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff's arguments is that we can't leave Trump in office expecting voters to kick him out, because Trump will cheat (again - like he did in 2016).
Of course, the 2 1/2 year long Mueller investigation said Trump did not collude with Russia or in any way interfere in a fair election,
Schiff is saying we need to impeach Trump now because after the election will be too late. Yeah. Because the Dems know they can't beat him! And they also know there will be no evidence Trump did anything to cheat -- just like last time.
Schiff wants Trump removed from office NOW, because of something Trump might (or might not) do IN THE FUTURE.
Let that sink in.
-
Pencil neck! :rofl:
Schiff reminds me of Gollum. Especially his oogly/wide eyes. He should go jump in the flames of Mordor...
-
To be honest with all here, I refuse to watch the proceedings.
Frankly most Democrat rhetoric makes me ill.
But I'll say that it is very obvious America is a "house" divided.
I rather find it difficult to be civil to a people that want to deprive
me of my rights, Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We all say this is Hawaii, go with the flow. 75 years ago
a place in Poland was "liberated", it was for years full of people
that "went with the flow", because they had no weapons to oppose
that flow. If you think Democrats today are any different from
those that funded and ran Auschwitz you are really mistaken.
The practice of the camps was all in accord with German law.
I thank God almighty that Hawaiian Democrats are so corrupt,
undisciplined, and poor that they can't enforce all their laws.
Mainland Democrats are a little better organized.
Prepare, for the worst is yet to come.
Aloha.
-
To be honest with all here, I refuse to watch the proceedings.
Frankly most Democrat rhetoric makes me ill.
While sitting through the House Managers can be painful, I am really watching for the counters/rebuttals.
-
I haven't listened to all of the arguments in the trial but from the hours I have listened to so far it is much more bearable than the hearings in the house.
And I have to say that they are actually making some fairly strong arguments in their case. Like them or not they are doing a pretty good job of proving their case. I am curious what the republicans will do in their rebuttals.
I am also interested in what John Bolton has to say though it sounds like he isn't going to be asked to testify. Trump's associate Lev Parnas is now starting to talk and it doesn't sound great for Trump but no official testimony from him yet so can't count anything there.
-
I haven't listened to all of the arguments in the trial but from the hours I have listened to so far it is much more bearable than the hearings in the house.
And I have to say that they are actually making some fairly strong arguments in their case. Like them or not they are doing a pretty good job of proving their case. I am curious what the republicans will do in their rebuttals.
I am also interested in what John Bolton has to say though it sounds like he isn't going to be asked to testify. Trump's associate Lev Parnas is now starting to talk and it doesn't sound great for Trump but no official testimony from him yet so can't count anything there.
I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is separate from Russia collusion though and this isn't as empty as the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
In the senate hearings now the democrats are basically lining up the various facts of the case and presenting them together in a way that is much easier to follow than from all the interviews in the house hearings. Once you hear all the pieces lined up the picture is much clearer than hearing one piece from someone one day and another piece another day from someone else. Their case is actually fairly strong.
If this were an actual criminal trial I think Trump would have a hard time defending though he does have one possible "trump card" he could play. But it isn't a criminal trial and most politicians are probably going to vote on political lines so really it doesn't matter how strong their arguments are. However it could sway voters in the next election, who knows.
-
I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I have been watching as much as I can stomach. Funny thing is they are reverting back to Russia Russia Russia! :rofl: They are trying to accuse Trump of Russian collusion and Quid Pro Quo still. They keep bringing up all these accusations in the Senate even tho the articles of impeachment mention nothing of these things. I must have heard Russia mentioned a dozen times yesterday. Same for Quid Pro Quo. Their case is so weak they keep repeating the same things over and over again. And they keep saying they need more documents and witnesses to make their case even tho they claimed their case was airtight before all this started. It is SOOOOOOO boring.
The Dems are full of it with this impeachment and trial. It is so obvious that I wouldn’t be surprised that the Senators vote to acquit just to avoid the boredom. I also expect that the defense will not take all 3 days to produce their defense. If they did they would have to repeat everything over and over again like the Dems are doing. I think the Dems have lost case just by trying to fill up all 3 days with assumptions, mind reading and repeats of the same things over and over again. I expect that the defense will not make this same mistake. If they have 3 days of material they will go 3 days but I don’t think they have to repeat anything.
I am looking forward to the defense. I want to see what they say. I would expect them to refute every lie and I would expect them to read out loud the transcripts to show that the Dems are full of shit. They will show that all of the testimony from witnesses is all 2nd hand, 3rd hand and in some cases 4th and 5th hand hearsay. And then I expect them to show that the 2 articles are not crimes by any definition. And they will certainly show that the 2 articles are not crimes per the constitution. And abuse of power is just plain made up.
-
This is separate from Russia collusion though and this isn't as empty as the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
In the senate hearings now the democrats are basically lining up the various facts of the case and presenting them together in a way that is much easier to follow than from all the interviews in the house hearings. Once you hear all the pieces lined up the picture is much clearer than hearing one piece from someone one day and another piece another day from someone else. Their case is actually fairly strong.
If this were an actual criminal trial I think Trump would have a hard time defending though he does have one possible "trump card" he could play. But it isn't a criminal trial and most politicians are probably going to vote on political lines so really it doesn't matter how strong their arguments are. However it could sway voters in the next election, who knows.
I mean all facts and intel starting from Russia to current date about all Trump related things. I don't need a 1 sided report from the DNC. Anyone who is awoke and knows said info, knows that this impeachment hearing is total BS.
-
I have been watching as much as I can stomach. Funny thing is they are reverting back to Russia Russia Russia! :rofl: They are trying to accuse Trump of Russian collusion and Quid Pro Quo still. They keep bringing up all these accusations in the Senate even tho the articles of impeachment mention nothing of these things. I must have heard Russia mentioned a dozen times yesterday. Same for Quid Pro Quo. Their case is so weak they keep repeating the same things over and over again. And they keep saying they need more documents and witnesses to make their case even tho they claimed their case was airtight before all this started. It is SOOOOOOO boring.
The Dems are full of it with this impeachment and trial. It is so obvious that I wouldn’t be surprised that the Senators vote to acquit just to avoid the boredom. I also expect that the defense will not take all 3 days to produce their defense. If they did they would have to repeat everything over and over again like the Dems are doing. I think the Dems have lost case just by trying to fill up all 3 days with assumptions, mind reading and repeats of the same things over and over again. I expect that the defense will not make this same mistake. If they have 3 days of material they will go 3 days but I don’t think they have to repeat anything.
I am looking forward to the defense. I want to see what they say. I would expect them to refute every lie and I would expect them to read out loud the transcripts to show that the Dems are full of shit. They will show that all of the testimony from witnesses is all 2nd hand, 3rd hand and in some cases 4th and 5th hand hearsay. And then I expect them to show that the 2 articles are not crimes by any definition. And they will certainly show that the 2 articles are not crimes per the constitution. And abuse of power is just plain made up.
Many people out there are not as smart as you and I.
-
Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻♂️
-
Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻♂️
Heard there's pics of him at Epsteins place...can't wait for that to be released...#clintoncide.
-
Heard there's pics of him at Epsteins place...can't wait for that to be released...#clintoncide.
I saw a pic on FB yesterday. Not sure if it was photoshopped or not? It had schiff and Epstein sitting next to each other on a couch. And on the end table next to Epstein sits a fucking dildo. :o
-
I saw a pic on FB yesterday. Not sure if it was photoshopped or not? It had schiff and Epstein sitting next to each other on a couch. And on the end table next to Epstein sits a fucking dildo. :o
Pretty sure that's not part of the real pics that was uncovered on his/Maxwell's computer.
-
When prosecutors don’t have solid evidence or facts, the arguments tend to expand. Now things have expanded to include questions about China and what they believe Trump would to in the future. Both largely emotional angles as opposed to facts. And where “facts” are based on opinions of people who weren’t directly involved... what a shit show.
-
Tomorrow, the President's defense team will begin their presentation.
The time slot is 10am - 1pm EST. Sekulow said they'll use that time to give a preview of the defense, which they will begin to lay out in detail the next time they meet.
They have 24 hours to give their opening statement, but every team member I've heard has said they won't use the entire time -- unlike the House managers who kept hitting the "REPLAY" button, repeating what was just said 2 hours previously. :sleeping:
-
I mean all facts and intel starting from Russia to current date about all Trump related things. I don't need a 1 sided report from the DNC. Anyone who is awoke and knows said info, knows that this impeachment hearing is total BS.
That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.
Aside from the Russia issue they have their ducks in order now and the evidence is fairly compelling. I won't say anything stronger than that as I haven't seen what the defense side has to say.
-
Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻♂️
Some of what they were introducing were public statements made by government officials. While such statements don't carry the same weight without testifying under oath they are still admissible as evidence.
-
That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.
Jury Nullification - when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
-
Jury Nullification - when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
Indeed but that is different from just not caring what evidence there is. A jury should always care about the facts but can exercise nullification later if they think the law unjust.
-
Indeed but that is different from just not caring what evidence there is. A jury should always care about the facts but can exercise nullification later if they think the law unjust.
There is no evidence of a crime.... :wacko:
-
There is no evidence of a crime.... :wacko:
Nor do these proceedings follow typical court proceedings. Different rules and structure. That’s an aspect that the liberal MSM seems to ignore.
-
That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.
Aside from the Russia issue they have their ducks in order now and the evidence is fairly compelling. I won't say anything stronger than that as I haven't seen what the defense side has to say.
Or maybe the jury has to investigate themselves because 1 side is making and has been making shit up since day -3 months (won the primary).
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
There is no evidence of a crime.... :wacko:
Not only no evidence, the articles of impeachment do not fall under any of the descriptions of crimes that is supposed to be used to impeach the president. Meaning the articles do not fall under any of the crimes specified in the constitution: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Abuse of power is not defined any where as a crime of any type in any penal code. It is a made up charge. As a matter of fact, if abuse of power is a crime as accused by the House then every president since Washington has committed this crime. Precedence would rule in this case. Obstruction of Congress has not happened yet. And only until the president obstructs congress then he would be guilty of that charge. But this has not occurred as of yet. Because in order to obstruct congress he would have to violate a court order to not obstruct congress. Since this has not been brought to court by the House this has not and cannot occur. Even then this does not fall under any defined crimes I referenced above. So even if the president is guilty of any of the articles, which as Heavies stated there is zero evidence of, he still should be acquitted and the articles nullified because he has been wrongly brought up on charges that don’t follow the constitutions guidelines.
I was listening to Jim Jordan today. He was in all the hearsay witness testimonies that occurred behind closed doors. He stated that all of the testimonies that was submitted as evidence is all taken out of context. And every testimony will be shown to be misleading by their submitting the full testimony so the jurists can not only see that Schiff and Nader lied to them by omission but that if the context is added that it changes the entire meaning of the testimony. Considering the credibility of the 3 players I just mentioned I would put my money on Jordan being right. He has been right and told the truth for the last 3 years while Schiff and Nader have lied their way through this presidency.
-
Not only no evidence, the articles of impeachment do not fall under any of the descriptions of crimes that is supposed to be used to impeach the president. Meaning the articles do not fall under any of the crimes specified in the constitution: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Abuse of power is not defined any where as a crime of any type in any penal code. It is a made up charge. As a matter of fact, if abuse of power is a crime as accused by the House then every president since Washington has committed this crime. Precedence would rule in this case. Obstruction of Congress has not happened yet. And only until the president obstructs congress then he would be guilty of that charge. But this has not occurred as of yet. Because in order to obstruct congress he would have to violate a court order to not obstruct congress. Since this has not been brought to court by the House this has not and cannot occur. Even then this does not fall under any defined crimes I referenced above. So even if the president is guilty of any of the articles, which as Heavies stated there is zero evidence of, he still should be acquitted and the articles nullified because he has been wrongly brought up on charges that don’t follow the constitutions guidelines.
