Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony

  
Via:  ender  •  4 weeks ago  •  218 comments

By:   Justin Baragona

Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Fox News Sunday  anchor  Chris Wallace  repeatedly confronted House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sunday over the top Republican’s characterization of last week’s impeachment testimony, accusing congressman of “very badly” misrepresenting the witnesses’ positions.

Wallace pressed the Trump-boosting Louisiana lawmaker on the upcoming testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sonldand, asking Scalise if   it was possible   Sondland could “blow a hole in the president’s defense” if he testifies that the president told him Ukraine aid was being held up unless the Ukrainian president publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens.

“Well, the president’s defense is that those things didn't happen,” Scalise responded. “And it’s not just the president's word. President Zelensky himself said that the aid wasn’t conditioned and there was no pressure.”

“The real bottom line is he got the money,” the GOP representative added, reiterating a key party talking point. “Ukraine got the money.”

Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting   that many of them   became immediately upset that Trump pressed Zelensky on investigating a Ukrainian gas firm that Vice President’s Joe Biden’s son worked for.

“Those were [House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam] Schiff's witnesses,” Scalise insisted.

“No, sir, they are career foreign service officers and these are people who worked in the Trump administration,” Wallace retorted, adding that an aide to Vice President Mike Pence recently testified that Trump’s call was “inappropriate.”

“You had Tim Morrison, who was on the NSC staff, who said that he—alarm bells immediately went off for him,” the Fox News host continued. “Alexander Vindman immediately went to see—these are all people, you say they are Schiff's witnesses—they all were working in the Trump administration.”

Scalise attempted to pivot to the whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, claiming the Intelligence Community inspector general said the whistleblower had political motivations. Wallace, meanwhile, snapped back: “We are not talking about the whistleblower!”

After saying that he didn’t want to answer “hypothetical” questions about Sondland’s upcoming testimony, Scalise then asserted   last week’s impeachment witnesses —senior State Department official George Kent, top Ukraine envoy Bill Taylor, and former U.S. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—essentially said Trump did nothing wrong.

“All three of them were asked, did you see any impeachable offenses” he declared. “Did you see any bribery? Any of that? Not one of those things were mentioned. Not one person said they saw a crime committed.”

“With all due respect—with all due respect, that very badly mischaracterizes what they said,” Wallace pushed back. “They were asked, William Taylor, for instance, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was asked whether or not these were impeachable offenses. He said I’m there as a fact witness. I’m not there to pass judgment, but he made it clear what he thought about what the president was doing.”

Wallace would then go on to play a clip of Taylor’s testimony, further noting that Taylor said that withholding aid to Ukraine to help Trump’s presidential campaign was “crazy.”

This wasn’t the only time that Wallace left Scalise stumbling in Sunday morning’s interview. When the Louisiana congressman dismissed concerns about the July phone call by brushing off “third-hand” accounts while pointing to the Ukrainian foreign minister’s claim there was no link between aid and investigations, Wallace retorted that the foreign minister “was not on the call either.”

Via MSN

Photo: © Provided by The Daily Beast

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Ender
1  seeder  Ender    4 weeks ago
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

. @ SteveScalise blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @ FoxNews past. Great job Steve!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @1    4 weeks ago

Unless he is on?  What a pompous ass Trump is.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ender @1    4 weeks ago

Scalise must have drawn the short straw. Not many of the GOP Reps are coming out from under rocks to opine on REAL media about the mountain of evidence against Trump's corrupt acts. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2  MUVA    4 weeks ago

Wallace sucks .

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @2    4 weeks ago

[Removed]

Let me guess..... Chris was spouting facts from INSIDE your Faux News bubble again! [Removed]

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.1  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    4 weeks ago

Do you know me why would you make a personal attack like as if you actually know me I know because we’re not face to face.I don’t watch Fox News I actually watch very little tv at all 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2    3 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
WallyW
3  WallyW    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

NO ONE CARES!

 
 
 
Ender
3.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  WallyW @3    4 weeks ago

Maybe you don't care. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @3.1    4 weeks ago

Maybe you don't care. 

If he doesn't care, why is WallyW commenting on it?????

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @3    4 weeks ago

I live in Germany, and I care enough to watch to learn as many facts as I can from different sources.....  [Removed]

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.2    4 weeks ago

I got so sick of newscasters reporting their opinions rather than unbiased fact based news I gave up on commercialized radio and television news years ago. It was a complete waste of my time. 

