I may have gotten the impeachment thing all wrong

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump didn't ever say he held up funds for the investigation. The Democrats made that up. Trump said he held up aid to investigate what other members of the UN were contributing. But don't listen to Trump, listen to what the Democrats concluded because Democrats can read minds. Forget about what Trump said.

Wrong. The Dems didn’t make that up. Trumps own staffers who were in charge of the funds and relations with Ukraine testified to that. I also think you know it’s true, I would push to hard with the Trump never said it argument. We all know the intel he is blocking solidifies what he did and why. It’s going to come out eventually

What a minute, which staffers? I didn't see any. The only person to testify that he or she spoke directly with the President on the matter was ambassador Sondland, and he testified when he spoke to President Trump directly, Trump told him no quid pro quo; he didn't want anything from President Zelensky.

Trump said no quid pro quo after he found out he was being accused of a quid pro quo. You can’t be that gullible can you ray?

Then show me somebody who testified that Trump told them the reason he was withholding aid was for a quid pro quo. We have all the testimony on video. Nobody except Sondland testified that they spoke with Trump directly on the matter.

Why would Trump have to specifically tell them? They testified to what the agenda was, an agenda that was set by the president. What if Trumps chief of staff told them or sec of state, or National security advisor??!! Gee it would sure be great to talk to those guys wouldn’t it?

What they testified to is what they presumed the agenda was, not told what the agenda was. If my neighbor was out of work and made a joke about robbing a bank, and a local bank got robbed, they don't lock up my neighbor because I thought he might have did it, or even presumed he did. They need actual proof that he robbed the bank.

Now if my neighbor told me "I'm going to rob Third Federal Tuesday afternoon, and it actually happened, then that might give my claim more credibility to authorities.

That aside, let's say the Democrats found somebody that was told, by Trump, that he was withholding money to pressure Zelensky into looking into the Biden matter. What's wrong with that? It was over a year away from the election. Nobody knew who Trump would be facing at the end of this year. Biden is a rival of his fellow Democrat contenders--not Trump. He won't be Trump's rival until after they vote him the nominee.

 

[Slade3200]

why do you think it’s a clown show to see documents showing direct communication and witnesses who had direct access to trumps directives? Wouldn’t that clear Trump if he did nothing wrong?

The Clown Show ENDED at THE House. The Never Ending Subpoena Cannon has run out of gunpowder. BTW, Pelosi I think looses not just her speakership, but I think she loses her re-election bid.

Sorry if I don’t trust your predictions after losing the house during the midterms.

41 GOP Reps retired THAT YEAR, AND YOU WERE FULL COURT PRESS ON RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24-7, 365.

Some unfortunate people bought it, and voted for Democrats. People don't like being lied to and conned.

NOW THE SCHIFFLASH IS COMING.

ENJOY!

Harmeet Dhillon: Trump impeachment -- If Schiff were a prosecutor, he'd be in serious trouble

I have no doubt youlll have another slew of excuses once your proven wrong again.

You did not have the courage to rebut the points I made when I outted you as a partisan pathological liar engaged in partisan hyperbole, rhetoric and propaganda.

You are persona non grata to me, snow flake.

You won't even defend your indefensible post.

I dont care to defend myself because my personal feelings make no difference to the points I’m debating. Going personal is a weak distraction tactic. You can have the point and think whatever you want. I’m a hypocritical partisan snowflake. Ok now what?

 

[Ken Mac]

Yes I can. EVERY president we've had has blocked congress from shit they wanted. Executive Privilege. Look it up. They could have gone to court and the court decides what witnesses/documents Trump's administration has to give up. But they're in a fucking hurry because ELECTION! If he gets elected, they know they are fucked for another 4 years.

They said the evidence was OVERWHELMING. Why would they need more. Look up the definition of OVERWHELM. I posted it above. Go read it. They impeached him based on the evidence they gathered. That should be MORE than enough. They are looking for discovery in a trial. They should have done all of the discovery in the inquiry in the house. That's ass backwards and it's only because more shit keeps coming forward. Kinda like the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Dribble, dribble, dribble. They figured they could get around the courts by having the Senate do the job of the house and that's BULLSHIT.

Don't be fooled so easily. Look at it objectively.