I was listening to Jim Jordan today. He was in all the hearsay witness testimonies that occurred behind closed doors. He stated that all of the testimonies that was submitted as evidence is all taken out of context. And every testimony will be shown to be misleading by their submitting the full testimony so the jurists can not only see that Schiff and Nader lied to them by omission but that if the context is added that it changes the entire meaning of the testimony. Considering the credibility of the 3 players I just mentioned I would put my money on Jordan being right. He has been right and told the truth for the last 3 years while Schiff and Nader have lied their way through this presidency.
jim Jordan is so awesome
he's is gonna shred things apart, especially if he is not constrained by time like he usually is by the rules
-
I still clearly remember that idiot Barbara Boxer stating during the trial of the draft-dodger that she "does not care what the evidence is, she will vote not guilty"
Did someone quote that HPD troll as posting something like "That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has."?
Gee, the liberals have been there, done that.
-
jim Jordan is so awesome
he's is gonna shred things apart, especially if he is not constrained by time like he usually is by the rules
During the witness testimonies that were allowed to be public, when Jordan cross examined them, he tore the Dems assertions apart. He has a way of putting things into context that clears up the bits and pieces released by Schiff and Nadler.
https://youtu.be/sJPTJudyHKo
https://youtu.be/JCSBd580P2A
https://youtu.be/f_iHscbGQjI
-
I did a lot of reading last night regarding how both sides are interpreting the constitution and federalist papers in order to bolster each sides claims. I found this article by National Review. It is long and complicated but worth plowing all the way through if you can. I don’t agree with everything they state here but I think they are trying to view both sides as credibly as possible.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/what-the-founders-told-us-about-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/
Here are the last two paragraphs of this article:
“Ultimately the best argument in the president’s defense from the Framing comes from the importance of the political process. First and foremost, the Framers believed that elections and the other branches of government would impose the primary restraint on the executive. A president intent on bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors would need the cooperation of the House and Senate to succeed in his plans, through either funding, legislation, or the approval of treaties and appointees. In such cases, the Framers hoped, the separation of powers would make it difficult for the president to execute any nefarious designs. “The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others,” Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” By pursuing their own self-interest, the other branches of government are meant to check any undue aggrandizement of power by the president.
Anti-Federalists worried that senators might have a political incentive to block impeachment when they had blessed executive conduct, whether by consenting to a damaging treaty or by confirming a traitor to office. Federalists argued that House impeachment would impose enormous political pressures on senators to try a president in good faith. But even if the Senate failed in its duty, the people would still have their say: By rejecting a president’s campaign for reelection, the people would render their own verdict. The Framers’ electoral check itself reveals the hollowness of Democrats’ ongoing impeachment quest, given that the next presidential election is just months away.”
-
I’m watching the opening of the impeachment trial this morning. Purpura is up and he played the lie that Schiff started this whole impeachment investigation with and just blew him out of the water as the lying scum he is. He is stepping through each sentence of the transcript showing Schiff’s statements as BS. :love: :love: :love:
-
Good synopsis of the situation thus far.
https://youtu.be/UzR98s9rw48
-
Good synopsis of the situation thus far.
https://youtu.be/UzR98s9rw48
I’ll watch this later when I have a little more time.
I ended up watching the entire 2 hours (not 3 as advertised). I have a few takes that I can remember from this morning.
1. Jay Sekulow kept repeating he was not going to repeat like the Dems did. I found this quite humerous.
2. All the presenters were very good. Paused a little too much. Probably could have finished in an hour and a half but I won’t complain. It was powerful and fact filled.
3. I learned a couple of things. The subpoenas that were issued by Schiff and his committee were not legal since Schiff didn’t have a vote from the entire house authorizing him to issue subpoenas. Which is the way any committee gets its authorization to issue them. Trump ignored them for this reason. How can Trump obstruct if the subpoenas were not legal/authorized. This made so much sense about how Trump responded to Schiff. Before I found this out I was perturbed at Trump for just ignoring the subpoenas.
4. Trump’s foreign policy is tremendous!!! I honestly had no idea that he was so involved and having his people perform oversight on the aid that he signed off on to numerous countries. If the countries didn’t perform as promised he stopped all aid to those countries. It was actually quite common for him to hold up foreign aid if they didn’t fight corruption. Or if they didn’t spend the money the way they stated they would. I don’t recall any president in recent history doing this. If that isn’t fighting for America I don’t know what is.
The more I hear the more I am impressed by Trump. Even tho he likes to toot his own horn, the things that I think are very important, like foreign policy, he is not so much letting us know. I will bash him for not letting us know more about his foreign policy. But now that I know, I approve! This president just went up a few notches in my book. It’s a shame it had to take this impeachment to find this out but still. I have a much stronger respect for Trump.
I learned nothing from Schiff and Nadler and the House managers in 23 hours. I learned so much that I had no idea about in the first 2 hours from Trumps defense team. I’m looking forward to learning more about what went on behind the scenes.
-
I’ll watch this later when I have a little more time.
I ended up watching the entire 2 hours (not 3 as advertised). I have a few takes that I can remember from this morning.
1. Jay Sekulow kept repeating he was not going to repeat like the Dems did. I found this quite humerous.
2. All the presenters were very good. Paused a little too much. Probably could have finished in an hour and a half but I won’t complain. It was powerful and fact filled.
3. I learned a couple of things. The subpoenas that were issued by Schiff and his committee were not legal since Schiff didn’t have a vote from the entire house authorizing him to issue subpoenas. Which is the way any committee gets its authorization to issue them. Trump ignored them for this reason. How can Trump obstruct if the subpoenas were not legal/authorized. This made so much sense about how Trump responded to Schiff. Before I found this out I was perturbed at Trump for just ignoring the subpoenas.
4. Trump’s foreign policy is tremendous!!! I honestly had no idea that he was so involved and having his people perform oversight on the aid that he signed off on to numerous countries. If the countries didn’t perform as promised he stopped all aid to those countries. It was actually quite common for him to hold up foreign aid if they didn’t fight corruption. Or if they didn’t spend the money the way they stated they would. I don’t recall any president in recent history doing this. If that isn’t fighting for America I don’t know what is.
The more I hear the more I am impressed by Trump. Even tho he likes to toot his own horn, the things that I think are very important, like foreign policy, he is not so much letting us know. I will bash him for not letting us know more about his foreign policy. But now that I know, I approve! This president just went up a few notches in my book. It’s a shame it had to take this impeachment to find this out but still. I have a much stronger respect for Trump.
I learned nothing from Schiff and Nadler and the House managers in 23 hours. I learned so much that I had no idea about in the first 2 hours from Trumps defense team. I’m looking forward to learning more about what went on behind the scenes.
When you watch the video, you'll see examples of how EVEN THE MSM was impressed, and how they complimented them on the use of ..... wait for it .... FACTS!! All they could praise Schiff for was his "powerful" and "emotional" statement. This should not be a case of emotions, but of fact. Maybe the MSM is seeing that now?
-
When you watch the video, you'll see examples of how EVEN THE MSM was impressed, and how they complimented them on the use of ..... wait for it .... FACTS!! All they could praise Schiff for was his "powerful" and "emotional" statement. This should not be a case of emotions, but of fact. Maybe the MSM is seeing that now?
Yeah, that surprised me when I saw that. To me this shows that the MSM all along has known the facts and has not reported them. They can only deny the truth for so long. And if you do you end up like CNN. :rofl:
-
There is no evidence of a crime.... :wacko:
There is quite a bit actually.
-
Or maybe the jury has to investigate themselves because 1 side is making and has been making shit up since day -3 months (won the primary).
They haven't been making this stuff up though, at least not most of it. Unless you think the managed to get Trump's own people to say false things about him.
-
There is quite a bit actually.
Saying there is does not make it true.
What's your evidence?
-
They haven't been making this stuff up though, at least not most of it. Unless you think the managed to get Trump's own people to say false things about him.
Please give examples of facts instead of general opinions.
-
Thanks for the synopsis Inspector. (The written one)
It was a good one.
And awesome to watch Jim Jordan shred ‘em.
Should be required viewing.
-
There is quite a bit actually.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.
-
Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.
Give him time to re-watch the last 20 Rachel Madcow shows. He didn't take notes the first time.
-
Give him time to re-watch the last 20 Rachel Madcow shows. He didn't take notes the first time.
You almost cost me
a laptop keyboard!
-
Please give examples of facts instead of general opinions.
Have you been following the trial?
There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.
1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine
And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.
This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.
-
Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.
I looked up those 2 sections. Why would they be relevant here?
-
Have you been following the trial?
There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.
1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine
And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.
This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.
Nothing in all your points is even close to an impeachable offense.
Schiff and the Dems in the House are impeaching Trump based on one thing: They think they can read his mind. His motive for asking the Ukrainian president to look into the Bidens is what they claim is abuse of power. There is no evidence Trump was afraid Biden would even win the nomination, much less be a threat to reelection.
As for timing, Zelensky was elected on a reform platform in Apr. The parliament in Ukraine won a majority which aligns it with Zelensky now. That was the reason for the 2nd call. Both calls were congratulatory. Timing was based on elections in Ukraine. Nothing more.
Most of your points are debunked as ideas held by certain people but never attributed to Trump directly. In fact, there are facts and direct comments that completely destroy those beliefs.
You need to watch the 2 hours from Saturday's opening statement.
Ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 election by opposing the Trump campaign.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-finally-comes-back-to-admitting-ukraine-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election
-
A point made on a Sunday program:
Even if we concede Trump was motivated by his reelection to request dirt on Biden, that's not illegal. An American asking a foreign entity to perform opposition research for them is not "foreign interference." The American citizen is allowed to research opponents -- the source of which is not limited to US sources.
Don't believe me? Ask the DNC and Hildabeast who paid for the Steele dossier from a former British spy and supposedly sourced through Russians.
There's an alternate theory to Trump's request to investigate: he wanted to know who in Ukraine was interfering in our 2016 election, and what the Bidens' relationship to corrupt oligarchies there were. Completely legitimate justifications.
-
Listening to Ken Starr. What he is saying is interesting and true. But he is not a convincing speaker IMHO. He is sounding like an emotional snowflake. And speaking a little too slow. I'm starting to nod off.....
MORE COFFEE :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
Listening to Ken Starr. What he is saying is interesting and true. But he is not a convincing speaker IMHO. He is sounding like an emotional snowflake. And speaking a little too slow. I'm starting to nod off.....
MORE COFFEE :shake: :shake: :shake:
Ken Starr on news channels is also boring. His opinions are credible given his experience investigating and prosecuting Slick Willy, so it motivates me more to listen when talking impeachment.
Gotta take the bad with the good.
-
Ken Starr on news channels is also boring. His opinions are credible given his experience investigating and prosecuting Slick Willy, so it motivates me more to listen when talking impeachment.
Gotta take the bad with the good.
Been listening all morning. Everyone has been terrific! Especially this last woman (Pam Bondi). She went right after Joe and Hunter Biden. She laid out the case to the point that I don't see how anyone couldn't at least want the matter investigated. I am listening to the last speaker (had to take my headphones off when he was introduced) before the dinner break. This guy is going after the House Managers. They caught them in a bunch of lies. Now he is going after Joe and Hunter as well. He is also going after Schiff right now. This defense team is terrific. Discredit the House managers as being inadequate in their duties to bring forth a complete case.
-
Been listening all morning. Everyone has been terrific! Especially this last woman (Pam Bondi). She went right after Joe and Hunter Biden. She laid out the case to the point that I don't see how anyone couldn't at least want the matter investigated. I am listening to the last speaker (had to take my headphones off when he was introduced) before the dinner break. This guy is going after the House Managers. They caught them in a bunch of lies. Now he is going after Joe and Hunter as well. He is also going after Schiff right now. This defense team is terrific. Discredit the House managers as being inadequate in their duties to bring forth a complete case.
Gonna have to watch when I get home. Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection. I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.
Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing.
Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .
-
Gonna have to watch when I get home. Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection. I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.
Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing.
Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .
This goes deep. Ask yourself:
1) Why is a 42 year old allowed to join the Navy with no prior XP and a drug habbit
2) Why was he allowed to be an officer
3) What kind of blackberry's do officers get issued in his MOS
4) What kind of encryption do these blackberry's have
5) What other 3 letter agency decides on the issuing of encrypted devices
-
Gonna have to watch when I get home. Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection. I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.
Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing.
Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .
So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.
This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."
Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)
Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS. Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.
Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings. Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.
These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting. Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome. Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump.
Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.
-
Have you been following the trial?
There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.
1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine
And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.
This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.