 
 
 
JBB
3.2.2  JBB  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

Is that a trump card to explain away remaining willfully ignorant of the pertinent facts? 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JBB @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

I thought it meant I prefer to read news or listen to NPR and the BBC. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

Some love the echo chamber and group think you can always tell a CNNer .

 
 
 
Ender
4  seeder  Ender    4 weeks ago

And again, instead of saying anything about what Wallace is talking about, in true fashion, it is just attack Wallace.

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    4 weeks ago

That's Crooked donnie's MO...attack, attack and attack some more...he's delusional 

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  lady in black @5    4 weeks ago

And his followers do the same. Sad.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.2  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @5    4 weeks ago

He's attacking the lying assholes who are trying to overturn his election, and he's succeeding, bigly.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  WallyW @5.2    4 weeks ago

Would you just stop with that lie. Even if he was somehow impeached, it would not overturn an election. That is just bullshit. New talking point needed.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Ender @5.2.1    4 weeks ago

It would overturn  the result of the election disenfranchising millions of voters all over some not liking the out come of a election.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  MUVA @5.2.2    4 weeks ago

Bullshit, it would not. Do you think the election would just magically disappear?

What it is doing is holding him accountable for his actions.

One would think the personal responsibility crowd would get that.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Ender @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

One would think people could see dirty politics at its best.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  MUVA @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

Yep. trump is becoming a master.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

One would think people could see dirty politics at its best.

Bad politics of Trump's selected people, reporting on Trump's malfeasance?  Using his own people against him, the nerve!!!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.1    4 weeks ago
Would you just stop with that lie. Even if he was somehow impeached, it would not overturn an election. That is just bullshit. New talking point needed.

Meh.  It's a bit of an exaggeration, but not really all that much.

The liberal objection to Trump is unlike anything in 50 years.   But it's exclusive to Trump.  Nobody hates on Pence like that.  Or Rubio, Jeb, Cruz, or any other Republican.  Nobody protested Reagan's inauguration.  Or W's.  

It's all about Trump and triggered feelings.  Impeachment overturns the election result that triggers them the most and relieves their hysterical emotional pain.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.8  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @5.2.2    4 weeks ago
It would overturn  the result of the election disenfranchising millions of voters all over some not liking the out come of a election.

So it's 2fer and Pence goes too. GLORY DAYS!

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.2.3    4 weeks ago
holding him accountable for his actions

Consider though, that many people wanted him impeached the day he was inaugurated. Those people could not possibly be holding the president accountable for his actions when hadn't committed any actions yet.

Additionally, there was much talk of impeaching him even before he was sworn in. Some members of Congress even proposed legislation requiring he separate himself from his business to their satisfaction and that if he didn't, it would be grounds for impeachment. That is, they were crafting Trump-specific legislation to broaden the grounds for impeachment, making it easier to impeach that specific president.

As early as Spring of 2017, when Trump was in office less than 3 months, we had Maxine Waters leading chants of "Impeach 45" but just because she didn't like him, not because of anything he had done as president.

So now we're supposed to believe that impeachment is all about "holding him accountable for his actions?" For the reasons above, that's kind of hard to swallow at this point.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

e

 Nobody protested Reagan's inauguration.  Or W's. 

Yes, they did. They attacked Bush's motorcade and DU or one of the other influential boards at the time was founded on the principle that Bush should be impeached, before he was sworn in.

If Pence was President, the hysteria would be the same. Or Rubio. They accused Romney of murdering cancer victims.  To the progressive, every Republican  is Hitler and a Nazi takeover is always   just around the corner.  Trump has actually benefited from the constant, decades long hysteria in a boy who cries wolf scenario. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.11  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

Triggered feeling? Like the ones that were triggered about anything Obama?

Disagree. It is about trump and his repulsive behavior.

It does not overturn anything. Ask Clinton.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.12  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.9    4 weeks ago

And some said the same about Obama. Remember the impeach Obama rhetoric?

I am amazed that some still don't care, that witness after witness, say he tried to use another country to go after a political opponent.

Believe me, it is about a lot more than feelings. Hell even Mueller laid out how he tried to obstructed justice every step of the way.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.13  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.10    4 weeks ago
During  Barack Obama 's  tenure  as  President of the United States  from 2009 to 2017, certain  Republican  members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman  Dennis Kucinich , [1]  stated that Obama had engaged in  impeachable  activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.13    4 weeks ago

So what?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.2.12    4 weeks ago
And some said the same about Obama.

"some" say it about all presidents at some point. But I think the level of what we have seen with Trump is unprecedented.