Trump wasn't even allowed to defend himself in the House Impeachment Inquiry. Why should he give up anyFUCKINGthing.

Would you participate in your own impeachment if YOU couldn't defend yourself?

You’ve got to be joking!! Yes all presidents invoke privilege, as they should, but none have even come close to what Trump is doing. We aren’t talking about private strategy meetings or national security issues. We are talking about state department business, transcripts, complaints made by staffers to attorneys and a slew of other relevant pieces to this situation.

What are you talking about? DumBama did it during Fast and Furious. He refused to surrender subpoenaed documents to the Republican House.

the Fast and Furious situation stayed in court for 7 years. And you all were bitching about Nancy holding the articles for a couple weeks?! Come on!

Yes, that's the process it's supposed to follow, not impeachment. If there is a disagreement about how EP is used, it goes to the courts like the Republicans did. The Democrats didn't even consider it. Instead, they chose to charge him with obstruction.

No that’s not the process it is supposed to use otherwise any impeachment can get stonewalled and then get lost in court. The pres would serve out his/her term before the case finishes in court. That makes no sense

You're either under informed, ignorant or don't care about our constitution. Which is it?

Clinton made them go through the court system when he was impeached. Go look it up.

 

[Slade3200]

Wrong. The Dems didn’t make that up. Trumps own staffers who were in charge of the funds and relations with Ukraine testified to that. I also think you know it’s true, I would push to hard with the Trump never said it argument. We all know the intel he is blocking solidifies what he did and why. It’s going to come out eventually

What a minute, which staffers? I didn't see any. The only person to testify that he or she spoke directly with the President on the matter was ambassador Sondland, and he testified when he spoke to President Trump directly, Trump told him no quid pro quo; he didn't want anything from President Zelensky.

Trump said no quid pro quo after he found out he was being accused of a quid pro quo. You can’t be that gullible can you ray?

Then show me somebody who testified that Trump told them the reason he was withholding aid was for a quid pro quo. We have all the testimony on video. Nobody except Sondland testified that they spoke with Trump directly on the matter.

Why would Trump have to specifically tell them? They testified to what the agenda was, an agenda that was set by the president. What if Trumps chief of staff told them or sec of state, or National security advisor??!! Gee it would sure be great to talk to those guys wouldn’t it?

What they testified to is what they presumed the agenda was, not told what the agenda was. If my neighbor was out of work and made a joke about robbing a bank, and a local bank got robbed, they don't lock up my neighbor because I thought he might have did it, or even presumed he did. They need actual proof that he robbed the bank.

Now if my neighbor told me "I'm going to rob Third Federal Tuesday afternoon, and it actually happened, then that might give my claim more credibility to authorities.

That aside, let's say the Democrats found somebody that was told, by Trump, that he was withholding money to pressure Zelensky into looking into the Biden matter. What's wrong with that? It was over a year away from the election. Nobody knew who Trump would be facing at the end of this year. Biden is a rival of his fellow Democrat contenders--not Trump. He won't be Trump's rival until after they vote him the nominee.

what a dumb example. We are talking about state department officials carrying out US policy. Not a neighbor that overhead a conversation. If thats the best you can do with a fair comparison then you have no hope of showing comprehension of what’s going on.

 

[progressive hunter]

by ignoring one groups actions and attacking another group for doing the same thing

I don’t think pointing at another groups actions excise the actions of the group I wrote this OP about so I’m trying to keep the topic on point and not go down the whataboutism rabbit hole.

But the point is that the Democrats ran their show they way they wanted, and it's only fair the Republicans do the same. If somebody moons you, you moon them right back.

yes, if youre a child

The House had their inquiry, and now demanding the Republicans continue their inquiry. That is an unreasonable request. You have your inquiry, end it, and send it to us. That's the way it works.

the house had their inquiry and decided to file charges... the senate is now expected to hold a trial, not vote on what they saw happen in the house. Watch some law and order or something and observe what a trial is. It shouldn’t be that complicated

DUDE,,law and order is a TV show not real life,,,

this might explain your POV

 

[Slade3200]

You’ve got to be joking!! Yes all presidents invoke privilege, as they should, but none have even come close to what Trump is doing. We aren’t talking about private strategy meetings or national security issues. We are talking about state department business, transcripts, complaints made by staffers to attorneys and a slew of other relevant pieces to this situation.