PRetty much every number you listed is from the Maddow or like shows. And all have no meaning or have been found to be untrue in which they way they were reported by the fake news.
I'll try and indulge via from what I remember. Don't got time to look into all this again:
1)Biden is not the front runner. They're all equally shitty
2) POTUS can withhold funds for what ever reason he sees fit. And there was no QPQ, Ukraine was going to get the funds anyways (read transcript)
3) Is there something wrong with investigating corruption? No one else had the balls to bring it up, but POTUS does. Who else's kids for for Ukraine power companies (Pelosi, Kerry, 1 more but I forget)
4) No one was legally required to testify. So why would they? The DNC would just do a General Flynn. So unless legally required, there is no need to show up. IF they were legally required and didn't show up, they would be in jail right now. But they're not.
5) POTUS can fire an ambassador for any reason, or lack there of a reason. But in her case, now you know why he did.
6) See #2, no QPQ
7) IDK much about this one, never looked into it. But is it illegal? If the answer is no, then Rudy can meet with who ever he wants to.
8) GOP was not allowed to call witnesses when in the house impeachment, not that they don't want to. There also is no point to calling any additional witnesses because the foundation of the impeachment is a moo point anyways. IIRC, flap posted that once the docs are in the senate, no more new info can be added. It all has to be done by the DNC controlled house. Secret meetings with Schiff which GOP was not allowed to attend.
9) Not sure if Ukraine tried or didn't try to interfere. But I know Russia didn't. Ask yourself, why would Ukraine want to keep Clinton in power and not Trump? See #3. So there is a motive for them to interfere and other countries who benefited from Barry's/Clintons corruption. We interfere with other countries elections all the time. So is it illegal? How come the DNC is so concerned about another countries (Russia) interfierence, but not concerned about illegal aliens voting? If 60,000 Russians came into the US illegally, would the DNC would be singing a different tune? Illegal voters, that's interference.
10) POTUS can ask questions and does all the time in other matters. He needs to know what's legal and what's not. So him asking inappropriate questions are good. They need to be asked so he makes sure he doesn't break the law. Can't know an answer if you don't ask.
-
So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.
This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."
Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)
Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS. Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.
Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings. Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.
These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting. Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome. Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump.
Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.
Guess who's brother is on the NSC counsel who reviewed Bolton's info...
-
So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.
This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."
Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)
Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS. Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.
Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings. Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.
These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting. Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome. Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump.
Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.
The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.
-
The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.
- The Les Parnas interview
- OMB email about withholding funds
- GAO saying withholding funds was illegal
- The Bolton manuscript
Obviously coordinated stunts.
Think about this. If Trump was trying to get Bolton and the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma when they say, HOW COULD THE INVESTIGATION BE MOTIVATED TO HURT A POLITICAL OPPONENT WHEN BIDEN HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING THEN?
Trump has been consistent about trying to find out what happened in Ukraine regarding 2016 election interfering since long before Biden was a candidate for 2020. So, any accusations Trump is using this to unfairly dig up dirt on a political opponent is totally false. It's logically impossible based on the info reported over the last week.
In trying to resuscitate their impeachment case, the Dems have proven their theory of Trump's motivations completely false.
-
The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.
Guess who in the WH reviews the info NYT got, same guy who reviews Bolton's release.
-
Guess who in the WH reviews the info NYT got, same guy who reviews Bolton's release.
Let me guess, Santa Claus? :rofl:
-
NancyPelosiSucksPen.com (http://NancyPelosiSucksPen.com)
-
Gonna have to watch when I get home. Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection. I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.
Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing.
Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .
Tune into NPR if you can get to a radio, or stream it off the web. They had live coverage and I listened to much of today's coverage that way.
-
PRetty much every number you listed is from the Maddow or like shows. And all have no meaning or have been found to be untrue in which they way they were reported by the fake news.
I'll try and indulge via from what I remember. Don't got time to look into all this again:
1)Biden is not the front runner. They're all equally shitty
2) POTUS can withhold funds for what ever reason he sees fit. And there was no QPQ, Ukraine was going to get the funds anyways (read transcript)
3) Is there something wrong with investigating corruption? No one else had the balls to bring it up, but POTUS does. Who else's kids for for Ukraine power companies (Pelosi, Kerry, 1 more but I forget)
4) No one was legally required to testify. So why would they? The DNC would just do a General Flynn. So unless legally required, there is no need to show up. IF they were legally required and didn't show up, they would be in jail right now. But they're not.
5) POTUS can fire an ambassador for any reason, or lack there of a reason. But in her case, now you know why he did.
6) See #2, no QPQ
7) IDK much about this one, never looked into it. But is it illegal? If the answer is no, then Rudy can meet with who ever he wants to.
8) GOP was not allowed to call witnesses when in the house impeachment, not that they don't want to. There also is no point to calling any additional witnesses because the foundation of the impeachment is a moo point anyways. IIRC, flap posted that once the docs are in the senate, no more new info can be added. It all has to be done by the DNC controlled house. Secret meetings with Schiff which GOP was not allowed to attend.
9) Not sure if Ukraine tried or didn't try to interfere. But I know Russia didn't. Ask yourself, why would Ukraine want to keep Clinton in power and not Trump? See #3. So there is a motive for them to interfere and other countries who benefited from Barry's/Clintons corruption. We interfere with other countries elections all the time. So is it illegal? How come the DNC is so concerned about another countries (Russia) interfierence, but not concerned about illegal aliens voting? If 60,000 Russians came into the US illegally, would the DNC would be singing a different tune? Illegal voters, that's interference.
10) POTUS can ask questions and does all the time in other matters. He needs to know what's legal and what's not. So him asking inappropriate questions are good. They need to be asked so he makes sure he doesn't break the law. Can't know an answer if you don't ask.
I don't watch Maddow or MSNBC, much of what I got was from the arguments made by the prosecution side that I listened to live.
I am very hesitant to believe claims that it is all a bunch of lies. If they were so easily dismissed as lies then why has Trump's defense team attacked the process and the Biden corruption instead of attacking the democrat facts?
1. Biden was seen as the front runner and having the best chance to beat Trump for a while. He was an obvious target.
2. Trump did not have authorization to withhold funds for whatever reason he feels like it. The Government Accountability Office even said he broke the law. This is not a serious legal violation or one worth impeaching over, in my opinion, but still a violation of the law.
3. Nothing was wrong with the investigation in my opinion but the timing is very suspect.
4. White House staff were subpoenaed to testify and lass I checked a subpoena has legal authority. The reason they can get away with it is because of separation of powers which creates that complication.
5. Yes, Trump can fire for whatever reason he wants but again, the timing is very suspect.
6. And Mulvaney just didn't get the message it was not quid pro quo? I know Trump said there were no conditions but I don't treat that statement as fact just because he said it.
7. Not sure if what Rudy did was criminal but I believe he violated something there at some level whether it be some regulation or some rule for lawyers. I think there was a conflict of interest but I can't recall exactly where. Need to listen to the podcast that covered that one again to be able to cover the details.
8. There is no reason the republicans can't call new witnesses at this stage in the process. From the commentary I was listening to in the news the republicans are considering it.
9. Russia definitely did try to interfere in our elections but that is a separate story and so is illegal alien voting. As to Ukraine interfering in the election I am going to have to look into this one more based off the link Flappier shared. I know the FBI guy testified that they had no evidence of Ukrainian interference. So gotta sort through the weeds there.
10. By themselves the comments and questions are not that serious, again it is just the overall picture this whole thing paints.
To be clear, I am saying that the prosecution has made a strong case, I am not saying that therefore Trump is guilty. I am waiting to hear more of the defense side before I weigh in my personal opinion.
What I will say that it looks like so far is using the situation for a personal advantage. By that I mean sometimes the right decision for the country also happens to make the leader look good. And of course, why not undertake such a course of action, two birds with one stone. Trump doesn't really care about corruption in Ukraine but he knows that an investigation into the Bidens will help him and he knows that he can justify it because of the apparent dirtiness of Biden's son and he was trying to squeeze it for all its worth. Trump is doing a bit of a balance act trying to get as much personal advantage out of it while staying in the justified area. Is this illegal? Nope. Is it unethical? I would say the way he went about it is. Is it impeachment worthy? Not in my opinion at this point.
Giuliani is sort of a wild card here. I don't know if he came up with the idea but he actually seems to be more dirty than Trump here.
-
- The Les Parnas interview
- OMB email about withholding funds
- GAO saying withholding funds was illegal
- The Bolton manuscript
Obviously coordinated stunts.
Think about this. If Trump was trying to get Bolton and the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma when they say, HOW COULD THE INVESTIGATION BE MOTIVATED TO HURT A POLITICAL OPPONENT WHEN BIDEN HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING THEN?
Trump has been consistent about trying to find out what happened in Ukraine regarding 2016 election interfering since long before Biden was a candidate for 2020. So, any accusations Trump is using this to unfairly dig up dirt on a political opponent is totally false. It's logically impossible based on the info reported over the last week.
In trying to resuscitate their impeachment case, the Dems have proven their theory of Trump's motivations completely false.
Biden announced he was running for president in April 2019. Trump's request for an investigation was made in July 2019.
And on your previous point, impeachment does not have to be for a criminal violation.
-
Biden announced he was running for president in April 2019. Trump's request for an investigation was made in July 2019.
And on your previous point, impeachment does not have to be for a criminal violation.
Trump was RECORDED saying to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch on April 30, 2018 -- more than a year before your stated date.
Trump supposedly said he wanted the Ukraine President to investigate Russia meddling the 2016 election as it relates to Barisma and Biden -- according to today's "bombshell" from Bolton. That was August 2019. That conversation has no bearing on the case, since no other witness has testified Trump ever said that. In fact, Sondland testified Trump told him in August, "I want nothing ... I only want Zelensky to do the right thing." Unless Bolton recorded the exchange, he's just a disgruntled ex-employee trying to gin up hype to sell books. If he has this info before, don't you think the House would have pushed to get Bolton to testify instead of DROPPING the subpoena?
Your continued harping on a technical debate point (which has never been used in US history until the Schiff Show) is noted. Every other impeachment included charges that at least one federal law was broken. These articles are vague and, according to testimony today, unconstitutional.
-
Let me guess, Santa Claus? :rofl:
Col. Vindhams brother...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Col. Vindhams brother...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sorry, being sarcastic.
-
I just finished watching Professor Alan Dershowitz impeachment presentation on the constitutionality of the 2 impeachment articles. It is over an hour, but worth watching if this is interesting to you. It is powerful in the fact he is a liberal and a constitutional scholar. His completely non partisan interpretation of the constitution (whose interpretation he came to before the impeachment started) comes to the conclusion that the articles of impeachment are not up to the standards and the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. I would think to those that really think the Democrats have any sort of case whatsoever will be swayed after watching this. He literally blows their case completely out of the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmhfyH09jM
-
Not watching this circus joke, but read one of the defense guys brought up Øbowel's :
"I'll have more flexibility after the election" as a very clear quid pro quo that did not bother democrats in the slightest.
-
I don't watch Maddow or MSNBC, much of what I got was from the arguments made by the prosecution side that I listened to live.
It was just a figure of speech about Maddow. But pretty much all the fake news agencies have been running the same story with the same key phrases being used. I stopped getting info from them when they started to push the fake Russia story. Now with the internet, there are many sources of real info that can be accessed by the public. You just have to know how to search. Googling and using the first page of links is most likely not a good search.
So everything the prosecution said, is what has been said on the fake news. Of which I looked into and have been total BS. No new info was released that was previously kept classified.
-
Democratic Senators Admit Impeachment Trial Has No “Evidence”
https://thegreggjarrett.com/dem-senators-admit-impeachment-trial-has-no-evidence/
Warren and Durbin?
Anyone with half a brain and no animosity towards the president already sees there is no evidence here.
-
Col. Vindhams brother...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Oh say can you see...."
-
Democratic Senators Admit Impeachment Trial Has No “Evidence”
https://thegreggjarrett.com/dem-senators-admit-impeachment-trial-has-no-evidence/
Warren and Durbin?
Anyone with half a brain and no animosity towards the president already sees there is no evidence here.
