Repubs haven't just crossed the Rubicon, they've built a bridge over it.

[berg80]

It happened. Why do you ask?

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

I am. Are you a Jew? Read and educate yourself.

Opinion | The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

Can't read it, i don't subscribe to the WSJ.

But there is indeed an aspect of the impeachment that it appears is shrinking. The Senate trial. You know........when Trump gets to bring out all those witnesses to prove his innocence (wink).

“Senate Republicans say there is an early consensus building within their ranks for a short impeachment trial that could see the GOP-led chamber vote on a likely acquittal of President Donald Trump without hearing from any witnesses.”

GOP Senators Leaning Toward Quick Impeachment Trial for Trump
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then why have Democrats changed their narrative to “abuse of power”? Impeachment articles mention neither bribery nor extortion. You a Jew, berg?

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

I am. Are you a Jew? Read and educate yourself.

Opinion | The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

Can't read it, i don't subscribe to the WSJ.

But there is indeed an aspect of the impeachment that it appears is shrinking. The Senate trial. You know........when Trump gets to bring out all those witnesses to prove his innocence (wink).

“Senate Republicans say there is an early consensus building within their ranks for a short impeachment trial that could see the GOP-led chamber vote on a likely acquittal of President Donald Trump without hearing from any witnesses.”
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

LOL

how convenient. Are you a Jew? Why do you hide from the question?

 

[berg80]

Oh boy.........you're really on to something now! Not. Read Article I. If you don't think what they described was bribery, extortion, a shakedown, whatever you want to call..........you may not be familiar with the English language.
The importance of the terms they use to accuse Trump of bribery is secondary to the fact he did it.

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

I am. Are you a Jew? Read and educate yourself.

Opinion | The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

Can't read it, i don't subscribe to the WSJ.

But there is indeed an aspect of the impeachment that it appears is shrinking. The Senate trial. You know........when Trump gets to bring out all those witnesses to prove his innocence (wink).

“Senate Republicans say there is an early consensus building within their ranks for a short impeachment trial that could see the GOP-led chamber vote on a likely acquittal of President Donald Trump without hearing from any witnesses.”
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

LOL

how convenient. Are you a Jew? Why do you hide from the question?

Both of the articles of impeachment rely on facts that are uncontested based upon review of the transcripts of earlier witness testimony. The ball is in the Republicans’ court; they can either condemn Trump’s misconduct or they can condone it.

Why are Senate Repubs discussing the idea of not having a full blown trial if the evidence exonerates Trump?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Just stop it. If you watched the hearing, then you know he did NOT say there was no political bias. He said he found no evidence of political bias in the INITIATION of the investigation, but that there absolutely was evidence of political bias in the CONDUCT of the investigation when it got to the FISA warrant application process before the FISC.

Feinstein tried to get him to confirm the statement you're making and he made the above perfectly clear several times.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you're smarter than the WSJ?

You also didn't answer my question. Are you a Jew?

What the hell does the WSJ have to do with language in Article I accusing Trump of bribery even if they don't use the specific word? Are you an orc?

I am. Are you a Jew? Read and educate yourself.

Opinion | The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

Can't read it, i don't subscribe to the WSJ.

But there is indeed an aspect of the impeachment that it appears is shrinking. The Senate trial. You know........when Trump gets to bring out all those witnesses to prove his innocence (wink).

“Senate Republicans say there is an early consensus building within their ranks for a short impeachment trial that could see the GOP-led chamber vote on a likely acquittal of President Donald Trump without hearing from any witnesses.”
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

LOL

how convenient. Are you a Jew? Why do you hide from the question?

Both of the articles of impeachment rely on facts that are uncontested based upon review of the transcripts of earlier witness testimony. The ball is in the Republicans’ court; they can either condemn Trump’s misconduct or they can condone it.

Why are Senate Repubs discussing the idea of not having a full blown trial if the evidence exonerates Trump?

Jew yes or no?

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Just stop it. If you watched the hearing, then you know he did NOT say there was no political bias. He said he found no evidence of political bias in the INITIATION of the investigation, but that there absolutely was evidence of political bias in the CONDUCT of the investigation when it got to the FISA warrant application process before the FISC.

Feinstein tried to get him to confirm the statement you're making and he made the above perfectly clear several times.

Doublethink gives you license to believe any interpretation of Horowitz's conclusions you desire. Even when it means moving the goalpost from Trump's original assertion there was no basis for the investigation in the first place, rather, it was based on a deep state conspiracy. The evidence says otherwise. Horowitz says otherwise.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Doublethink gives you license to believe any interpretation of Horowitz's conclusions you desire. Even when it means moving the goalpost from Trump's original assertion there was no basis for the investigation in the first place, rather, it was based on a deep state conspiracy. The evidence says otherwise. Horowitz says otherwise.

Um, what the actual fuck? Horowitz did NOT rule out political bias as a motive for the investigation:

"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Graham asked.

"I do not know," Horowitz replied.

"You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz replied.