What are you talking about? DumBama did it during Fast and Furious. He refused to surrender subpoenaed documents to the Republican House.

the Fast and Furious situation stayed in court for 7 years. And you all were bitching about Nancy holding the articles for a couple weeks?! Come on!

Yes, that's the process it's supposed to follow, not impeachment. If there is a disagreement about how EP is used, it goes to the courts like the Republicans did. The Democrats didn't even consider it. Instead, they chose to charge him with obstruction.

No that’s not the process it is supposed to use otherwise any impeachment can get stonewalled and then get lost in court. The pres would serve out his/her term before the case finishes in court. That makes no sense

You're either under informed, ignorant or don't care about our constitution. Which is it?

Clinton made them go through the court system when he was impeached. Go look it up.

Clinton did that with SOME items and he was impeached with an obstruction of justice charge. He also release many documents, witnesses and even testified under oath. Trump is blocking everything. We’ve not seen any other president do it to this level.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think pointing at another groups actions excise the actions of the group I wrote this OP about so I’m trying to keep the topic on point and not go down the whataboutism rabbit hole.

But the point is that the Democrats ran their show they way they wanted, and it's only fair the Republicans do the same. If somebody moons you, you moon them right back.

yes, if youre a child

The House had their inquiry, and now demanding the Republicans continue their inquiry. That is an unreasonable request. You have your inquiry, end it, and send it to us. That's the way it works.

the house had their inquiry and decided to file charges... the senate is now expected to hold a trial, not vote on what they saw happen in the house. Watch some law and order or something and observe what a trial is. It shouldn’t be that complicated

DUDE,,law and order is a TV show not real life,,,

this might explain your POV

No shit sherlock. Sherlock is a show as well

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a minute, which staffers? I didn't see any. The only person to testify that he or she spoke directly with the President on the matter was ambassador Sondland, and he testified when he spoke to President Trump directly, Trump told him no quid pro quo; he didn't want anything from President Zelensky.

Trump said no quid pro quo after he found out he was being accused of a quid pro quo. You can’t be that gullible can you ray?

Then show me somebody who testified that Trump told them the reason he was withholding aid was for a quid pro quo. We have all the testimony on video. Nobody except Sondland testified that they spoke with Trump directly on the matter.

Why would Trump have to specifically tell them? They testified to what the agenda was, an agenda that was set by the president. What if Trumps chief of staff told them or sec of state, or National security advisor??!! Gee it would sure be great to talk to those guys wouldn’t it?

What they testified to is what they presumed the agenda was, not told what the agenda was. If my neighbor was out of work and made a joke about robbing a bank, and a local bank got robbed, they don't lock up my neighbor because I thought he might have did it, or even presumed he did. They need actual proof that he robbed the bank.

Now if my neighbor told me "I'm going to rob Third Federal Tuesday afternoon, and it actually happened, then that might give my claim more credibility to authorities.

That aside, let's say the Democrats found somebody that was told, by Trump, that he was withholding money to pressure Zelensky into looking into the Biden matter. What's wrong with that? It was over a year away from the election. Nobody knew who Trump would be facing at the end of this year. Biden is a rival of his fellow Democrat contenders--not Trump. He won't be Trump's rival until after they vote him the nominee.

what a dumb example. We are talking about state department officials carrying out US policy. Not a neighbor that overhead a conversation. If thats the best you can do with a fair comparison then you have no hope of showing comprehension of what’s going on.

I made the comparison to show how weak presumptions are against actual words. What you're telling me is that Trump didn't have to tell any of these people he was withholding aid because of an investigation. Their presumptions were good enough to impeach Trump. If it would never stand in a court of law, why should it stand here???

 

[progressive hunter]

I’ve been pretty outspoken on how bad of an idea I thought this impeachment move would be for our government and our country. I saw the transition from the House to the Republican controlled Senate bringing a change in focus from Trumps actions to Biden corruption. It doesn’t appear that the Republicans are taking that route. I’ve seen the conservative media blitz working overtime on Biden corruption trying to shine the spotlight on that narrative, that tactic is in full swing, but in the capitol it looks like a race to dismissal.