Given the comments by the MSM and Democrats in the Senate, as well as many Republican Senators, it would seem to me there are a ton of people who make politics their profession who haven't been keeping up with the House impeachment circus. They seem to be shocked that Schiff is lying about having "overwhelming and compelling evidence" of Trump being a national security threat, threat to our democracy/republic, threat to our elections, etc, etc.
-
Trump was RECORDED saying to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch on April 30, 2018 -- more than a year before your stated date.
Trump supposedly said he wanted the Ukraine President to investigate Russia meddling the 2016 election as it relates to Barisma and Biden -- according to today's "bombshell" from Bolton. That was August 2019. That conversation has no bearing on the case, since no other witness has testified Trump ever said that. In fact, Sondland testified Trump told him in August, "I want nothing ... I only want Zelensky to do the right thing." Unless Bolton recorded the exchange, he's just a disgruntled ex-employee trying to gin up hype to sell books. If he has this info before, don't you think the House would have pushed to get Bolton to testify instead of DROPPING the subpoena?
Your continued harping on a technical debate point (which has never been used in US history until the Schiff Show) is noted. Every other impeachment included charges that at least one federal law was broken. These articles are vague and, according to testimony today, unconstitutional.
I was simply correcting the incorrect notion that a crime is necessary for an impeachment for no other purpose than for accuracy sake. I don't care whether that hurts Trump or helps him.
Trump may have indeed wanted to fire Yovanovitch long before this but I don't see how that proves the point he couldn't be motivated to hurt Biden. If you are only talking about Yovanovitch then I would have to concede your point but I was talking about the request to investigate the bidens that was made to Ukraine. Biden was already clearly a strong candidate by the time Trump made the request. Maybe Trump had this whole idea in his head and just waited until a bad time to execute it, who knows?
-
It was just a figure of speech about Maddow. But pretty much all the fake news agencies have been running the same story with the same key phrases being used. I stopped getting info from them when they started to push the fake Russia story. Now with the internet, there are many sources of real info that can be accessed by the public. You just have to know how to search. Googling and using the first page of links is most likely not a good search.
So everything the prosecution said, is what has been said on the fake news. Of which I looked into and have been total BS. No new info was released that was previously kept classified.
When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.
But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.
-
When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.
But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.
Im sure youre aware that anyone can make a statement. But it doesnt mean its true.
Have u connected the dots to these "witnesses"? Are there any alterior motives or relationships with groups/people who want to see trump impeached since day 1 of office?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.
But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.
The defense did prove those witness statements false -- by playing the ENTIRE video clip of the statement, not just the out-of-context, incomplete statement Schiff and Nadler wanted everyone to focus on.
You should get the whole story instead of basing your opinions on lying, cheating, TDS-riddled Democrats who swore to impeach Trump since before he was inaugurated.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/25/watch_live_president_trumps_legal_team_begins_defense_opening_statement.html
-
Im sure youre aware that anyone can make a statement. But it doesnt mean its true.
Have u connected the dots to these "witnesses"? Are there any alterior motives or relationships with groups/people who want to see trump impeached since day 1 of office?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.
I don't necessarily believe everything they said to be 100% true but nor do I automatically believe every claim they are lying or have some other motive. I certainly don't believe Trump innocent just because someone heard him say there were no strings attached. A competent person would know to throw out things like that so witnesses could later say they heard him say it.
Where is there evidence that any of the witnesses were lying? Not saying they didn't but I haven't seen evidence of it. And to be clear, evidence of bias isn't proof of a lie.
For Flapp,
Playing the whole clip doesn't show the witnesses to be lying it only adds more context to the statement to keep a democrat from cherry picking the best part for them.
I didn't focus on all the righteous pontificating stuff the democrats were throwing in, I was focusing on the specific facts and testimony for my opinion. I don't have to like the opposing team in the super bowl but I can still admit they are skillful in their play. Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.
-
I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.
I don't necessarily believe everything they said to be 100% true but nor do I automatically believe every claim they are lying or have some other motive. I certainly don't believe Trump innocent just because someone heard him say there were no strings attached. A competent person would know to throw out things like that so witnesses could later say they heard him say it.
Where is there evidence that any of the witnesses were lying? Not saying they didn't but I haven't seen evidence of it. And to be clear, evidence of bias isn't proof of a lie.
For Flapp,
Playing the whole clip doesn't show the witnesses to be lying it only adds more context to the statement to keep a democrat from cherry picking the best part for them.
I didn't focus on all the righteous pontificating stuff the democrats were throwing in, I was focusing on the specific facts and testimony for my opinion. I don't have to like the opposing team in the super bowl but I can still admit they are skillful in their play. Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.
You have to learn to read.
I said the MANGERS (Schiff, Nadler, etc) are lying, not the witnesses. The witness statements presented by the House Managers are cherry-picked, out-of-context and often contradicted in later testimony. They presented the narrative-friendly soundbites and ignored the rest.
The statements used were false -- that doesn't mean the statements were lies. They were presented to the Senate in a dishonest manner.
You only have to listen to the 2 hour opening statement from Saturday to understand. I challenge you to watch. If you burst into flames, I'll pay for your dry cleaning.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6-opening-defense-arguments
-
I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.
Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.
As opposed to rabid TDSers who are essential “f Trump” for everything, even if they agree it’s positive. I’m not a big fan of Trump, but the opposition is rabid and blind to facts.
Good case? Are you serious? I was once on a jury where the prosecution’s case was “liar liar, pants on fire...I know you’re guilty but I can’t prove it”.
I mean there are things that def stink, but did you even listen to the hypocrisy DOCUMENTED... as in they said those very words not that long ago in Clinton’s impeachment...
-
As opposed to rabid TDSers who are essential “f Trump” for everything, even if they agree it’s positive. I’m not a big fan of Trump, but the opposition is rabid and blind to facts.
Good case? Are you serious? I was once on a jury where the prosecution’s case was “liar liar, pants on fire...I know you’re guilty but I can’t prove it”.
I mean there are things that def stink, but did you even listen to the hypocrisy DOCUMENTED... as in they said those very words not that long ago in Clinton’s impeachment...
When even the MSM is saying Trump is winning impeachment, it's rather ridiculous to opine that the House put on a good case.
They told a good story, made from a patchwork of factoids and connected with the thinnest of threads.
It took the President's team less than two hours to sever those threads.
The House repeated their story over and over and over and over. They seemed to think the more times they repeated their conclusions, the more likely the jury would remember those and overlook the fact that they forgot to back them up with actual evidence.
-
They told a good story, made from a patchwork of factoids and connected with the thinnest of threads.
Quoting of a WaPo article as evidence was super strong... [sarcasm\]
But seriously, if the strength of a case based on opinion (which was actually later countered) and that’s a good case, oh brother...
-
Quoting of a WaPo article as evidence was super strong... [sarcasm\]
But seriously, if the strength of a case based on opinion (which was actually later countered) and that’s a good case, oh brother...
Correct. I think EEF sees/hears what he wants to see/hear.
Never mind there is the IG's testimony transcript taken in the "bunker in the basement" that still hasn't been released to the Republicans/Trump's team, and was not part of the Senate trial.
Why not? What could there be in that deposition that Schiff doesn't want anyone to hear?
Perhaps the facts that lead the IG to conclude the complaint by the informant was not only inconsistent with the investigation's facts, but it may also detail why the IG judged the informant to have political bias -- something that factored into why the IG did not treat the complaint as 100% credible?
Perhaps the transcript includes the informant's account of how he contacted Schiff's staff (maybe even Schiff himself), while Schiff is still maintaining he has no idea who the informant is. :wacko:
When there's a hidden record of the FIRST PERSON to have received and investigated the complaint that started this whole impeachment still being kept away from EVERYBODY involved, it makes you wonder. If it was BAD for Trump, I guarantee it would have been front and center last week. We can only assume it's bad for Schiff's case.
-
I was listening yesterday to the trial. Once again, the presidents defense team went into great detail of the lies brought on by Schiff and Nadler. This isn't rocket science. It should be over but I am hearing that new witnesses are probably going to be called. With this said I have been reading that the Republicans have ALWAYS been open to calling witnesses (despite what the MSM has been saying) as long as they get the witnesses they want. Basically they want to hear from Schiff, the POS Non-Whistleblower, and both Bidens. Also, there should be some Biden family members like Joe's sister, brother and another son along with Hunter's business partners. If we do get witnesses look to see this whole trial open up to a much greater clown show.
I am looking forward to hearing the senator's questions today.
-
I was listening yesterday to the trial. Once again, the presidents defense team went into great detail of the lies brought on by Schiff and Nadler. This isn't rocket science. It should be over but I am hearing that new witnesses are probably going to be called. With this said I have been reading that the Republicans have ALWAYS been open to calling witnesses (despite what the MSM has been saying) as long as they get the witnesses they want. Basically they want to hear from Schiff, the POS Non-Whistleblower, and both Bidens. Also, there should be some Biden family members like Joe's sister, brother and another son along with Hunter's business partners. If we do get witnesses look to see this whole trial open up to a much greater clown show.
I am looking forward to hearing the senator's questions today.
That's where you're wrong, it is rocket science, quantum mechanics, flux capacitor, and then some. Because even without any opening statements or info presented by the DNC, anyone with google can look into the info over the past 3 years and come to a intelligent conclusion that its all BS. When emotion gets involved, reasoning goes out the window.
Saw a pic of Hunter in his $300K sports car. But yet he can't afford child support payments to the stripper he knocked up...I bet his mom owns the car.
-
I was listening yesterday to the trial. Once again, the presidents defense team went into great detail of the lies brought on by Schiff and Nadler. This isn't rocket science. It should be over but I am hearing that new witnesses are probably going to be called. With this said I have been reading that the Republicans have ALWAYS been open to calling witnesses (despite what the MSM has been saying) as long as they get the witnesses they want. Basically they want to hear from Schiff, the POS Non-Whistleblower, and both Bidens. Also, there should be some Biden family members like Joe's sister, brother and another son along with Hunter's business partners. If we do get witnesses look to see this whole trial open up to a much greater clown show.
I am looking forward to hearing the senator's questions today.
I'm really interested in how the next 2 days or so will go, particularly what doors are opened and what they will reveal.
And is it just me, or every time I see Schiff or Nadler, I just want to punch them right in the teef. And it's not because of these proceedings. Schiff just looks like a total oogly eyed weasel.
-
Correct. I think EEF sees/hears what he wants to see/hear.
Never mind there is the IG's testimony transcript taken in the "bunker in the basement" that still hasn't been released to the Republicans/Trump's team, and was not part of the Senate trial.
Why not? What could there be in that deposition that Schiff doesn't want anyone to hear?
Perhaps the facts that lead the IG to conclude the complaint by the informant was not only inconsistent with the investigation's facts, but it may also detail why the IG judged the informant to have political bias -- something that factored into why the IG did not treat the complaint as 100% credible?
Perhaps the transcript includes the informant's account of how he contacted Schiff's staff (maybe even Schiff himself), while Schiff is still maintaining he has no idea who the informant is. :wacko:
When there's a hidden record of the FIRST PERSON to have received and investigated the complaint that started this whole impeachment still being kept away from EVERYBODY involved, it makes you wonder. If it was BAD for Trump, I guarantee it would have been front and center last week. We can only assume it's bad for Schiff's case.
While I am not super familiar with the Senate's standard of evidence/proof/care in trying impeachment, I saw many posts from liberals to the effect of why are Republicans unable to provide evidence that Trump is innocent. Isn't the Constitution for ALL Americans? Think some people only use parts of it when it serves their agenda and trample on it when it gets in their way. Pesky constitution. . .
I'm waiting for more links on Schiff to other high profile events that were overcome by impeachment. . . :hmm: #noteverythingisaconspiracy #dammittinfoiliscontagious
The 70+ hours of closed sessions is another.
-
I'm really interested in how the next 2 days or so will go, particularly what doors are opened and what they will reveal.
And is it just me, or every time I see Schiff or Nadler, I just want to punch them right in the teef. And it's not because of these proceedings. Schiff just looks like a total oogly eyed weasel.
Yeah, I want to poke him in the googly eyes! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Yeah, I want to poke him in the googly eyes! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That would work too! :rofl:
-
I'm really interested in how the next 2 days or so will go, particularly what doors are opened and what they will reveal.