From your precious NBC news: Watchdog tells Senate of deep concerns over FBI errors in Russia probe

 

[jc456]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

never heard of circumstantial evidence? go figure.

 

[Oddball]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

Introducing themselves to the words "introspection" and "self-awareness" would be a big help as well.

 

[Oddball]

Both of the articles of impeachment rely on facts that are uncontested based upon review of the transcripts of earlier witness testimony. The ball is in the Republicans’ court; they can either condemn Trump’s misconduct or they can condone it.

Why are Senate Repubs discussing the idea of not having a full blown trial if the evidence exonerates Trump?

The rely on a dearth of facts...Hence, the totally nebulous charges of "crimes" that don't even exist....Trump is right when he says "Impeachment Lite"

 

[Oddball]

Doublethink gives you license to believe any interpretation of Horowitz's conclusions you desire. .

2a. Freudian projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto another is called Freudian Projection.

• “A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
• “The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”
• “Attributing one’s own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”
• “The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”
• “People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”
• “Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Had Bush sworn out fake FISA warrants on the Kenyan hed be long dead for treason.

Are you Mini Commies ok with Trump pulling surveillance on Burisma Joe Biden, yes or no?

 

[berg80]

Doublethink gives you license to believe any interpretation of Horowitz's conclusions you desire. Even when it means moving the goalpost from Trump's original assertion there was no basis for the investigation in the first place, rather, it was based on a deep state conspiracy. The evidence says otherwise. Horowitz says otherwise.

Um, what the actual fuck? Horowitz did NOT rule out political bias as a motive for the investigation:

"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Graham asked.

"I do not know," Horowitz replied.

"You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz replied.

From your precious NBC news: Watchdog tells Senate of deep concerns over FBI errors in Russia probe

Jeeez, the spin never stops with you folks. Horowitz's report plainly states there was adequate predicate to launch the investigation, that bias did not play a role.

Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe
Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe

That conclusion is in direct contradiction to Trump's claim opening the investigation was a hit job.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Civil War: How do civil wars happen? - Towns

Democrats are leaving themselves no choice in their headlong rush to communism.

Agreed.

The backers and leaders of the Progressive Jihad on civil society need to be dealt with.

Obama, Comey, et. al are just the hired help and were only "following orders"

 

[imawhosure]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound, lol! Pounding that talking point, aren't ya! You lose, we win, and we both know it-) Keep up the straight face though, till it collapses on you-)

 

[berg80]

Both of the articles of impeachment rely on facts that are uncontested based upon review of the transcripts of earlier witness testimony. The ball is in the Republicans’ court; they can either condemn Trump’s misconduct or they can condone it.

Why are Senate Repubs discussing the idea of not having a full blown trial if the evidence exonerates Trump?

The rely on a dearth of facts...Hence, the totally nebulous charges of "crimes" that don't even exist....Trump is right when he says "Impeachment Lite"

There were two crimes. One, soliciting help in an upcoming election from a foreign government. Two,.........
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

BTW, obstructing a congressional investigation is also a crime.

 

[Oddball]

Jeeez, the spin never stops with you folks. Horowitz's report plainly states there was adequate predicate to launch the investigation, that bias did not play a role.

Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe
Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe

That conclusion is in direct contradiction to Trump's claim opening the investigation was a hit job.

He said no "documentary or testimonial" evidence of bias, you mental midget...Which does not preclude the mountain of circumstantial evidence that there was bias from front to back in this Stasi operation.

And you have the nerve to accuse others of "doublethink"?!?

 

[Oddball]

Both of the articles of impeachment rely on facts that are uncontested based upon review of the transcripts of earlier witness testimony. The ball is in the Republicans’ court; they can either condemn Trump’s misconduct or they can condone it.

Why are Senate Repubs discussing the idea of not having a full blown trial if the evidence exonerates Trump?

The rely on a dearth of facts...Hence, the totally nebulous charges of "crimes" that don't even exist....Trump is right when he says "Impeachment Lite"

There were two crimes. One, soliciting help in an upcoming election from a foreign government. Two,.........
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

Not specified in the articles of impeachment.

You lose again, Gomer Pyle.

 

[norwegen]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

And the word Rubicon.

When you cross the Rubicon, there's no going back. When you build a bridge over it, there's . . . well . . . a way to go back.

 

[berg80]

Jeeez, the spin never stops with you folks. Horowitz's report plainly states there was adequate predicate to launch the investigation, that bias did not play a role.

Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe
Horowitz: 'We found no bias' in decision to open probe

That conclusion is in direct contradiction to Trump's claim opening the investigation was a hit job.

He said no "documentary or testimonial" evidence of bias, you mental midget...Which does not preclude the mountain of circumstantial evidence that there was bias from front to back in this Stasi operation.

And you have the nerve to accuse others of "doublethink"?!?

I appreciate your help in proving my point. When the facts fail you folks you put them aside and rationalize your beliefs any way you can. There's no real evidence.....so you make some up in your head. There's no way to have a rational conversation with people like that.