It was rather astonishing to listen to the Republicans dismiss amendment after amendment after clear documentation and witnesses were presented that would add direct supporting material to the accusations.

It is very clear that the Republicans are not interested in finding the truth, seeing the facts, or even allowing the Dems to use the facts to present their case. They seem to just want to defend the president and dismiss the case. It stinks to high heaven and coming from somebody who doesn’t think Trump should be impeached I will say this path that Trump and the Reps are going down is looking more and more like a dirty cover up. When I first heard the Dems use that term it sounded like political hyperbole... After day 1 it’s sounding pretty spot on

Seems an innocent person would want the evidence to exonerate him.

I believe this will backfire on the republican senators at the polls.

in this country its the job of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence,,,

not sure how you do it in your country,,,

yet in most every trial I’ve heard of the defense calls witnesses and produces documents to counter the charges filed against them, do they not?

if they feel it necessary,,,but not always,,,

the way she frames it is the accused is guilty when the charges are filed and its up to the accused to prove their innocence,,,
thats how places like russia does it not the USA

 

[Ken Mac]

What are you talking about? DumBama did it during Fast and Furious. He refused to surrender subpoenaed documents to the Republican House.

the Fast and Furious situation stayed in court for 7 years. And you all were bitching about Nancy holding the articles for a couple weeks?! Come on!

Yes, that's the process it's supposed to follow, not impeachment. If there is a disagreement about how EP is used, it goes to the courts like the Republicans did. The Democrats didn't even consider it. Instead, they chose to charge him with obstruction.

No that’s not the process it is supposed to use otherwise any impeachment can get stonewalled and then get lost in court. The pres would serve out his/her term before the case finishes in court. That makes no sense

You're either under informed, ignorant or don't care about our constitution. Which is it?

Clinton made them go through the court system when he was impeached. Go look it up.

Clinton did that with SOME items and he was impeached with an obstruction of justice charge. He also release many documents, witnesses and even testified under oath. Trump is blocking everything. We’ve not seen any other president do it to this level.

Big nothing burger you got there Slade. You never answered my question.

If you weren't allowed to provide evidence which may exonerate you during the inquiry discovery process, would you participate and give them anything? I sure the fuck wouldn't.

Nothing Burger. Don't care what you think. Don't care about the extent. There is a process. Your "extent" is flashing a shiny object because it is subjective.

 

[progressive hunter]

I’ve been pretty outspoken on how bad of an idea I thought this impeachment move would be for our government and our country. I saw the transition from the House to the Republican controlled Senate bringing a change in focus from Trumps actions to Biden corruption. It doesn’t appear that the Republicans are taking that route. I’ve seen the conservative media blitz working overtime on Biden corruption trying to shine the spotlight on that narrative, that tactic is in full swing, but in the capitol it looks like a race to dismissal.

It was rather astonishing to listen to the Republicans dismiss amendment after amendment after clear documentation and witnesses were presented that would add direct supporting material to the accusations.

It is very clear that the Republicans are not interested in finding the truth, seeing the facts, or even allowing the Dems to use the facts to present their case. They seem to just want to defend the president and dismiss the case. It stinks to high heaven and coming from somebody who doesn’t think Trump should be impeached I will say this path that Trump and the Reps are going down is looking more and more like a dirty cover up. When I first heard the Dems use that term it sounded like political hyperbole... After day 1 it’s sounding pretty spot on

The evidence is overwhelming. Let's vote to impeach.

Later in the senate:

We need more evidence because we don't have enough.

YCMTSU.

That’s not what I’m hearing... they think they have enough. But they also want more, why wouldn’t they want more?. They want the stuff Trump blocked them from getting. Can you blame them?

Yes I can. EVERY president we've had has blocked congress from shit they wanted. Executive Privilege. Look it up. They could have gone to court and the court decides what witnesses/documents Trump's administration has to give up. But they're in a fucking hurry because ELECTION! If he gets elected, they know they are fucked for another 4 years.

They said the evidence was OVERWHELMING. Why would they need more. Look up the definition of OVERWHELM. I posted it above. Go read it. They impeached him based on the evidence they gathered. That should be MORE than enough. They are looking for discovery in a trial. They should have done all of the discovery in the inquiry in the house. That's ass backwards and it's only because more shit keeps coming forward. Kinda like the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Dribble, dribble, dribble. They figured they could get around the courts by having the Senate do the job of the house and that's BULLSHIT.