And is it just me, or every time I see Schiff or Nadler, I just want to punch them right in the teef. And it's not because of these proceedings. Schiff just looks like a total oogly eyed weasel.
I want to know who is the missing witness. Schiff mentioned 18 witness,but only 17 by name. Was it a typo?
-
I want to know who is the missing witness. Schiff mentioned 18 witness,but only 17 by name. Was it a typo?
Schifficide. . . or got sent to Wuhan. . .
-
While I am not super familiar with the Senate's standard of evidence/proof/care in trying impeachment, I saw many posts from liberals to the effect of why are Republicans unable to provide evidence that Trump is innocent. Isn't the Constitution for ALL Americans? Think some people only use parts of it when it serves their agenda and trample on it when it gets in their way. Pesky constitution. . .
I'm waiting for more links on Schiff to other high profile events that were overcome by impeachment. . . :hmm: #noteverythingisaconspiracy #dammittinfoiliscontagious
The 70+ hours of closed sessions is another.
The defense Team DID offer evidence of innocence. It's called "THE F*CKING TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL".
Everybody who read or listened to what Trump and Zelensky talked about comprehends there was no bribery, no extortion and no link between the paused aid (which Zelensky didn't find out was paused until a month later from Politico), and there was NO DEMAND for an investigation or even an announcement of one to get the aid.
Trump's got to be the worse extortionist in history. He expected something from Zelensky in exchange for releasing aid even though the aid was never discussed. These people have been watching too much of The Godfather.
Trump ran on and has been consistent in withholding or pausing aid to many other countries. Only now that the Bidens are being investigated -- AGAIN -- for corruption is Trump a "national security threat".
I'm also still trying to figure out how Ukraine not getting a few million buck in aid represents a massive national security threat from Russia against the US. :wacko:
Trump has done more for security in Ukraine than Obama ever did, and without promising the Russians "more flexibility" after his reelection.
-
So a woman who claims Trump taped her in the 90s wants a DNA sample from him so they can test it on some jizz on a dress.
So she kept the dress for 30 years hoping 1 day a DNA test would be able to prove he jizzed on her.
Distraction from impeachment trial falling apart, so the dnc needs something else to try and swing the election. Que the racism accusations next.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
So a woman who claims Trump taped her in the 90s wants a DNA sample from him so they can test it on some jizz on a dress.
So she kept the dress for 30 years hoping 1 day a DNA test would be able to prove he jizzed on her.
Distraction from impeachment trial falling apart, so the dnc needs something else to try and swing the election. Que the racism accusations next.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's the whack job that creeped out Anderson Cooper during her interview. He was so uneasy, he abruptly went to commercial before she said way too much.
If she has evidence -- real evidence -- of raped, she needs to present it. Otherwise, any DNA match only proves they had a close encounter, not necessarily rape.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: So you don't feel like a victim?
E. JEAN CARROLL: I was not thrown on the ground and ravished. Which, the word "rape" carries so many sexual connotations. This was not sexual. It just, it hurt.
ANDERSON COOPER: I think most people think of rape as a violent assault. It is not sexual--
E. JEAN CARROLL: I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
ANDERSON COOPER: Let's take a short break.
E. JEAN CARROLL: Think of the fantasies.
ANDERSON COOPER: We're going to take a short break. If you could stick around we can talk more.
E. JEAN CARROLL: You're fascinating to talk to. :shake:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/25/stunned_anderson_cooper_cuts_to_commercial_when_trump_accuser_e_jean_carroll_calls_rape_sexy.html
-
So a woman who claims Trump taped her in the 90s wants a DNA sample from him so they can test it on some jizz on a dress.
So she kept the dress for 30 years hoping 1 day a DNA test would be able to prove he jizzed on her.
Distraction from impeachment trial falling apart, so the dnc needs something else to try and swing the election. Que the racism accusations next.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
She kept the dress as a souvenir. Now she wants to sell it on eBay for a million bucks!!! [/sarcasm]
-
Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski came out Friday against calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, all but assuring the Senate will move to wrap up proceedings with a likely acquittal in a matter of days, if not hours.
“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” said Murkowski, R-Alaska, a key moderate senator who has been closely watched on the witness question.
The announcement came after Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who also had been on the fence on the issue, announced late Thursday that he would not support additional witnesses in Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan” trial.
Right now, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah are the only GOP senators to signal support for witnesses. Presuming Democrats vote as a bloc and no other Republicans defect, this would leave the pro-witness side with just 49 votes.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-comes-out-against-impeachment-witnesses-putting-trump-on-path-to-acquittal (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-comes-out-against-impeachment-witnesses-putting-trump-on-path-to-acquittal)
-
What if the WBs name is left out because of Erics involvement in ukraines 2014 uprising. U know when snipers were put in buildings targeting both civilians and police.
Was Brennan his boss?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Just watched the Senate vote on whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial.
Yes: 49
No: 51
Bolton is now a non-issue, with the obvious caveat that the Dems will now be crying the trial was "unfair" and "rigged", and "THAT ONE WITNESS" would have convicted Trump. :crazy:
Next vote will be on acquittal which is another "majority wins" vote. If (when) that passes, the trial is done. if it fails, then they'll vote on conviction -- a "Super Majority (2/3)" vote, which is guaranteed to fail.
-
The defense team has set up 3 arguments to defend Trump. One is a very good defense but the other too are just not valid in my opinion. It should be noted that these defense arguments basically do nothing to support Trump's original claims that there was nothing wrong, the defense team never argues Trump didn't do it or even argues there is no ethical aspect. They only defend it by saying he can and it isn't impeachable.
1. They are complaining about precedence and rules. This is weak in my eyes as there isn't exactly a rule book for most of what is happening. There are a few instances in the past but nothing that dictates it has to be done that way.
2. They are trying to make the case that if it isn't a crime then it isn't impeachable. Though the argument made was very articulate and by a well respected authority on the constitution I don't buy the argument because it supposes the only way to remove a sitting president were if he committed a crime or was incapacitated. Now you might ask what is wrong with that, but try to imagine a scenario where a president starts doing legal but horrible things. Imagine the president joining the KKK and saying we should lynch people. Imagine a president saying Nazis had the right idea with the final solution and got a tattoo of a swastika on his neck. Imagine a president saying he wanted to pass an amendment removing the freedom of speech from the constitution and claimed gun owners were terrorists. Is anyone going to sit there and seriously claim that since there would be no crime the only resolution would be to vote a different president in year(s) later? Plus impeachment as a process has a history involving non criminal allegations. There were also multiple mentions of impeachment of Obama for things that weren't criminal either so I don't think a bunch of GOP congresspeople can sit around and now honestly maintain impeachment cannot be for a non criminal act.
3. Trump's best argument is that there was a legitimate reason to require an investigation even if that call also benefitted him. The prosecution has put forth a pretty strong and convincing argument that Trump was really just interested in the announcement that there would be an investigation and did not care about the legitimate reason. Having said that, it isn't really a matter of how much motive is involved, it could be 80% personal benefit and 20% the right thing to do and that is still enough to justify his call for an investigation
4. (Not really a legal argument but an ideological one they are making) The defense is putting forth the idea that this is trying to reverse an election and therefore should be seen as invalid or unacceptable on some grounds. This is an empty argument because they are using a proscribed process. It isn't some illegal subverting of the will of the voters or influencing the election. If someone got arrested for committing a crime on election day and therefore could not vote are the police then interfering with the election? Not if they are following the proscribed laws and procedures.
-
You have to learn to read.
I said the MANGERS (Schiff, Nadler, etc) are lying, not the witnesses. The witness statements presented by the House Managers are cherry-picked, out-of-context and often contradicted in later testimony. They presented the narrative-friendly soundbites and ignored the rest.
The statements used were false -- that doesn't mean the statements were lies. They were presented to the Senate in a dishonest manner.
You only have to listen to the 2 hour opening statement from Saturday to understand. I challenge you to watch. If you burst into flames, I'll pay for your dry cleaning.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6-opening-defense-arguments
The prosecution and defense are both cherry picking, that's what they do. If you want to call that lying then they are both lying.
-
The prosecution and defense are both cherry picking, that's what they do. If you want to call that lying then they are both lying.
I would say 1 side cherry picks more than the other. But this is why I rely on my own information which showed this is a witch hunt and holds no merit.
Didnt the fake news and DNC say it's unethical to call for an investigation into a political candidate. Yet we have 3 opposing candidates who are going to vote on another political candidate.
-
Just watched the Senate vote on whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial.
Yes: 49
No: 51
Bolton is now a non-issue, with the obvious caveat that the Dems will now be crying the trial was "unfair" and "rigged", and "THAT ONE WITNESS" would have convicted Trump. :crazy:
Next vote will be on acquittal which is another "majority wins" vote. If (when) that passes, the trial is done. if it fails, then they'll vote on conviction -- a "Super Majority (2/3)" vote, which is guaranteed to fail.
If the house really wanted to and thought Bolton had some smoking gun they could always hold another impeachment hearing and subpoena him again. So if all they do is complain that it was unfair then they are just doing it for show. We'll see if they take any actual steps to hear testimony from Bolton.
-
I would say 1 side cherry picks more than the other. But this is why I rely on my own information which showed this is a witch hunt and holds no merit.
Agree with you on the first half disagree on the second half.
Didnt the fake news and DNC say it's unethical to call for an investigation into a political candidate. Yet we have 3 opposing candidates who are going to vote on another political candidate.
I hadn't heard any claim that its unethical to investigate a candidate but I suppose it is possible.
-
What really is a QPQ? Like when Barry gave millions to a book company for coming up with common core math, then years later he received 65million back for a book deal from the same company? When AOC receives millions in her Netflix deal just for speaking out against Trump. QPQ happens all the time in politics. Who donates to what Super PAC's?
-
Agree with you on the first half disagree on the second half.
I hadn't heard any claim that its unethical to investigate a candidate but I suppose it is possible.
Unethical might be the wrong word I'm trying to remember, but they were basically saying Trump is wrong for investigating an opponent's family member.
-
The prosecution and defense are both cherry picking, that's what they do. If you want to call that lying then they are both lying.
Wrong.
When the House shows a 10 second clip, and the Trump lawyers show that clip PLUS another 20-30 seconds to provide either context or completely contradicting evidence, the Trump team is not "cherry picking."
The truth is not a cherry. It's a light under which cherry picked statements presented in a false narrative are destroyed.
-
The vote for acquittal will come next Wednesday. I can hardly wait. The clown show will be over and the idiots claiming the trial was unfair will start in earnest. What a bunch of fucking idiots. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
The vote for acquittal will come next Wednesday. I can hardly wait. The clown show will be over and the idiots claiming the trial was unfair will start in earnest. What a bunch of fucking idiots. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
My guess is, McConnell is delaying until then to:
1. avoid a Friday or weekend vote that will be buried in the news cycle, and
2. give the Dems a few more days to squirm and try to engineer yet another obviously fake piece of evidence to stall the vote.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Next thing you know Bolton will release another manuscript stating he has Trumps dried spew on a blue dress he wore in the whitehouse. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Next thing you know Bolton will release another manuscript stating he has Trumps dried spew on a blue dress he wore in the whitehouse. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
'Most people think of rape as being sexy.'-E Jean Carrol.
-
Heads on a swivel guys...dnc need to distract the TDSers.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Heads on a swivel guys...dnc need to distract the TDSers.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
The distraction will likely be more of the "Kavanaugh" style attacks. More and more info will fall out of the sky to describe how Bolton's never-read manuscript of his not-yet-published book contains damning information for Trump -- even though Bolton himself has already denied the first leak's accuracy. Both the publisher and the author have denied leaking the manuscript. That leaves anyone with whom Bolton shared his manuscript, such as the national security agencies he's required to have review it in case anything in it is classified.
After this whole non-whistleblower informant stuff went down, it's very possible there are still never-Trumpers in this administration working to take down the President by leaking manuscript excepts whether or not they are actual quotes.
-
Or maybe the coronavirus is the distraction.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Or maybe the coronavirus is the distraction.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's the stretch of all stretches.... :crazy: :tinfoil:
-
The Democrats are already lying about the trial stating there were NO witnesses/testimony and no documents presented. Therefore the trial is unfair and illegitimate.
