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.
lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence."I overheard Trump yelling coming through a cellphone in a crowded restaurant" is the opposite of evidence
You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.
No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence."I overheard Trump yelling coming through a cellphone in a crowded restaurant" is the opposite of evidence
OH, and by the way, Nixon's support appeared rock solid, days before it completely evaporated, one never knows what tips the scales. I agree that thinking that the GOP capable of mustering the courage nowadays in this climate is slim but there is precedent.lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.
There is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.
Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.
That's what they are saying everywhere, and that's why Trump's job approval ratings continue to go up as the trial proceeds.lol A truly desperate wish. As this trial has proceeded, Trump's job approval ratings have gone up everyday to near his highest ratings since taking office, making it clear that very few people are taking this nonsense seriously. It is the Democrats who will pay a price in November for wasting the nation's time with this farce.There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.
Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.
Is that what they are saying inside your little bubble?
Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.
What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.
The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.
Actually he should be removed, but the republicans have put party first and by not convicting trump, they will have betrayed public trust.What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.
So you argue that as long as one party is willing to simply forego its constitutional responsibility the other party should not be allowed to start impeachment proceedings? And doing so is a betrayal of public trust?What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.
But there is when there is clear evidence of violations, which is the case in this impeachment.The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.
Does that work for everything? Let's say the president shoots his political rival. If the GOP pledges to not convict him when he is impeached the Democrats should not even try? Trying, constitutes a breach in public trust?What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.
Never said they are required to vote for conviction. I said that saying you will not convict before the trail has even started betrays their oath.The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.
View attachment 303155
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
“We recognize that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman
This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.
Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.
The same corrupt Ukrainian government asked Vindman muliple times to be their SecDef, he's your Star witness and he likely replied that he could help corrupt Ukraine more and do more damage to the USA right where he was. He's a spy and a genuine traitor on par with the Rosenbergs
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnessesThere is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.
View attachment 303155
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
“We recognize that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman
This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.
You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Violations of what?But there is when there is clear evidence of violations, which is the case in this impeachment.The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.
Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.
