Reciting Other's Lies Makes One Weary

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well if so, why didn't the Democrats pursue a court challenge over their subpoenas?

Because of time, and because this obstruction of Congress was its own high crime. Note that the one court ruling on this was an aimed kick right at Trump's nuts. "Presidents are not kings...".

Time? They have until January 2020.

Nice try. You get the bubble gum for participating. No cigar.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Time? They have until January 2020.

That's not the way they have been looking at it, they have clearly said so. And, if it can stretch until then, it can stretch further. No, better to roll with the testimony and present the obstruction as its own evidence and high crime. Again, keep in mind the ruling they got on this defiance went their way, and it wasn't ambiguous. Would you think it smart strategy to let it get drawn out by Trump's team in court?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Time? They have until January 2020.

That's not the way they have been looking at it, they have clearly said so. And, if it can stretch until then, it can stretch further. No, better to roll with the testimony and present the obstruction as its own evidence and high crime. Again, keep in mind the ruling they got on this defiance went their way, and it wasn't ambiguous. Would you think it smart strategy to let it get drawn out by Trump's team in court?

No ruling by the lower court will stand. It's a separation of powers issue.

Those of sound, logical minds realize the Democrats will be gutted like fresh-caught trout in the Senate.

I would prefer the whole story be ripped from them, even in lieu of prosecution.

 

[toobfreak]

All those rehearsals ...

Greta Thunberg says she's taking a break, but 'not for long' - CNN Video

Surely (Shirley?) listening to recited lies does not bother you. Seems like Republicans just can't get enough of them. And it appears that Barr is overtaking Trump lately, but we haven't heard from Rudy yet, so the jury is still out on the Blue Ribbon winner.

Don't know about. Schittferbrains has been lying for three years now. You seem to thrive on them.

Lies? The guy has oath-backed testimony, which is something you can read about in a dictionary maybe, because you sure wont find any in Republican whining about process or Presidential tweets.

Oh? He claimed to have first hand knowledge of trump's collusion with russia.
Where is it. You brainless drones are perfect for these idiots because you're even stupider, and less inquisitive than they are.

Hmm. Oath-backed testimony? You mean like when the Ukrainian prosecutor SWORE under oath that Biden forced him to be fired to protect his son?
Top prosecutor SWORE under oath Biden forced Ukraine to fire him

Seems right there we have in black and white EVERYTHING against Biden (including Biden's own open video testimony) that they merely claim against Trump!

What has Schiff produced?

• Testimony aided, guided and abetted by his direct coaching and leading of the witnesses to practically put words in their mouths.
• Testimony by clearly partisan people hostile to the president with a documented axe to grind.
• Testimony of opinions, guesses, assumptions, wishful-thinking and personal conclusions.
• Testimony from people who were not even privy to direct, first-hand experience of the allegations.

Have the Democrats shown where the delay was not warranted? No. As part of the president's foreign policy, he had every reason and right to delay the aid to ensure during the leadership transition in Ukraine that previous corruption there would not continue on with the new monies and aid being given them.

Have the Democrats produced anything where Trump ever said anywhere to anyone that his Biden inquiries were POLITICAL? With the intent to influence the election against an opponent? No. Biden isn't even an opponent. Merely a running candidate. He was implicit that his questions concerned past actions done during the 2016 campaign where the election WAS affected by the democrats.

Schiff and the Democrats have repeatedly made specific charges and accusations claiming proof which they never produced, then backed away from the charges.

Have the Democrats shown where Trump stopped the aid to Ukraine until any actionable "favor" was produced? No.

Have the Democrats shown where Trump has gained anything, for the election, personally or otherwise? No.

Have the Democrats even produced one person claiming to be less likely to vote for Biden now? No. Just as they never produced one person allegedly affected by the "Russians."

