Trump should delay State of the Union until impeachment trial ends

[Billiejeens]

If you'd like to.

Not especially. He’s not the president. He didn’t lie about any of those strikes like your asshole has.

Next dodge....

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

Why would he have to do that?

 

[playtime]

Not especially. He’s not the president. He didn’t lie about any of those strikes like your asshole has.

Next dodge....

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a *****, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My posts are factual. 100%. I am not surprised you cannot refute them. Run and hide.

I'm not surprised you defaulted to an ad hominem. Your facts are in fact opinions on the issue of impeachment. My opinion is factual, the Republican's Caucus offered no exculpatory evidence and the Democratic Caucus provided a good deal of incriminating evidence which lead to the passage of two Articles of Impeachment.

This may be news to you, but the words “I think” and “ I heard somebody say that they heard somebody else say....” are not proof. What is it with you idiot Dims and this “ you have to show exculpatory evidence” bullshit? There is no need to prove you didn’t do something. Burden of proof is on YOU and you failed miserably.

ummmm....

More garbage. Still no proof. Not a first hand witness, thus hearsay and inadmissible from this loser. Try again. Another loss in a life of them for you.

that's a lie. wtf are you talking about? he was in on that call AND the so called transcript donny tried peddling is edited per the testimony of the first hand direct knowledge of that phone call.

Nope. Impeachment was 100% based on opinion.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My posts are factual. 100%. I am not surprised you cannot refute them. Run and hide.

I'm not surprised you defaulted to an ad hominem. Your facts are in fact opinions on the issue of impeachment. My opinion is factual, the Republican's Caucus offered no exculpatory evidence and the Democratic Caucus provided a good deal of incriminating evidence which lead to the passage of two Articles of Impeachment.

This may be news to you, but the words “I think” and “ I heard somebody say that they heard somebody else say....” are not proof. What is it with you idiot Dims and this “ you have to show exculpatory evidence” bullshit? There is no need to prove you didn’t do something. Burden of proof is on YOU and you failed miserably.

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

He was giving an opinion. The President of Ukraine said there was no pressure and even if there was, Trump had no way of knowing what the investigation would find. You are always so triggered. Drink less.

 

[playtime]

there's nothing that says the articles have to go to the senate in a specific time frame. pelosi never intended on holding them forever. they will be on their way most likely this week. she held onto them for a while for a few good reasons & it came to work in her favor.

They will be on their way this week? How do you know?

How is her holding on to them worked in her favor?

let me correct myself - there is much reporting saying it will be this week & i've seen nothing nor anyone disputing it. her holding them over xmas vacation gave the more reasonable (R)s time to see what their constituents are saying, & give them a reason to think & question about the total blackout of any witness' & hard copy docs. & by the delay, bolton came fwd about testifying if subpoenaed, & the emails showing more proof of the nefarious shenanigans donny engaged in. & now the house may subpoena bolton if the senate doesn't. AND it drove president dotard nuts & his xmas probably sucked. i say that's a pretty good outcome.

Explosive new documents reveal the lengths to which the Justice Department went to conceal the Pentagon's concerns about Trump's Ukraine aid freeze

If only causing concern was a crime

If only

someone who has nothing to hide is hiding everything.

that's a fact jack. & intelligent people are having a problem with that as they should. you not having any problems at all explains all i need to know about you.

Not so much. Trump was willing to take the impeachment to the courts only Pelosi said no...... time was of the essence!! No time for the courts because she had so much evidence of the danger of Trump. Yet, now she needs to delay so she can get more witnesses?
Why would she not want the Courts to handle the impeachment if she now has so much time to call more witnesses? WTF did members of congress vote on if they need more witnesses? what was their vote for impeachment based on if it was incomplete?

You know why Pelosi didn't want it to go to the courts? because then she would not be able to insert her attempts of controlling the whole process. It would then be out of her hands. She's a *****. have you not figured that out yet?
So at the point impeachment moves to the Senate, the House's case is supposed to be complete, The Senate and Trump are no longer required to play the game of Schiff and Pelosi, though she has still been trying to pretend the House can tell the Senate what to do.

oh really now, is that right? there are many requests put forth for the courts to catch up on. just a short while ago, don mcghan's testimony was decided upon & that request was put in 8 months ago i believe.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a *****, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

Imminent also means overhanging. Islamists measure imminent by calendars not clocks. He was a terrorist and an awful human being. His killing is a good thing and I am glad this was planned vs. something done on a whim.

 

[playtime]

I'm not surprised you defaulted to an ad hominem. Your facts are in fact opinions on the issue of impeachment. My opinion is factual, the Republican's Caucus offered no exculpatory evidence and the Democratic Caucus provided a good deal of incriminating evidence which lead to the passage of two Articles of Impeachment.

