Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If she lied to congress it is a felony ask Stone and Cohen. Bill Clinton did testify in the investigative portion of his impeachment and did lie. It resulted in his impeachment along with obstructing justice.Let's get Trump under oath along with Pompeo, Mulvaney and Pence and find out exactly what was said and what was intended. If they tell the truth and he did nothing, Trump will not be convicted and kicked out of office. I and others who feel he should be impeached and convicted, will shut up. If they tell the truth and he did what circumstantial evidence indicates, he is kicked out of office and you can all shut up. If they lie, they all go to jail.They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond
They have the summary transcript
They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction
They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates
The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme
They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations
Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help
There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days
There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.
Still waiting on the quote where Trump asked for anything for himself. What's wrong child, can't back your crap up?
.
You gonna send prof feldman to jail for lying today?
.
You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
This whole thing is an act...a sham...both the dems and the republicans are working to destroy Trump...don't buy it that the GOP is on Trumps side....by the time the senate gets this case they will find something for the republicans to endorse impeachment.....and Trump will be removed....its in the cards its all over...if the GOP wanted this to stop they would of found a way....they are fucking in on it!!!
You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.
you are ahead of the curve... that is the argument that all the Trumpsters will eventually get to. Validating the Biden investigation is what it’s all going to boil down to..You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.
Let the people decide in 2020
Like they did in 2016[emoji1787].
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “due process” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.
the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
No, it actually isn't. That's what allows Schifferbrains to get away with running a show trial without due process.True, and the process for an impeachment inquiry is clearly outlined. What is it that you don’t think is being followed?All Government Hearings and Proceedings are required by LAW to guarantee Due Process.
in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.
Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?
No.
So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee
It amazes me what a bunch of fucking Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.
the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “proper procedure” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.
the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
What "due process?"the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “due process” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.
the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
I will bet on it...look at their weak defense of the president...Turley?...are they serious?...this is all in the plans....get the case sent to the senate and then just before the vote frame Trump with something really bad and bam...both the dems and the GOP get their wish....how many times do we need to hear the republicans shout and threaten with zero action taken?.....how many times do we need to watch Graham say he is going to start an investigation with nothing happening?....its all over they are going to get rid of Trump...I'm convinced after today....That ugly thought crossed my mind.
This whole thing is an act...a sham...both the dems and the republicans are working to destroy Trump...don't buy it that the GOP is on Trumps side....by the time the senate gets this case they will find something for the republicans to endorse impeachment.....and Trump will be removed....its in the cards its all over...if the GOP wanted this to stop they would of found a way....they are fucking in on it!!!
I disagree with all that. This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process to fire the president. They need to convince enough congressmen to vote for it and hope that public opinion is what pushed them to do so. It pretty obvious what Trump was doing in my eyes.You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
Nope. Not even that. Even if it SERVED him, it must be proven that:
A). Trump INTENDED IT to serve him. And they must show the intent.
B). That this was his only and original selfish motivation. IE: Corruption. Not merely that the result happened to work out that way fortuitously.
C). That there was no legitimate US interest or need in the findings.
I doubt they can prove A, I seriously doubt they can prove B and there is no way they can prove C. Therefore, if the Dems think they can win this beyond blowing smoke up their own asses and feeling like queens for a few days while patting themselves on their backs, they are sadly delusional!
The ramifications of dragging Trump through the mud like this only to have it all exposed as a sham and thrown out in the end, all the while by necessity, forcing the very scrutiny of the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine and all their connections that they sought to avoid, is only going to totally blow up in their faces a year from now.
Biden is unelectable now, they've made Trump a martyr, and whomever replaces Biden to run against Trump will serve as a CONSTANT reminder of the Democrat's four-year-long farce and attempted coup, and is going to dismay the left as much as it will rally more support for Trump than they ever dreamed possible!
The election will be:
BIG GOVERNMENT ENTRENCHED DEEP STATE against little man Trump for the People.
I disagree. There is no evidence of any crime and the accusations that Trump is now leveling years later are obviously political in nature.You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.you are ahead of the curve... that is the argument that all the Trumpsters will eventually get to. Validating the Biden investigation is what it’s all going to boil down to..You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.
Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.
AND GUESS WHAT?
If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!
SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!
Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.
Why shouldn't Biden be investigated? He did after all, violate his oath of office and probably several laws as well.
I'm no "Constitutional scholar", but I'm pretty sure Sharia conflicts on all counts with the US Constitution.Man-made Catastrophe:
Democrat Impeachment ‘Witness’ Noah Feldman Previously Claimed Sharia Law Superior, More “Humane” Than Western Laws
Mr. Feldman actually believes that a medieval system of laws that chops off the hands of thieves, stones ‘adulterous women,’ blames the woman when she is raped by a man, publicly hangs and tosses homosexuals off of buildings, is more “progressive” and “humane” than Western laws.
Feldman claimed that the West “needs Shariah and Islam.”
This is who the Democrats trotted out as a legal scholar and Constitutional expert to sell the American public on impeaching President Trump.
When a legal scholar who does not like Trump says he does not feel there is enough evidence for impeachment that is OK but a legal scholar who in the past has shown liberal leanings says there is enough information for impeachment, that is unusable bias testimony.What "due process?"the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “due process” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
I’m answering all your questions. The witnesses are not being accused of anything. They are there to give legal analysisAre the witnesses being accused of something?
Why are you evading the questions?
the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “proper procedure” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
If she lied to congress it is a felony ask Stone and Cohen. Bill Clinton did testify in the investigative portion of his impeachment and did lie. It resulted in his impeachment along with obstructing justice.Let's get Trump under oath along with Pompeo, Mulvaney and Pence and find out exactly what was said and what was intended. If they tell the truth and he did nothing, Trump will not be convicted and kicked out of office. I and others who feel he should be impeached and convicted, will shut up. If they tell the truth and he did what circumstantial evidence indicates, he is kicked out of office and you can all shut up. If they lie, they all go to jail.They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond
They have the summary transcript
They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction
They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates
The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme
They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations
Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help
There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days
There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.
Still waiting on the quote where Trump asked for anything for himself. What's wrong child, can't back your crap up?
.
You gonna send prof feldman to jail for lying today?
.
Those who do not choose to testify are generally guilty.
They were accused, and convicted of, being leftist political hacks.............by using their own words against them.I’m answering all your questions. The witnesses are not being accused of anything. They are there to give legal analysisAre the witnesses being accused of something?
Why are you evading the questions?
the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “proper procedure” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
House rules for how to conduct an impeachment inquiry pretty much the same as was used for Clinton in the 90s. Same playbookWhat "due process?"the witnesses we’re called according to house rules... you know “due process” that you care so much about. That’s what was used.Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?
And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?
so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.
Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.
Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."
Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.
