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.
So Shokin is a mind reader then?I’m happy to see you admit that fact.
The accusation against Biden is that he got Shokin fired for personal reasons. How do you know that? Are you reading his mind?
No, I'm going by what Shokin said in that interview. Would you like to see it? I have it right here in my bookmarks.
He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.
Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?
Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.
Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.That’s not the question. Can you answer it?
The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?
The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.
when did that happen?
It’s a hypothetical.
Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:
Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?
No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.
See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.
What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.
I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.
Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.
Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.
He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.
And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.
Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.
From what I've been watching on Fox news, it's up to a majority vote for witnesses, and thus far, the RINO's are siding for witnesses.
I'd have Mitch tell the RINOs here's the deal:
1. Vote for a quick dismissal with no witnesses or we will have a 6-month circus, I guarantee you. We will have 10 witnesses attesting to the voracity of each of their witnesses, like Parnas, as an example. We will not subpoena any of the democrat witnesses like Bolton.
2. The defense will be allowed to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Schiff, Chalupa, Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Pientka, Mueller, Zelensky, and anyone else who can show how Operation Crossfire Hurricane setup the Trump campaign and then setup the deep state "coup plots" against Trump.
So vote for a quick dismissal, or the circus of circuses is on.
Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.
The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.
Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.
Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?
That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.
I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead
Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.
Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.
Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?
That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.
I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead
You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.
Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.when did that happen?
It’s a hypothetical.
Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:
Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?
No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.
See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.
What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
A painting takes longer to sit for. Even creepier.It’s a painting you’re referring to. Not a picture.Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.
Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.
I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?
Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good lord.
He’s in a dress. Do you wear a dress. Probably.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.It’s a hypothetical.
Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:
Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?
No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.
See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.
What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......
So Shokin is a mind reader then?No, I'm going by what Shokin said in that interview. Would you like to see it? I have it right here in my bookmarks.
He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.
Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?
Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.
First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.
So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.
I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.
Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.
Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.
He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.
And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.
Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.
From what I've been watching on Fox news, it's up to a majority vote for witnesses, and thus far, the RINO's are siding for witnesses.
I'd have Mitch tell the RINOs here's the deal:
1. Vote for a quick dismissal with no witnesses or we will have a 6-month circus, I guarantee you. We will have 10 witnesses attesting to the voracity of each of their witnesses, like Parnas, as an example. We will not subpoena any of the democrat witnesses like Bolton.
2. The defense will be allowed to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Schiff, Chalupa, Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Pientka, Mueller, Zelensky, and anyone else who can show how Operation Crossfire Hurricane setup the Trump campaign and then setup the deep state "coup plots" against Trump.
So vote for a quick dismissal, or the circus of circuses is on.
Unfortunately we have anti-trumpers on our side too. Romney hates the President and always has. It doesn't matter what Mitch tells a guy like him.
So Shokin is a mind reader then?
He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.
Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?
Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.
First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.
So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.
You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.
No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:
Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?
No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.
See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.
What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......
Exactly. They knew the conversation was a disaster and wanted to hide it. Everyone knew it. Even Bolton. Are you claiming Bolton is a commie?No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.
See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.
What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......
Yes, he did. Democrats will back stab the country to exercise their hated. He didn't want any commie waltzing in to listen to the conversation so they could run to their buddies in the MSM. Democrats are like children. You have to keep everything out of their reach. They are never to be trusted.
When the accusation was made, Trump released the transcript. Now thanks to the commies, not only will this impeachment war take place with every opposing party leadership, but they also ruined the privacy between a President and foreign leaders for all of time.
The commies don't care if they destroy this country. It's their intent.
Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?
That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.
I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead
You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.
It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.
He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.
Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?
Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.
First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.
So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.
You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.
If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.
If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.
So which is it?
He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.
Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?
Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.
First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.
So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.
You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.
If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.
If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.
So which is it?
Exactly. They knew the conversation was a disaster and wanted to hide it. Everyone knew it. Even Bolton. Are you claiming Bolton is a commie?No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.
Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......
Yes, he did. Democrats will back stab the country to exercise their hated. He didn't want any commie waltzing in to listen to the conversation so they could run to their buddies in the MSM. Democrats are like children. You have to keep everything out of their reach. They are never to be trusted.
When the accusation was made, Trump released the transcript. Now thanks to the commies, not only will this impeachment war take place with every opposing party leadership, but they also ruined the privacy between a President and foreign leaders for all of time.
The commies don't care if they destroy this country. It's their intent.
He ordered nothing. Just bullshit talking points you have been fed by your handlers.The law that Johnson “broke” was unconstitutional. He had a legitimate gripe and his impeachment was a farce.What is this? Another snowstorm of Progressive History Revision?
Johnson was probably understandable in who he fired, but he clearly broke the law in doing so.
Bill Clinton broke a STRING of laws.
Laws that are all on the books as crimes.
If Trump has broken any law much less any high crime, the Democrats failed to name it in their articles! Schiff can try the snow job of continually referring to them in the company of treason and bribery, but the folks in the Senate are not idiots like the public for which the MSM broadcasts to. One article was at worst, political malfeasance no worse than 10-20 things Obama did, done in an attempt to expose actual nefarious actions Biden did as VP as part and parcel to his execution of foreign policy; the other was nothing more than Trump's right as a citizen not to cooperate with what he deemed an unjust proceeding, for which the court was charged with rendering a decision on, but the Democrats never gave the court the chance.
They were too much in a hurry to retire for Christmas Recess.
That makes TWO impeachments then that are a farce.
Only if you buy the very doubtful cover story.
THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.
Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?
Is that right?
Bullshit question. No need to dignify it with an answer.Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.That makes TWO impeachments then that are a farce.
Only if you buy the very doubtful cover story.
THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.
Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?
Is that right?
If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.
That’s not the question. Can you answer it?
The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?
And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.
Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.
From what I've been watching on Fox news, it's up to a majority vote for witnesses, and thus far, the RINO's are siding for witnesses.
I'd have Mitch tell the RINOs here's the deal:
1. Vote for a quick dismissal with no witnesses or we will have a 6-month circus, I guarantee you. We will have 10 witnesses attesting to the voracity of each of their witnesses, like Parnas, as an example. We will not subpoena any of the democrat witnesses like Bolton.
2. The defense will be allowed to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Schiff, Chalupa, Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Pientka, Mueller, Zelensky, and anyone else who can show how Operation Crossfire Hurricane setup the Trump campaign and then setup the deep state "coup plots" against Trump.
So vote for a quick dismissal, or the circus of circuses is on.
Unfortunately we have anti-trumpers on our side too. Romney hates the President and always has. It doesn't matter what Mitch tells a guy like him.
I can see Sue Collins voting with Mitch on no witnesses, same with McSally, Murkowski, Gardner and Tillis, based on invalid or void Articles.
The ones that worry me are Romney, Lee, and as you say other Never-Trumper asswipes.
Additionally, allowing witnesses means that the 4-Senators running for president will not be able to campaign, which gives the race to Joe Biden.
A quick dismissal means that everyone can campaign fairly and Nancy's plot for Biden fails.