The democrats have produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING concrete to back their allegations other than their own claims that Trump's inquiry into Biden was anything less than a legitimate concern about past actions by an officer of the USA using his position to abusively effect a personal result. Furthermore, the democrats have totally avoided looking at the entire matter of what Biden said, just what he was doing over there, the firing of the prosecutor, and how the hell his bastard son was getting these incredible jobs all over the world everywhere his dad went that he didn't possibly merit!

Nancy herself has admitted they have been trying to investigate and prosecute Trump for 22 months (at the time of her interview)! For what? 22 months ago (2.5 years by her measure), he hadn't even done anything yet other than win election! Then denied they were rushing the impeachment when in fact, it will be the fastest impeachment in the history of the U.S.!

Nancy claims Trump violated his oath of office where "HE ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION!" Where is that? When did Trump ever ask that? Did I miss the audio? That is the entire dishonest spin in all of this and why the Senate will squash this: investigating a past VP for likely and probable criminal abuse of power does NOT imply much less prove that there was any design, effort or intent to "intervene in our election" just because the same person now is trying to use his position to become the accusing party's lead candidate! Indeed, if Nancy actually had any real concern for the "integrity of our elections," she should be the one asking for the investigation into Biden, much less wondering where her concern for our elections were:

1. During the Obama Trump Tower wiretapping?
2. During the FBI FISA white-washing?
3. During her parties using foreign governments in oppo research in the Steele Dossier?
4. During her parties effort to sneak debate questions to give Hillary advance knowledge?
5. Using the Super-Delegates to mathematically eliminate Bernie as a viable contender against Hillary?
6. During the FBI's mishandling and dropping of the Hillary investigation and destruction of evidence to keep her in the race?
7. And during the entire IRS scandal of 2012 where Obama sought to use the IRS to quash Romney organizations?

There is no way in hell that any of this flies. The Senate will throw this out laughing. Then the Democrats can move right on with their real intent: to try to delegitimize Trump's reelection saying he was protected by the Republicans, then claim he is another illegitimate president when he wins reelection.

And I will stand by laughing as one after another, the Democrats lose even more support, members and seats both in the House and the Senate in their own self-inflicted internal implosion.

Then Barr will investigate Biden anyway and show him to have misused his power corruptly as VP of the USA for his own mad reach for personal wealth and power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No ruling by the lower court will stand. It's a separation of powers issue.

Haha... okay. Sure. All those arguments will fail, because... reasons. And it's amazing that the judges in the lower court have never heard of separation of powers!

Those of sound, logical minds realize the Democrats will be gutted like fresh-caught trout in the Senate.

Self-soothing pap

I am not compelled.

 

[westwall]

Oh? He claimed to have first hand knowledge of trump's collusion with russia.

I didn't know that. When, in what venue did Schiff claim he had first hand knowledge of Trump's collusion with Russia?

Multiple venues including multiple interviews on CNN

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No ruling by the lower court will stand. It's a separation of powers issue.

Haha... okay. Sure. All those arguments will fail, because... reasons. And it's amazing that the judges in the lower court have never heard of separation of powers!

They've heard of it. They just ignore it in trying to advantage the Democrats.

 

[bullwinkle]

Well if so, why didn't the Democrats pursue a court challenge over their subpoenas?

They folded, because they knew they had nothing.

Not so, my petit cabbage! It's an old Trump trick..running out the clock thru stacked courts. They didn't fold, they took the only option left to them due to the Presidential orders and a compliant staff of suckers that will pay dearly for their loyalty...like Cohen.

 

[bullwinkle]

Hmm. Oath-backed testimony? You mean like when the Ukrainian prosecutor SWORE under oath that Biden forced him to be fired to protect his son?

Are you talking about the guy that got fired for corruption when Zelensky got elected?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well if so, why didn't the Democrats pursue a court challenge over their subpoenas?

They folded, because they knew they had nothing.

Not so, my petit cabbage! It's an old Trump trick..running out the clock thru stacked courts. They didn't fold, they took the only option left to them due to the Presidential orders and a compliant staff of suckers that will pay dearly for their loyalty...like Cohen.