Like Heavies said, there is no evidence of a crime here. And even if Trump did the things the Democrats said he did, it is does not rise to an impeachable event.
-
Jim Jordan has an interesting take on this clown show. He said there are four facts that the Democrats cannot change:
1. There was never a Quid Pro Quo. Even the one and only fact witness who was on the call, questioned by the Democrats said there was no Quid Pro Quo. All other witnesses were not on the call and are hearsay witnesses only. In order to have a Quid Pro Quo there must be a linkage between the money and the investigation. There is no mention of money at all in the call. Therefore there can never be a Quid Pro Quo. Read the transcript.
2. Both Presidents on the phone call have stated there was no pressure, no pushing, no linkage of security assistance dollars and an investigation. Read the transcript.
3. The Ukrainians did not even know the security assistance money was being held at the time of the call. They did not even find out about it until a month later when Politico published their article.
4. The Ukrainians never started an investigation.
Based on these four facts there cannot be the made up article of impeachment abuse of power. This case cannot be made because that would require actual abuse of someone/country and the president of Ukraine verifies there was none. Who/where/what is the victim here? There is no victim. Therefore there is no abuse.
The other made up article of impeachment obstruction of congress cannot be made because the president has article 2 powers set forth by the constitution. Allowing him to block witnesses and document release. The Democrats disagree. And in our Republic, what do we do when 2 branches of government disagree on something? They go to SCOTUS and let them clear up the disagreement. The Democrats never went to SCOTUS. Only if SCOTUS had decided in the favor of the House and then if the president still tried to block witness testimony and document release then the president would be guilty of obstructing congress.
Whatever John Bolton has to say will make no difference. Even if he says there was a Quid Pro Quo the four facts above don’t change.
-
Ukraine is talking to the hunter investigator that was fired. He also stated that an attempt was made on his life.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
My guess is, McConnell is delaying until then to:
1. avoid a Friday or weekend vote that will be buried in the news cycle, and
2. give the Dems a few more days to squirm and try to engineer yet another obviously fake piece of evidence to stall the vote.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
SOTU address is scheduled for 4FEB20. The day before the Vote to acquit.
Gives America a good show of who represents us and how they act.
-
SOTU address is scheduled for 4FEB20. The day before the Vote to acquit.
Gives America a good show of who represents us and how they act.
I am very happy the way this clown show turned out. While it is obvious it should never have occurred, it went about as well as could be expected. And the Senate did the right thing IMHO. They listened to all the crap for 2 weeks and voted to not extend the clown show out. I am interested to see if any Democrats vote to acquit. If so, how many. It would be surprising to me to see more than 2 or 3. The more that vote to acquit the more legit Trump will appear. And the credibility of the Democrats will drop. JMHO
The state of the union will be good to watch but I think I already know what Trump will say. It will be interesting tho to hear how he handles the impeachment topic. Probably better off not to say much except let’s move forward from here and do more for the country.
-
I am very happy the way this clown show turned out. While it is obvious it should never have occurred, it went about as well as could be expected. And the Senate did the right thing IMHO. They listened to all the crap for 2 weeks and voted to not extend the clown show out. I am interested to see if any Democrats vote to acquit. If so, how many. It would be surprising to me to see more than 2 or 3. The more that vote to acquit the more legit Trump will appear. And the credibility of the Democrats will drop. JMHO
The state of the union will be good to watch but I think I already know what Trump will say. It will be interesting tho to hear how he handles the impeachment topic. Probably better off not to say much except let’s move forward from here and do more for the country.
Unless the Dems think there's even a slim chance to defeat the vote to acquit, they have a decision to make: vote with the Schiff Show kicked off by Pelosi, or vote in a sane and deliberative way and acquit.
They can only fall on their swords for this sad excuse for a political party so many times until they realize the pain isn't worth it. Jeff Van Drew did the sane thing by switching parties in the middle of impeachment. That should signal to everyone -- Congress critter and regular voter alike -- how unjustified this attack on our president was now, for his first 2 1/2 years, and during the remainder of his 8 years.
-
Unethical might be the wrong word I'm trying to remember, but they were basically saying Trump is wrong for investigating an opponent's family member.
Well it is certainly a conflict of interest.
-
Wrong.
When the House shows a 10 second clip, and the Trump lawyers show that clip PLUS another 20-30 seconds to provide either context or completely contradicting evidence, the Trump team is not "cherry picking."
The truth is not a cherry. It's a light under which cherry picked statements presented in a false narrative are destroyed.
I have been listening to a lot of the defense team arguments and they are definitely cherry picking too. Sekulow isn't painting the whole picture either. The prosecution might be doing it more but they are both doing it.
-
Bottom line is Trump is not going to be removed from office and will very likely get re-elected.
When the economy is good, the current POTUS gets re-elected.
-
When the economy is good, the current POTUS gets re-elected.
The Schadenfreude will be sweet once again as the liberals screech at the sky.
(https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.GeO9NWqQSHlvB-mO7a5HUwHaEK?w=295&h=166&c=7&o=5&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7)
-
I have been listening to a lot of the defense team arguments and they are definitely cherry picking too. Sekulow isn't painting the whole picture either. The prosecution might be doing it more but they are both doing it.
You obviously have fallen for the Liberal narrative that Trump is required to prove himself innocent.
He's not required to even present a defense.
All his team needed to do was tear down the lies presented by the articles and the House Managers. That means proving the accusations are false.
Based on logic, if the accusations are false, there is no need to prove Trump is innocent of ANYTHING, because the accusations are baseless.
That's the "whole picture". The impeachment inquiry and subsequent Judiciary Committee's hearing with not one fact witness are nothing but a partisan attempt to undo the 2016 election and prevent Trump from winning reelection against a sorry Dem nominee -- no matter which Dem candidate that might be, since they are all sorry.
-
The Schadenfreude will be sweet once again as the liberals screech at the sky.
SNIP
Should put that pic and list those activities on her (its, whatever) resume. . .
-
Watching the closing arguments of the trial.
The president's team went first. They systematically tore down the House's articles, their "evidence" and witness testimonies, the sham process, and the obvious reluctance/avoidance of the courts.
The house managers are giving conclusions, invoking the words of founders and others, and quoting Dumbledore from Harry Potter! :crazy:
Schiff is now saying the evidence exists, but Trump is covering it all up.
Horse before the cart (impeachment without evidence).
Schiff needs to be expelled and then jailed for this attempted coup based on a false narrative.
-
Watching the closing arguments of the trial.
The president's team went first. They systematically tore down the House's articles, their "evidence" and witness testimonies, the sham process, and the obvious reluctance/avoidance of the courts.
The house managers are giving conclusions, invoking the words of founders and others, and quoting Dumbledore from Harry Potter! :crazy:
Schiff is now saying the evidence exists, but Trump is covering it all up.
Horse before the cart (impeachment without evidence).
Schiff needs to be expelled and then jailed for this attempted coup based on a false narrative.
Schiff is probably the best example of a modern Democrat and their ethics.
He'd be great here in Hawaii, probably could get elected Governor.
-
Article One
Guilty 48
Not Guilty 52
Done. . .
-
Article Two
Guilty 47
Not Guilty 53
Done, done, done. . .
-
Bawwhahahhahha It's Miller time
-
Article One
Guilty 48
Not Guilty 52
Done. . .
Fucking Romney! >:( >:( >:(
-
McConnell and Schumer gave their post-vote press statements.
McConnell wants to move forward and stop the never-ending investigations.
Schumer blamed the Senate for denying them the chance to get documents and witnesses so they can get at the truth. He also delegitimized the acquittal as partisan, but ignored the partisan vote in the House.
McConnell made the best point. The House managers said 60 times the case was "proven" or "proved". The evidence is "overwhelming". So, if that were true, there was no need for more witnesses or documents in the Senate trial. Their own appraisal of their case was the best argument against calling even more witnesses with nothing different to offer.
Schumer called the trial unfair. Sounds like the 2016 election all over again!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The look on Pelosi’s face yesterday when many in the audience started shouting “Four more years! Four more years!” Priceless.
-
The Democrats are already talking about not giving up on impeachment.
The case they already sent to the Senate ended. Another impeachment would require a different set of facts. To retry this case would fly in the face of our justice system -- taking a second bite at the apple after the Senate already ruled for acquittal.
Looking at the 52-48 vote for acquittal and thinking, "Trump barely survived that vote. If we try again, maybe we can get 3 Senators to switch?" is 100% inaccurate.
The Senate must vote to convict by a 2/3 super majority. That means they needed 67 votes out of 100. Math tells me 67 - 48 = 19 ... the vote margin the Democrats failed by. No matter how many times they go after Trump, without actual evidence of a crime ... a REAL crime ... they will never get 19 more Senators to vote for conviction and removal.
I have $10 that says they'll try again before the election. This political withc hunt failed to dirty up Trump enough to push any of their Dim candidates across the general election finish line.
-
Fucking Romney! >:( >:( >:(
I know. I can't believe I actually liked him over Trump. He's shown his hand, he's part of the corrupt swamp
-
We need a class action lawsuit against all these witch hunters to compensate for all the tax dollars they are wasting. The should have all their assets seized and reimbursed to the general fund.
-
We need a class action lawsuit against all these witch hunters to compensate for all the tax dollars they are wasting. The should have all their assets seized and reimbursed to the general fund.
Their money will be linked to Epstein 😳
-
I know. I can't believe I actually liked him over Trump. He's shown his hand, he's part of the corrupt swamp
I didn't like him when he ran against Obama. I know this sounds weird but when he was running against Obama I had a strange feeling he was not doing his best to try and win. It was like he was holding back. It wasn't that Obama outshone Romney so much, which he did. It was that Romney was so milquetoast (Does this make me a waycist?). So my conspiracy theory is that he was paid to throw the election. :tinfoil:
For those not old enough to know: Definition: Milquetoast (source) milque·toast [milk-tohst] noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated
-
Something I just noticed. I don't see any more leaking around Bolton's book/manuscript. Isn't funny how once it is over the leaking stops? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
I didn't like him when he ran against Obama. I know this sounds weird but when he was running against Obama I had a strange feeling he was not doing his best to try and win.
I always felt like he was deliberately throwing the election. Never wanted him, but with the choice of getting rid of Obunga..............
-
Something I just noticed. I don't see any more leaking around Bolton's book/manuscript. Isn't funny how once it is over the leaking stops? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Just another sacrificial pawn in their game. . .
I like how each MSM outlet has the subject's photo or frozen video on the clip. Fox will have a deranged looking Bolton, Sanders, etc. CNN, well, I don't really read there, but different. . . :rofl:
-
I didn't like him when he ran against Obama. I know this sounds weird but when he was running against Obama I had a strange feeling he was not doing his best to try and win. It was like he was holding back. It wasn't that Obama outshone Romney so much, which he did. It was that Romney was so milquetoast (Does this make me a waycist?). So my conspiracy theory is that he was paid to throw the election. :tinfoil:
For those not old enough to know: Definition: Milquetoast (source) milque·toast [milk-tohst] noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated
Ahh yes. Forgot about that. He pulled so many obvious punches. SMH
-
I always felt like he was deliberately throwing the election. Never wanted him, but with the choice of getting rid of Obunga..............
Personally, I view any vote I make in the state of Hawaii as a waste of time.
I still vote, but I'm surrounded by spineless idiots and it is what it is.
Price I have to pay to live here. Fortunately, I live in a place and a manner
that isolates me from Democrats and their tyranny. But people like Romney
aren't much better. I do much better under Trump. But my grand kids
are going to pay the price and there is nothing I can do about it.
-
The Dems will keep trying even tho they keep losing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-n1132441
Imagine what will happen if Trump wins in 2020.
-
The Dems will keep trying even tho they keep losing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-n1132441
Imagine what will happen if when Trump wins in 2020.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
After Iowa caucus debacle it looks like Trump is going to cruise in. The only thing that would stop him now is Bernie.
-
After Iowa caucus debacle it looks like Trump is going to cruise in. The only thing that would stop him now is Bernie.
Do you really think Bernie has a chance against Trump? Communist vs Capitalist? In our present economy? Just wondering what your thought process is?
-
Do you really think Bernie has a chance against Trump? Communist vs Capitalist? In our present economy? Just wondering what your thought process is?