I am amazed that some still don't care

There are degrees of caring. For example, I care some. I think a lot of negative things about it, but I don't want to go through the trouble of impeaching him over it. It's not worth it and it's not necessary.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.16  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.14    4 weeks ago

So don't act like it is something new and only happens on one side of the isle.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.17  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.15    4 weeks ago

I say what happened to Obama was unprecedented. When he was first inaugurated republicans promised they would not let him accomplish anything and would do everything in their power to get him out of office and not let him be re-elected.

Not to mention the overt racism thrown at him and his wife.

So you don't care about colluding with a foreign government in order to help in an election.

Not a great precedent to make.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    4 weeks ago
So you don't care about colluding with a foreign government in order to help in an election.

And we're done! We were having such a nice conversation and then you decided to invent a lie about me. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.9    4 weeks ago
So now we're supposed to believe that impeachment is all about "holding him accountable for his actions?"

That's why reading and watching the underlying evidence is so relevant. 

If we look at ourselves as the jury, we should look at the facts before us. It shouldn't matter whether this is the first or tenth time there have been attempts to hold Trump accountable. How we react to the evidence of what Trump did in THIS event, which started maybe even earlier than March and still hasn't ended, is what's important. 

So IMHO, Democrats being mean to Trump in the past is irrelevant to the facts in front of us today. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.16    4 weeks ago

Are you paying attention? The point was made that the Democratic freakout over Trump is unprecedented and wouldn't be happening if Pence was President. But Democrats would be just as crazy if Pence, or Romney or any other Republican was President.  Democrats have, of course, been calling every Republican a Nazi since Goldwater, at least. It's what they do. They've been hysterical for decades.  

The fact that a Democrat wanted to impeach Obama too doesn't change their decades long hysteria over every single prominent Republican. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.11    4 weeks ago
Triggered feeling?

Absolutely.

Like the ones that were triggered about anything Obama?

Yes.  Except more fearful.  And less excusable, because the hysterical people in question are supposedly better educated.  You look at many of these people and wonder what was the point of their college education.

Disagree. It is about trump and his repulsive behavior.

And the emotions it triggers.  So you don't appear to disagree.

It does not overturn anything. Ask Clinton.

Clearly, the presumption in the "overturn" assertion is that he's actually removed from office.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.22  MUVA  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    4 weeks ago

Do you remember a guy named Bush he was said to have stolen his election also hey do you see a pattern?I remember the way Bush was treated the Obama's were handled with kit gloves in comparison. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @5.2.19    4 weeks ago
Democrats being mean to Trump in the past is irrelevant to the facts in front of us today. 

If we can separate them, that is certainly true. However, if a person is offering testimony, their credibility is relevant to our analysis of their testimony. 

The bigger issue in all the impeachment talk is not even so much the facts as how they are interpreted. Trump and his detractors often agree on the facts, but they disagree about what drove the facts, what the significance or ramifications of those facts are, and of course, whether any of that necessarily demands removing the president from office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    4 weeks ago
When he was first inaugurated republicans promised they would not let him accomplish anything

What did the Republicans stop him from doing when he was first inaugurated? Considering the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years, please find a single initiative of Obama that Republicans, and Republicans alone, stopped during that time period. 

d do everything in their power to get him out of office

Ha! You mean like pretty much every opposition party since the invention of political parties? Poor Obama, the Republicans actually wanted the Presidency.  Not like how Pelosi and Reid worked for Bush's reelection, right? 

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.25  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.18    4 weeks ago

My bad, you said, some.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.26  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.20    4 weeks ago

You think republicans are not known to hysterics? They were hysterical about Clinton, Obama etc.

Again, acting like only one side of the isle is guilty of something is not looking at the whole picture.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.27  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.21    4 weeks ago

The feelings aspect is only the latest talking point.

The idea that even if trump was removed would overturn an election is a fallacy, actually created by trump himself.

Was an election overturned when Nixon resigned? No it was not. He just left early.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.28  seeder  Ender  replied to  MUVA @5.2.22    4 weeks ago

Some say that election was stolen because it was decided by the SC.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.29  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.10    4 weeks ago

Sorry, IMO...the Trump frenzy is unlike anything I've ever seen.  I'm 53 years old.

I realize leftist shithousery has been going on a long time.  I just think the current intensity is unprecedented.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.30  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.24    4 weeks ago
Don’t forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans’ unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic — they’ve used it more than 400 times.

But here’s the deal — the real deal — there actually wasn’t a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months.