Oh please, they plainly folded. They wanted witnesses bad enough to subpoena them while thinking the witnesses would cry "how high, sir?", then bolted when the witnesses resisted. The admin had every right to a court challenge.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Exploitation of children to advance one's political agenda is despicable child abuse.

Yea, using a kid to push a political agenda is despicable...

unless its an agenda you are in favor of....like getting those darkies out of our country!!

MAGA!!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Those despicable libs...always using kids to push an agenda.....

If it wasn't for those pesky kids back in the 50's and 60's....



grrrr, those meddling kids!!!

 

[bullwinkle]

Multiple venues including multiple interviews on CNN

Show me!
FYI: I love the way youse guys cheer Presidential command for his staff to not testify or produce Emails and documents THEN stick your fingers in your lying ears and yell '"Neener! Neener! Neener! You got no first hand proof!" Like nobody can see thru that pathetic ploy!

 

[bullwinkle]

Well if so, why didn't the Democrats pursue a court challenge over their subpoenas?

They folded, because they knew they had nothing.

Not so, my petit cabbage! It's an old Trump trick..running out the clock thru stacked courts. They didn't fold, they took the only option left to them due to the Presidential orders and a compliant staff of suckers that will pay dearly for their loyalty...like Cohen.

Oh please, they plainly folded. They wanted witnesses bad enough to subpoena them while thinking the witnesses would cry "how high, sir?", then bolted when the witnesses resisted. The admin had every right to a court challenge.

sigh! Old Trump trick. Ask any contractor or caterer. Same principle. Now he uses it on Congress. Remember when he said (out loud and proud to dozens of rallies) how he would produce his financials when audits were cleared (snerk) Now he's hitting every court in the land til he finds the right one because they keep ruling against him. It's a tried and true Trump trick.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well if so, why didn't the Democrats pursue a court challenge over their subpoenas?

They folded, because they knew they had nothing.

Not so, my petit cabbage! It's an old Trump trick..running out the clock thru stacked courts. They didn't fold, they took the only option left to them due to the Presidential orders and a compliant staff of suckers that will pay dearly for their loyalty...like Cohen.

Oh please, they plainly folded. They wanted witnesses bad enough to subpoena them while thinking the witnesses would cry "how high, sir?", then bolted when the witnesses resisted. The admin had every right to a court challenge.

sigh! Old Trump trick. Ask any contractor or caterer. Same principle. Now he uses it on Congress. Remember when he said (out loud and proud to dozens of rallies) how he would produce his financials when audits were cleared (snerk) Now he's hitting every court in the land til he finds the right one because they keep ruling against him. It's a tried and true Trump trick.

Accepting this solely for the sake of argument, so what? He's entitled to a court challenge.

 

[westwall]

Multiple venues including multiple interviews on CNN

Show me!
FYI: I love the way youse guys cheer Presidential command for his staff to not testify or produce Emails and documents THEN stick your fingers in your lying ears and yell '"Neener! Neener! Neener! You got no first hand proof!" Like nobody can see thru that pathetic ploy!

What are you....12 ?

 

[bullwinkle]

Oh? He claimed to have first hand knowledge of trump's collusion with russia.

Bull it-shay! You call THOSE interviews proof Schiff said he has direct evidence Russia interfered in our election. You didn't hear him quote the 17 American agencies and tied it to corroborating evidence like Trump blurbs o n the WH lawn, not to mention asking Russian help during his campaign and next day said help magically appeared? Get your comprehension fixed!

 

[westwall]

Oh? He claimed to have first hand knowledge of trump's collusion with russia.

Bull it-shay! You call THOSE interviews proof Schiff said he has direct evidence Russia interfered in our election. You didn't hear him quote the 17 American agencies and tied it to corroborating evidence like Trump blurbs o n the WH lawn, not to mention asking Russian help during his campaign and next day said help magically appeared? Get your comprehension fixed!

Yup, you're 12