I posted on another thread oddsmakers have the next POTUS as Trump 59.99%, Bernie 16.7% and the others below that.
-
I posted on another thread oddsmakers have the next POTUS as Trump 59.99%, Bernie 16.7% and the others below that.
Not even close for old Bernie. As the Dem front runner he is a distant second to Trump. I still wonder if the Dem party is going to allow Bernie to be the Dem candidate tho. I think they are trying to push Mayor Pete cuz they cannot allow a communist (Bernie) or a Socialist (Warren) to be their pick. And Mayor Pete isn't much better. He just hides his socialist tendencies better.
-
Not even close for old Bernie. As the Dem front runner he is a distant second to Trump. I still wonder if the Dem party is going to allow Bernie to be the Dem candidate tho. I think they are trying to push Mayor Pete cuz they cannot allow a communist (Bernie) or a Socialist (Warren) to be their pick. And Mayor Pete isn't much better. He just hides his socialist tendencies better.
I don't think they will push Mayor Pete. Not a lot of of blacks will vote for him.
You know the real meaning of the phrase "The low down"?
Hispanics, The ones I grew up with, go to church. They like girls.
I think the Democrat party will let Bernie run the show and Democrats will invest in
gaining solid control of both houses of Congress. Trump can't do much damage then.
In 2024 they they will be set for the kill of America.
-
Poor Dems. Unintentionally giving more ammo to Trump.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/02/07/779473/
https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/02/07/video-chris-matthews-unintentionally-provides-trump-with-brilliant-2020-reelection-campaign-ad/
-
Do you really think Bernie has a chance against Trump? Communist vs Capitalist? In our present economy? Just wondering what your thought process is?
The kids would come out for Bernie, but right now they are staying home because they expect to get hoodwinked again and do not want to waste their time until the DNC refuses to clean up their act. The party has outlived its usefulness in its current form and the leaders are delusional. They desperately need a change but are completely addicted to corporate money.
The other thing is Bernie is the only one (besides tulsi) who could stand up to Trump in a debate. The rest of them are sitting ducks
-
TDS is real.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/joy-behar-view-acquittal-trump-making-crazy
-
Looks like Trump is cleaning house. You’re FIRED!!!
Vindmann escorted from the WH. His twin brother went with him.
Sondland remove from his post.
Draining the swamp.
-
The kids would come out for Bernie, but right now they are staying home because they expect to get hoodwinked again and do not want to waste their time until the DNC refuses to clean up their act. The party has outlived its usefulness in its current form and the leaders are delusional. They desperately need a change but are completely addicted to corporate money.
The other thing is Bernie is the only one (besides tulsi) who could stand up to Trump in a debate. The rest of them are sitting ducks
I pretty much agree with everything you said here with one exception. While I think Bernie has got cred because he is truly sincere about what he believes in. I just don’t think his policies will hold up against a well prepared Trump. What I am seeing is that the MSM is not even challenging Bernie on any of his policies. They are letting him get a pass with saying just about anything he wants to and not challenge it. But I really think his Socialist/Communist policies just won’t ring true with the majority once he gets in front of a well prepared debate with questions designed to truly challenge his policies. But given let’s say both Bernie and Trump debating similar policies, I agree Bernie can give Trump a run for his money.
-
Looks like Trump is cleaning house. You’re FIRED!!!
Vindmann escorted from the WH. His twin brother went with him.
Sondland remove from his post.
Draining the swamp.
Did they really get fired, or did they quit and get reassigned? If they did get fired, that is a terrible move for Trump. Opens him up to all kind of attacks and maybe even legal implications for reprisal laws.
Bad move.
-
Did they really get fired, or did they quit and get reassigned? If they did get fired, that is a terrible move for Trump. Opens him up to all kind of attacks and maybe even legal implications for reprisal laws.
Bad move.
Vindmann was on loan from the DoD. He was fired from his position in the WH and was escorted from the WH but went back to the DoD to whatever position he will get. I believe Sondland was recalled but I am not aware if he will be reassigned or will be fired.
-
So bernie won the pop vote, but pete won the other. Lets see dems put their money where their mouth is and give bernie the nomination.
LTC reassigned. And so was his brother.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Vindmann was offered the position of Defense Minister in Ukraine.
I think he should jump on that opportunity if it's still open. He obviously has dual loyalties. Better to have him working for them where we might use his position for our benefit than the way it appears to have been working until today.
-
All his team needed to do was tear down the lies presented by the articles and the House Managers. That means proving the accusations are false.
Yet they really didn't do it. The brunt of their whole defense was procedural. They really didn't prove anything said to be a lie so your claims of so many lies is just unfounded.
Their defense was pretty much, Trump did it all but he is allowed to so too bad.
-
Yet they really didn't do it. The brunt of their whole defense was procedural. They really didn't prove anything said to be a lie so your claims of so many lies is just unfounded.
Their defense was pretty much, Trump did it all but he is allowed to so too bad.
In your skewed opinion. The vote wasn't anywhere near the 2/3 they needed to convict.
If "insanity" is doing the same thing over again expecting different results, then what is "doing something for which you already are certain of the outcome, and for which you know you're going to potentially lose the House majority while simultaneously wasting the tax payer's time and money"?
I'd say it falls under TDS -- a malady that's manifested itself in more insane and petulant behavior than under any other in my memory.
If you don't know the difference between the truth and lies of omission, then you need to have someone explain it.
Lies of omission and flat out false logic and conclusions were all the House managers had to go on.
Lies, Damned Lies and Adam Schiff's Moving Lips
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/27/lies_damned_lies_and_adam_schiffs_moving_lips_142233.html
-
If "insanity" is doing the same thing over again expecting different results, then what is "doing something for which you already are certain of the outcome, and for which you know you're going to potentially lose the House majority while simultaneously wasting the tax payer's time and money"?
Doing what you believe is the right thing is it's own justification even if you probably won't win.
If you don't know the difference between the truth and lies of omission, then you need to have someone explain it.
Lies of omission and flat out false logic and conclusions were all the House managers had to go on.
Lies, Damned Lies and Adam Schiff's Moving Lips
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/27/lies_damned_lies_and_adam_schiffs_moving_lips_142233.html
Yet they didn't attack that, they argued procedure. Not saying there is anything wrong with arguing procedure either, just saying you a claiming a mountain of lies yet Trump's defense attorneys didn't think it necessary to address? Trump claimed it all lies and the Trump sheep line up to believe every word from his mouth as if it were gospel. Then his defense team didn't contest the testimony but the blind Trump supporters can't see what daddy Trump told them to believe.
-
Vindmann was offered the position of Defense Minister in Ukraine.
I think he should jump on that opportunity if it's still open. He obviously has dual loyalties. Better to have him working for them where we might use his position for our benefit than the way it appears to have been working until today.
What are his dual loyalties? The president vs the USA?
He was picked for the Trump White House. So is Trump that bad at picking personnel and he just has the misfortune of picking so many people he has to later fire and who end up getting convicted of crimes? At a certain point you can't just blame the whole world for being out to get you.
-
There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine, no abuse of power
There is no crime in the President 'obstructing Congress', it's his job
When is it ever that the burden of evidence falls on the defense to prove?
If there is any reasonable doubt, there must be an acquittal.
In this whole sham there is a whole lot more than just 'reasonable doubt'
-
Doing what you believe is the right thing is it's own justification even if you probably won't win.
Yet they didn't attack that, they argued procedure. Not saying there is anything wrong with arguing procedure either, just saying you a claiming a mountain of lies yet Trump's defense attorneys didn't think it necessary to address? Trump claimed it all lies and the Trump sheep line up to believe every word from his mouth as if it were gospel. Then his defense team didn't contest the testimony but the blind Trump supporters can't see what daddy Trump told them to believe.
You keep saying that, but it's not true.
They did attack procedure, but that was a small part of what they presented.
I recommend you watch the entire Trump Team's presentation and take notes. Then tell me they only argued procedure.
But, that requires learning, which you seem to avoid since you already know everything.
-
What are his dual loyalties? The president vs the USA?
He was picked for the Trump White House. So is Trump that bad at picking personnel and he just has the misfortune of picking so many people he has to later fire and who end up getting convicted of crimes? At a certain point you can't just blame the whole world for being out to get you.
You're a sad little troll.
Makes sense. Trump had his best week since inauguration.
And you are SO triggered!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You keep saying that, but it's not true.
They did attack procedure, but that was a small part of what they presented.
I recommend you watch the entire Trump Team's presentation and take notes. Then tell me they only argued procedure.
But, that requires learning, which you seem to avoid since you already know everything.
I am beginning to think you are the one who didn't follow the trial. I listened to many many hours of the trial. The majority of the defense argument was procedural, summed up 3 ways.
1. The house didn't hold hearings the way they thought hearings should have been held.
2. This is not a crime therefore does not justify removal
3. Trump can call for an investigation if there was a reason to investigate
-
You're a sad little troll.
Makes sense. Trump had his best week since inauguration.
And you are SO triggered!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Nice try there, see you tried to change the subject and inserted an insult to avoid having to rebut my points
-
I am beginning to think you are the one who didn't follow the trial. I listened to many many hours of the trial. The majority of the defense argument was procedural, summed up 3 ways.
1. The house didn't hold hearings the way they thought hearings should have been held.
2. This is not a crime therefore does not justify removal
3. Trump can call for an investigation if there was a reason to investigate
You must have only heard 2 hours.
They presented their case over 3 days. If this is all you got out of it, you should stop trying to participate in political discussions. We aren't the jackass whispers.
-
You must have only heard 2 hours.
They presented their case over 3 days. If this is all you got out of it, you should stop trying to participate in political discussions. We aren't the jackass whispers.
I listened every day of the trial. Steamed it while I was sitting at my desk and listened to it on the car radio driving to work.
Maybe the Trump koolaid manages to prevent you from hearing anything you don't like?
-
I listened every day of the trial. Steamed it while I was sitting at my desk and listened to it on the car radio driving to work.
Maybe the Trump koolaid manages to prevent you from hearing anything you don't like?
Yeah. Procedure. Nothing about the charges.
Are you drinking again?
Trump’s defense team, promising a brief summary, repeated their argument that the president sought no “quid pro quo”
for the security aid.
“There is no such evidence,” Trump ever ordered anyone to withhold the money from Ukraine in exchange for the
investigations, Mike Purpura, deputy counsel to the president, said.
Purpura also pointed to Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine, during which the president never mentioned the aid,
and other communications as evidence that indicates Trump blocked the aid to Ukraine because he was concerned
about corruption that had been rampant in the country.
The aid was released without Ukraine ever announcing an investigation, Purpura added.
The House impeachment managers, Purpura argued, “didn’t meet their burden of proof.”
The defense team followed House impeachment managers, who earlier Monday argued that the evidence supports
senators voting to convict Trump and remove him from office.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-defense-team-closing-argument-impeachment-an-effort-to-overturn-the-election
Sounds like facts to me, not "procedure."
:wacko:
-
In your skewed opinion. The vote wasn't anywhere near the 2/3 they needed to convict.
If "insanity" is doing the same thing over again expecting different results, then what is "doing something for which you already are certain of the outcome, and for which you know you're going to potentially lose the House majority while simultaneously wasting the tax payer's time and money"?
I'd say it falls under TDS -- a malady that's manifested itself in more insane and petulant behavior than under any other in my memory.
If you don't know the difference between the truth and lies of omission, then you need to have someone explain it.
Lies of omission and flat out false logic and conclusions were all the House managers had to go on.
Lies, Damned Lies and Adam Schiff's Moving Lips
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/27/lies_damned_lies_and_adam_schiffs_moving_lips_142233.html
Lying by omission is just as bad if not worse than out and out lies. An out and out lie can be excused as an accident or not meaning to deceive if taken back. But lying by omission means the liar knows the whole truth but purposely leaves out parts in order to deceive. One cannot take back a lie by omission since the liar knows the whole truth in this case. Adam Schiff is a terrible liar.
The first two hours of the defense team went through and exposed all the lies by omission. It is a lie if one thinks that the defense mostly argued about procedures. I listened to all but an hour or so of the defense and while procedure was a big part it was by far not the biggest part. Exposing the lies and discrediting the defense and their accusations was by far the biggest part of the defense. They went through much more detail in the lies by omission and the cherry picked videos the managers used on a different day. The defense was powerful and very balanced between going on the attack and proving that this whole thing was a political hit job.