This may be news to you, but the words “I think” and “ I heard somebody say that they heard somebody else say....” are not proof. What is it with you idiot Dims and this “ you have to show exculpatory evidence” bullshit? There is no need to prove you didn’t do something. Burden of proof is on YOU and you failed miserably.

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

 

[playtime]

Not especially. He’s not the president. He didn’t lie about any of those strikes like your asshole has.

Next dodge....

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

Why would he have to do that?

are you that ignorant?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You watch, after SOTU the Dems will call off the "Impeachment"

 

[Billiejeens]

This may be news to you, but the words “I think” and “ I heard somebody say that they heard somebody else say....” are not proof. What is it with you idiot Dims and this “ you have to show exculpatory evidence” bullshit? There is no need to prove you didn’t do something. Burden of proof is on YOU and you failed miserably.

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

 

[Billiejeens]

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

Why would he have to do that?

are you that ignorant?

You are the one that can't answer.

 

[playtime]

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a *****, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

Imminent also means overhanging. Islamists measure imminent by calendars not clocks. He was a terrorist and an awful human being. His killing is a good thing and I am glad this was planned vs. something done on a whim.

you grabbed the archaic meaning & are hanging onto it. nice try. sure the dude is dead - good riddance. but donny broke the law doing it. he's not to be trusted - hence the bi partisan resolution to limit his 'powers'.

 

[playtime]

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

lol, of course i can. did you even try to find out yerself, oh poorly educated deplorable? of course not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This may be news to you, but the words “I think” and “ I heard somebody say that they heard somebody else say....” are not proof. What is it with you idiot Dims and this “ you have to show exculpatory evidence” bullshit? There is no need to prove you didn’t do something. Burden of proof is on YOU and you failed miserably.

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

 

[playtime]

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

 

[playtime]

ummmm....

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a *****, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

Imminent also means overhanging. Islamists measure imminent by calendars not clocks. He was a terrorist and an awful human being. His killing is a good thing and I am glad this was planned vs. something done on a whim.

you grabbed the archaic meaning & are hanging onto it. nice try. sure the dude is dead - good riddance. but donny broke the law doing it. he's not to be trusted - hence the bi partisan resolution to limit his 'powers'.

He is the Commander in Chief of our Military. Go ahead and impeach him again lol. The action has lost all meaning.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

 

[playtime]

Not to mention the people in Iran are thrilled. They hate their dictators. Lone Leftist and his ***** ilk refuse to discuss that. They are more worried about allowing men to pee in ladies rooms.

Idiot. You hate the Iranian people. You do not care if every one of them is killed today.

The people of Iran want democracy and the want sovereignty. You are OK with banning them from coming here.

Idiot. You have no idea who is who when they come here. Better safe than sorry. You’re a fat loser.

you mean like saudis? the same animals that hit us on 9/11? the same animal from pensicola who was just deemed a terrorist? the same animals deported for kiddie porn? where the same animals that trump made his first official state visit to & wanna protect their oil?

 

[Papageorgio]

They will be on their way this week? How do you know?

How is her holding on to them worked in her favor?

let me correct myself - there is much reporting saying it will be this week & i've seen nothing nor anyone disputing it. her holding them over xmas vacation gave the more reasonable (R)s time to see what their constituents are saying, & give them a reason to think & question about the total blackout of any witness' & hard copy docs. & by the delay, bolton came fwd about testifying if subpoenaed, & the emails showing more proof of the nefarious shenanigans donny engaged in. & now the house may subpoena bolton if the senate doesn't. AND it drove president dotard nuts & his xmas probably sucked. i say that's a pretty good outcome.

Explosive new documents reveal the lengths to which the Justice Department went to conceal the Pentagon's concerns about Trump's Ukraine aid freeze

I disagree with you, however I thought the House impeachment was a political ploy and the Senate will vote not to convict and it is a political ploy. I think we are wasting time and money.

if it was a political ploy, pelosi woulda done it a lot earlier. she didn't even go after W & had a good shot at him. turtleboy & ms lindsey are blatant about their obvious bias & hopefully justice roberts will have a problem with that.

Pelosi gave in to the political ploy, she had resisted until this fall. Until then she didn't want to move forward however her colleagues, who wanted to impeach before Trump stepped into office showed their hands early on. Not sure who the people you are name calling but it just shows the maturity the country is dealing with when it comes to politics and partisans.

nancy 'gave in'? lol......................... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that's the ticket.

She fought impeachment however the far left would not screaming for impeachment. Nothing surprising about it, the left wing nuts have to believe differently.