Don't be fooled so easily. Look at it objectively.

Trump wasn't even allowed to defend himself in the House Impeachment Inquiry. Why should he give up anyFUCKINGthing.

Would you participate in your own impeachment if YOU couldn't defend yourself?

You’ve got to be joking!! Yes all presidents invoke privilege, as they should, but none have even come close to what Trump is doing. We aren’t talking about private strategy meetings or national security issues. We are talking about state department business, transcripts, complaints made by staffers to attorneys and a slew of other relevant pieces to this situation.

MY GOD you are an ignorant fucker with a short memory,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Trump said no quid pro quo after he found out he was being accused of a quid pro quo. You can’t be that gullible can you ray?

Then show me somebody who testified that Trump told them the reason he was withholding aid was for a quid pro quo. We have all the testimony on video. Nobody except Sondland testified that they spoke with Trump directly on the matter.

Why would Trump have to specifically tell them? They testified to what the agenda was, an agenda that was set by the president. What if Trumps chief of staff told them or sec of state, or National security advisor??!! Gee it would sure be great to talk to those guys wouldn’t it?

What they testified to is what they presumed the agenda was, not told what the agenda was. If my neighbor was out of work and made a joke about robbing a bank, and a local bank got robbed, they don't lock up my neighbor because I thought he might have did it, or even presumed he did. They need actual proof that he robbed the bank.

Now if my neighbor told me "I'm going to rob Third Federal Tuesday afternoon, and it actually happened, then that might give my claim more credibility to authorities.

That aside, let's say the Democrats found somebody that was told, by Trump, that he was withholding money to pressure Zelensky into looking into the Biden matter. What's wrong with that? It was over a year away from the election. Nobody knew who Trump would be facing at the end of this year. Biden is a rival of his fellow Democrat contenders--not Trump. He won't be Trump's rival until after they vote him the nominee.

what a dumb example. We are talking about state department officials carrying out US policy. Not a neighbor that overhead a conversation. If thats the best you can do with a fair comparison then you have no hope of showing comprehension of what’s going on.

I made the comparison to show how weak presumptions are against actual words. What you're telling me is that Trump didn't have to tell any of these people he was withholding aid because of an investigation. Their presumptions were good enough to impeach Trump. If it would never stand in a court of law, why should it stand here???

Trump sets the agenda. His inner circles relays that agenda to their staff. If this did not come from Trump then one of his inner circle grossly over stepped. Either way it should be vetted out, don’t you think?

 

[JLW]

The Clown Show ENDED at THE House. The Never Ending Subpoena Cannon has run out of gunpowder. BTW, Pelosi I think looses not just her speakership, but I think she loses her re-election bid.

Sorry if I don’t trust your predictions after losing the house during the midterms.

41 GOP Reps retired THAT YEAR, AND YOU WERE FULL COURT PRESS ON RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24-7, 365.

Some unfortunate people bought it, and voted for Democrats. People don't like being lied to and conned.

NOW THE SCHIFFLASH IS COMING.

ENJOY!

Harmeet Dhillon: Trump impeachment -- If Schiff were a prosecutor, he'd be in serious trouble

I have no doubt youlll have another slew of excuses once your proven wrong again.

You did not have the courage to rebut the points I made when I outted you as a partisan pathological liar engaged in partisan hyperbole, rhetoric and propaganda.

You are persona non grata to me, snow flake.

You won't even defend your indefensible post.

I dont care to defend myself because my personal feelings make no difference to the points I’m debating. Going personal is a weak distraction tactic. You can have the point and think whatever you want. I’m a hypocritical partisan snowflake. Ok now what?

You are right in your assessment. The bottom line is this: Trumpers do not care that Trump sought to abuse his office, extort a nation state and demand a quid pro quo. They will gladly concede that he did so. They contend that Trump did not commit a crime and therefore he cannot be impeached, convicted and removed from office. That is their argument.

So, their reasoning is if it is not a crime and a President can only be impeached for a crime the impeachment proceeding was invalid. (There is considerable evidence in the Federalist Papers among other sources that this view is wrong and in my opinion it is. You don't need a crime to impeach a president).