-
For EEF ....
(https://i.imgur.com/UMySYYS.png)
-
Yeah. Procedure. Nothing about the charges.
Are you drinking again?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-defense-team-closing-argument-impeachment-an-effort-to-overturn-the-election
Sounds like facts to me, not "procedure."
:wacko:
Trump's defense claimed there is no evidence of quid pro quo but that doesn't make it a fact.
I think I have figured out the problem, you conflate facts with things you want to be true. Your blind loyalty to Trump is a bit scary.
-
Trump's defense claimed there is no evidence of quid pro quo but that doesn't make it a fact.
I think I have figured out the problem, you conflate facts with things you want to be true. Your blind loyalty to Trump is a bit scary.
Your TDS is the scary part. You think everyone who defends Trump from the Democrat vultures in DC has "blind loyalty".
Nope. It's called a sense of fair play. Whether it's Trump, Obama, or Clinton, no president should be the target of a partisan impeachment witch hunt like this was.
As for "claiming no evidence", if there was evidence, Schiff must have left it in his other briefcase -- along with the overwhelming evidence Trump is a Russian agent.
How many times must the Democrats provably lie to your face before you stop defending them? :crazy:
-
Senator Mitt Romney:
I voted to allow more witnesses in the trial because I'd like to get all the facts before making up my mind. From what we've been told, John Bolton has direct evidence that could prove President Trump tied aid to the Biden investigation.
Also Senator Mitt Romney:
I voted to convict President Trump, because I believe he was guilty based on the facts presented.
Really? You can't have it both ways. Either you believe the evidence was sufficient to convict, or you believe you needed to hear from more witnesses before deciding to convict. :wacko:
-
There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine, no abuse of power
There is no crime in the President 'obstructing Congress', it's his job
When is it ever that the burden of evidence falls on the defense to prove?
If there is any reasonable doubt, there must be an acquittal.
In this whole sham there is a whole lot more than just 'reasonable doubt'
It is my understanding that the standards of an impeachment are different and many folks are incorrectly equating their knowledge of criminal and civil court proceedings, the idea that the defense needed to prove innocence is/was absolutely absurd. I do think there's a lot more to all of this that are currently "behind the scenes" that prevented the defense from hitting back to hard, but just my speculation.
-
It is my understanding that the standards of an impeachment are different and many folks are incorrectly equating their knowledge of criminal and civil court proceedings, the idea that the defense needed to prove innocence is/was absolutely absurd. I do think there's a lot more to all of this that are currently "behind the scenes" that prevented the defense from hitting back to hard, but just my speculation.
-
Efficiency with less letters.
Dik
:rofl:
-
If you guys keep responding to a person with TDS you'd be yelling at a 3d printer all day long and get nothing done.
-
If you guys keep responding to a person with TDS you'd be yelling at a 3d printer all day long and get nothing done.
I don't regularly respond to the TDS folks, but going "Office Space" on a 3d printer might be therapeutic ;D
-
Efficiency with less letters.
Dik
:rofl:
heds
-
Senator Mitt Romney:
I voted to allow more witnesses in the trial because I'd like to get all the facts before making up my mind. From what we've been told, John Bolton has direct evidence that could prove President Trump tied aid to the Biden investigation.
Also Senator Mitt Romney:
I voted to convict President Trump, because I believe he was guilty based on the facts presented.
Really? You can't have it both ways. Either you believe the evidence was sufficient to convict, or you believe you needed to hear from more witnesses before deciding to convict. :wacko:
False, you can believe there is enough evidence to convict and still like to see more evidence.
If you had two witnesses identifying a murderer in the case are you going to say there is no need to hear from the third if available? Of course not, you look to hear from the 3rd and if unavailable then you decide based on the 2.
Don't know how republican senators can complain about not having witnesses but when they get the chance to call witnesses they vote no.
-
False, you can believe there is enough evidence to convict and still like to see more evidence.
If you had two witnesses identifying a murderer in the case are you going to say there is no need to hear from the third if available? Of course not, you look to hear from the 3rd and if unavailable then you decide based on the 2.
Don't know how republican senators can complain about not having witnesses but when they get the chance to call witnesses they vote no.
Bullshit. If you are already convinced of guilt, dragging the trial out for a couple more weeks to hear from a witness WHO NEVER TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE makes zero sense.
If his testimony was that important, Schiff should have left the {illegal} Bolton subpoena active or had it reissued after the House voted to hold the impeachment inquiry instead of cancelling it.
It's not the Senate's job to call witnesses unless they need to clarify testimony that was given before the House. Bolton was not called. He was given a fraudulent subpoena which was quickly canceled when challenged.
That's how the impeachment trials usually work. Romney is a jealous TDS-riddled swamp critter who couldn't beat the previous President who publicly admitted he expected to be a one-termer due to the bad economy.
-
Your TDS is the scary part. You think everyone who defends Trump from the Democrat vultures in DC has "blind loyalty".
Nope. It's called a sense of fair play. Whether it's Trump, Obama, or Clinton, no president should be the target of a partisan impeachment witch hunt like this was.
As for "claiming no evidence", if there was evidence, Schiff must have left it in his other briefcase -- along with the overwhelming evidence Trump is a Russian agent.
How many times must the Democrats provably lie to your face before you stop defending them? :crazy:
Yeah yeah, you claim TDS to distract from your blind loyalty. By your logic anyone who critiques Trump for almost anything has TDS. I guess you think even the facts have TDS because they aren't in Trump's favor. I speak in defense of Trump when the facts are in his favor and I speak against him when the facts are against him.
You complain about a partisan impeachment but then you attack Romney for not voting along party lines... stop being a hypocrite. You don't care about partisanship, you only care when it is present and not in Trump's favor.
I defend the truth, I don't care whose side it is on.
How many times must Trump provably lie to your face before you stop defending him? Does the Kool-aid make Trump's lies not count or does it make you blind to them? Every one of Trump's own picks and buddies who end up with something to say against him get labeled as liars. His lawyers, his associates, his senior staff picks, etc. Trump's own wife could come out and say Trump did something wrong and his followers would find a way to claim she was just another anti-trumpet.
-
Bullshit. If you are already convinced of guilt, dragging the trial out for a couple more weeks to hear from a witness WHO NEVER TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense. If you were in a murder trial and a new witness became known are you gonna claim we can't hear from them because they weren't present for the grand jury? Any new evidence that becomes available always has a place to be admitted in a trial. You are making up stuff here.
If his testimony was that important, Schiff should have left the {illegal} Bolton subpoena active or had it reissued after the House voted to hold the impeachment inquiry instead of cancelling it.
An illegal subpoena? Do tell, how is the House issuing a subpoena illegal? Go ahead, show me what law they violated.
It's not the Senate's job to call witnesses unless they need to clarify testimony that was given before the House.
Their job is to hear the evidence and vote on whether to remove the president so yes, hearing any witness they want is part of their job and it is completely within their power to do so.
-
Yeah yeah, you claim TDS to distract from your blind loyalty. By your logic anyone who critiques Trump for almost anything has TDS. I guess you think even the facts have TDS because they aren't in Trump's favor. I speak in defense of Trump when the facts are in his favor and I speak against him when the facts are against him.
You complain about a partisan impeachment but then you attack Romney for not voting along party lines... stop being a hypocrite. You don't care about partisanship, you only care when it is present and not in Trump's favor.
I defend the truth, I don't care whose side it is on.
How many times must Trump provably lie to your face before you stop defending him? Does the Kool-aid make Trump's lies not count or does it make you blind to them? Every one of Trump's own picks and buddies who end up with something to say against him get labeled as liars. His lawyers, his associates, his senior staff picks, etc. Trump's own wife could come out and say Trump did something wrong and his followers would find a way to claim she was just another anti-trumpet.
Show me where I said Romney should have voted along party lines?
We all know you can't, so don't even bother deflecting.
Romney should have voted to acquit with the evidence (or lack thereof).. If the case the House presented was enough for him to convict, then I'd like to know what that evidence was.
We're lucky Romney lost in 2012. He's an idiot. Funny how the Left (and you) defend him now, but in 2012 he was a dog abusing, misogynistic, racist, money-grubbing capitalist vampire who killed a woman he never met with cancer. :wacko:
-
It is my understanding that the standards of an impeachment are different and many folks are incorrectly equating their knowledge of criminal and civil court proceedings, the idea that the defense needed to prove innocence is/was absolutely absurd. I do think there's a lot more to all of this that are currently "behind the scenes" that prevented the defense from hitting back to hard, but just my speculation.
The defense could have sat back and not introduce any arguments but that wouldn't look very good for Trump so of course they are going to go up and try and show Trump didn't do anything wrong.
What do you think limited the defense from hitting back too hard?
-
It makes perfect sense. If you were in a murder trial and a new witness became known are you gonna claim we can't hear from them because they weren't present for the grand jury? Any new evidence that becomes available always has a place to be admitted in a trial. You are making up stuff here.
An illegal subpoena? Do tell, how is the House issuing a subpoena illegal? Go ahead, show me what law they violated.
Their job is to hear the evidence and vote on whether to remove the president so yes, hearing any witness they want is part of their job and it is completely within their power to do so.
This was not a murder trial. Your analogy is rejected.
If this had been a real trial with a real prosecution, the judge would have dismissed it before the defense ever made a single argument based on the fact THERE WAS NO STATUTORY CRIME AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
-
Show me where I said Romney should have voted along party lines?
We all know you can't, so don't even bother deflecting.
Romney should have voted to acquit with the evidence (or lack thereof).. If the case the House presented was enough for him to convict, then I'd like to know what that evidence was.
We're lucky Romney lost in 2012. He's an idiot. Funny how the Left (and you) defend him now, but in 2012 he was a dog abusing, misogynistic, racist, money-grubbing capitalist vampire who killed a woman he never met with cancer. :wacko:
You complained about a partisan impeachment and then complained when Romney voted with democrats to remove the president. Why would you complain that he voted to remove unless you thought he should have voted against removal (AKA along party lines). You didn't explicitly say he should have voted along party lines but you attacked him for not doing so. You didn't need to explicitly say it it exists in your comments logically.
Dog abusing racist who gave a woman cancer? WTF are you talking about :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
The defense could have sat back and not introduce any arguments but that wouldn't look very good for Trump so of course they are going to go up and try and show Trump didn't do anything wrong.
What do you think limited the defense from hitting back too hard?
You can't keep up with the facts, huh?
The inquiry was not voted on by the House before Pelosi tagged Schiff to start the inquiry. That's overstepping her authority. A committee cannot issue a valid subpoena until they have been given authority to start the investigation by a House vote.
And you said you listened to the defense team!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You complained about a partisan impeachment and then complained when Romney voted with democrats to remove the president. Why would you complain that he voted to remove unless you thought he should have voted against removal (AKA along party lines). You didn't explicitly say he should have voted along party lines but you attacked him for not doing so. You didn't need to explicitly say it it exists in your comments logically.
Dog abusing racist who gave a woman cancer? WTF are you talking about :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Again, you can't show where I said that.
You're exactly like the so-called witnesses who assumed, presumed and deduced what Trump wanted but never even spoke to Trump.
LOL! Give it up, Trollboy!
-
This was not a murder trial. Your analogy is rejected.
If this had been a real trial with a real prosecution, the judge would have dismissed it before the defense ever made a single argument based on the fact THERE WAS NO STATUTORY CRIME AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
Irrelevant. You have failed to make any valid argument as to why new evidence or new witnesses could not be introduced to the Senate trial. The Senate could have done so and they voted not too. There was nothing unreasonable about Romney's request and there was nothing contradictory for him to be able to vote to remove absent the additional witness. You are making up stuff here.
-
Again, you can't show where I said that.
You're exactly like the so-called witnesses who assumed, presumed and deduced what Trump wanted but never even spoke to Trump.
LOL! Give it up, Trollboy!
I already quoted you criticizing Romney for voting to remove the president. You are just lying through your teeth to cover your hypocrisy.
If you don't care he didn't vote partisan then just say so and stop whining that Trump didn't fall in line with papa Trump
-
I think this thread is done. Trump is still president