So what Trumpers are saying is if the President wants to declassify our nuclear codes and give them to his good friend and likely handler, V. Putin, or publish them on the internet, he can do so because the President can declassify information and if he wants to do that, well that is his prerogative. Declassifying intelligence is a presidential prerogative therefor non-impeachable.

But Trumpers go beyond that even.

Trump himself argues that while in office the president is immune form prosecution. That is similar to the laws of immunity they have in Brazil for its president. Trump's attorneys have argued that if Trump shoots someone on fifth avenue, commits rape, mass murder, whatever he is still immune from prosecution while in office.

That is their view.

Welcome to Trumplandia.

 

[Dragonlady]

Oh P-shaw!

We already know that Trump puts ketchup on his welldone steak, has two scoops of vanilla ice cream, and gets to use larger Salt and Pepper shakers than everyone else.

We don't really need to tie up the entire legislative branch to publicize these Trumpian Character "Flaws".

In other words, he's guilty as hell and you don't care. Tough noogies. Americans do care, and they're seeing the same thing as Slade.

 

[progressive hunter]

And the Senate IS having a trial, but they are not about to allow the Democrats tell them how to proceed with one or extend their clown show with the House. You wanted an impeachment trial, then here it is. If you don't like how they are conducting it, then it's only fair because we didn't like how they conducted their inquiry.

why do you think it’s a clown show to see documents showing direct communication and witnesses who had direct access to trumps directives? Wouldn’t that clear Trump if he did nothing wrong?

The charge of abuse of power rests on the claim that the President wanted the investigation of the Bidens to advance his chances for reelection, so the only relevant witnesses or documents would have to directly show that was his motivation and clearly, the House was unable to find and such witnesses or documents so all the fuss the Democrats are making is just to extend their political stunt to advance their own political interests.

I agree that the Dems messed up emphasizing the “political interest”point. It’s very hard to prove intent, even when it’s obvious. There should be a process to follow when working with foreign countries to investigate political rivals. If that system isn’t in place then it needs to be set up. If it is in place and Trump didn’t follow it then he should be held accountable. He held up funds to progress this investigation agenda, that was deemed illegal. He used his personal attorney instead of regular channels to pursue his agenda, there could be something wrong there too. And he’s blocked information and spread false narratives in the aftermath which is not OK. There’s a lot of crap there

Trump didn't ever say he held up funds for the investigation. The Democrats made that up. Trump said he held up aid to investigate what other members of the UN were contributing. But don't listen to Trump, listen to what the Democrats concluded because Democrats can read minds. Forget about what Trump said.

Wrong. The Dems didn’t make that up. Trumps own staffers who were in charge of the funds and relations with Ukraine testified to that. I also think you know it’s true, I would push to hard with the Trump never said it argument. We all know the intel he is blocking solidifies what he did and why. It’s going to come out eventually

how do we all know that???

 

[Slade3200]

the Fast and Furious situation stayed in court for 7 years. And you all were bitching about Nancy holding the articles for a couple weeks?! Come on!

Yes, that's the process it's supposed to follow, not impeachment. If there is a disagreement about how EP is used, it goes to the courts like the Republicans did. The Democrats didn't even consider it. Instead, they chose to charge him with obstruction.

No that’s not the process it is supposed to use otherwise any impeachment can get stonewalled and then get lost in court. The pres would serve out his/her term before the case finishes in court. That makes no sense

You're either under informed, ignorant or don't care about our constitution. Which is it?

Clinton made them go through the court system when he was impeached. Go look it up.

Clinton did that with SOME items and he was impeached with an obstruction of justice charge. He also release many documents, witnesses and even testified under oath. Trump is blocking everything. We’ve not seen any other president do it to this level.

Big nothing burger you got there Slade. You never answered my question.

If you weren't allowed to provide evidence which may exonerate you during the inquiry discovery process, would you participate and give them anything? I sure the fuck wouldn't.

Nothing Burger. Don't care what you think. Don't care about the extent. There is a process. Your "extent" is flashing a shiny object because it is subjective.

If I wasn’t allowed to provide evidence during an inquiry I’d sure as hell try and provide it during a trip that my party controls. But more importantly if I was a senator and wanted to maintain a reputation of fairness in my institution... id want transparency and honesty

 

[Seawytch]

It is very clear that the Republicans are not interested in finding the truth, seeing the facts, or even allowing the Dems to use the facts to present their case. They seem to just want to defend the president and dismiss the case.

Now there's a statement right out of the "no shit, Sherlock" book.

dig the avatar. Go Niners!!!!

 

[The Original Tree]

The Clown Show ENDED at THE House. The Never Ending Subpoena Cannon has run out of gunpowder. BTW, Pelosi I think looses not just her speakership, but I think she loses her re-election bid.

Sorry if I don’t trust your predictions after losing the house during the midterms.

41 GOP Reps retired THAT YEAR, AND YOU WERE FULL COURT PRESS ON RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24-7, 365.

Some unfortunate people bought it, and voted for Democrats. People don't like being lied to and conned.

NOW THE SCHIFFLASH IS COMING.

ENJOY!

Harmeet Dhillon: Trump impeachment -- If Schiff were a prosecutor, he'd be in serious trouble

I have no doubt youlll have another slew of excuses once your proven wrong again.

You did not have the courage to rebut the points I made when I outted you as a partisan pathological liar engaged in partisan hyperbole, rhetoric and propaganda.

You are persona non grata to me, snow flake.

You won't even defend your indefensible post.

I dont care to defend myself because my personal feelings make no difference to the points I’m debating. Going personal is a weak distraction tactic. You can have the point and think whatever you want. I’m a hypocritical partisan snowflake. Ok now what?

I wasn't talking about your feelings, I was talking about your lies, and your lack of logic and your failure to understand the word hyperbole. You claimed you weren't engaged in partisan hyperbole. Well I bitch Slapped you back to the days when Hillary Clinton was fired from The Nixon Case.

And like a true Partisan, you just kept ignoring the obvious and continued to promote your agenda.

 

[Slade3200]

why do you think it’s a clown show to see documents showing direct communication and witnesses who had direct access to trumps directives? Wouldn’t that clear Trump if he did nothing wrong?

The charge of abuse of power rests on the claim that the President wanted the investigation of the Bidens to advance his chances for reelection, so the only relevant witnesses or documents would have to directly show that was his motivation and clearly, the House was unable to find and such witnesses or documents so all the fuss the Democrats are making is just to extend their political stunt to advance their own political interests.

I agree that the Dems messed up emphasizing the “political interest”point. It’s very hard to prove intent, even when it’s obvious. There should be a process to follow when working with foreign countries to investigate political rivals. If that system isn’t in place then it needs to be set up. If it is in place and Trump didn’t follow it then he should be held accountable. He held up funds to progress this investigation agenda, that was deemed illegal. He used his personal attorney instead of regular channels to pursue his agenda, there could be something wrong there too. And he’s blocked information and spread false narratives in the aftermath which is not OK. There’s a lot of crap there

Trump didn't ever say he held up funds for the investigation. The Democrats made that up. Trump said he held up aid to investigate what other members of the UN were contributing. But don't listen to Trump, listen to what the Democrats concluded because Democrats can read minds. Forget about what Trump said.

Wrong. The Dems didn’t make that up. Trumps own staffers who were in charge of the funds and relations with Ukraine testified to that. I also think you know it’s true, I would push to hard with the Trump never said it argument. We all know the intel he is blocking solidifies what he did and why. It’s going to come out eventually

how do we all know that???

It’s obvious to me, but if you have doubts just wait. Time always brings this stuff out. I have a feeling Trumps lies will be exposed for years to come after his presidency

 

[Ken Mac]

As far as the actual charges, I don't really give a fuck if he did try to get a quid pro quo out of the Ukraine President. It's a nothing burger. Yes, it's probably not diplomatically correct and it doesn't look good, but so fucking what. Any other presidents ever withhold aid for various reasons?

And I don't care that he wanted Biden investigated. So fucking what. There is some corrupt shady shit going on with Hunter and having easy access for Burisma to the Obama's administration by him being placed on their board. No doubt about that. That shit needs to be looked into. You don't get a fucking pass because you are running for president. That's BS.

At the moment, it looks like Sanders might actually end up as Trumps Political opponent for president. At the moment, Trump doesn't have an opponent.