The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn’t think so. Link
 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.31  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @5.2.28    4 weeks ago

Yeah - Congressional Democrats/Liberals.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.27    4 weeks ago
The feelings aspect is only the latest talking point.

It's been a consistent theme.  I'm not sure how you've missed it.  

The idea that even if trump was removed would overturn an election is a fallacy, actually created by trump himself.

Meh.  I sure he heard it somewhere.  I struggle to imagine he's creative enough to come up with that. 

Was an election overturned when Nixon resigned? No it was not. He just left early.

In a way, yes.  "Leaving early" negated the democratic will of the American people who chose him as president.  America did not elect Gerald Ford as president.  

 
 
 
lady in black
5.2.33  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @5.2    4 weeks ago

He is the LYING ASSHOLE, too sad that some people have TDS...Trump DENIAL Syndrome

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.34  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.29    4 weeks ago

I am 52 and disagree. What happened to Obama was unprecedented. Most of the outcry about trump is from his own words and doing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.35  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.30    4 weeks ago
But here’s the deal — the real deal — there actually wasn’t a two year supermajority.

This ignores the concept that if you need a super-majority to pass your legislation, it's probably a terrible idea and you should re-think it.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.36  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.32    4 weeks ago

I don't get the line of thinking. So an elected official can commit a crime and stay in office because of an election? No matter what they do they should stay because it is thought of as the will of the people?

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.37  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.35    4 weeks ago

Not when, in my original statement, that the republicans came together just to block anything he wanted to do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.29    4 weeks ago

Jack Tx - give up for Christs sake. 

Donald Trump is a life long piece of crap. For example. In 2011 he made a career out of being the king birther.  After months of harassment by this asshole, Barack Obama released his original long form birth certificate. The next year, 2012 Trump was back to making birther claims on twitter claiming the b.c. was a fake, based on far right conspiracy theories. 

On what possible planet in this universe was the asshole Trump presidential material worthy of getting the Republican nomination in 2016? 

And in the face of dozens of facts like this one, and much more, you have the nerve to talk about "leftist shithousery". 

[deleted] He doesn't belong there. Not in a million years. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.30    4 weeks ago

: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans’ unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic 

Like Trump has needed since the day he was sworn in. I'll ask again. Name one piece of legislation the Republicans, and Republicans alone, stopped during his first two years in office. 

here actually wasn’t a two year supermajority

I didn't say there was. But Obama and the Democrats did have a period when he could pass whatever they  wanted and Republicans couldn't stop him. Gun control. Immigration. Minimum wage. Carbon Taxes. You name it, Obama and the Democrats could have passed it with only Democratic support.  No President and party  has had that sort of power for Decades.

As I said, you can't point to a single thing the Republicans stopped on their own the first two years of Obama's Presidency.  The idea that Republicans stopped Obama from accomplishing things after he was first inaugurated is a myth created to explain away his failure.  No President had it easier then he did when he was first sworn in.  

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.40  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.39    4 weeks ago

They stopped judicial noms among other things. Why do you think Reid changed the rules.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.41  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.34    4 weeks ago
I am 52 and disagree. What happened to Obama was unprecedented. 

Obama himself was unprecedented, in many very obvious ways.

Most of the outcry about trump is from his own words and doing.

Which wouldn't actually make it unprecedented. 

You seem to be attempting to communicate the idea that Trump brings all this on himself, while Obama was a nice guy who was mistreated.  I think that's somewhat true, but not entirely.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.40    4 weeks ago

Reid changed the rule in Obama's second term because he was worried the DC Circuit would find Obamacare unconstitutional and wanted to ensure the Circuit had a majority of liberal judges. 

Really has nothing to do with your claim that the Republicans stopped Obama from doing anything after he was inaugurated. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.43  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.42    4 weeks ago

Reid changed the rules because they kept blocking judicial nominations.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.44  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.42    4 weeks ago
TIME just published  “The Party of No,”  an article adapted from my new book,  The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era . It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House  GOP  whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

.

But Cantor said yes, he meant zero. He was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans, they’d be able to slap a “bipartisan” label on the bill. “We can get there,” he said. “If we don’t get there, we can try like hell to get there.”

Link
 
 
 
Ender
5.2.45  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.41    4 weeks ago
the idea that Trump brings all this on himself

Most of it he does.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.43    4 weeks ago

Rather than negotiate, like Bush and Frist  did when democrats kept blocking judicial nominations, Reid went nuclear at that time for the reason I've stated.  You are repeating the pretext. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.47  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.38    4 weeks ago
Jack Tx - give up for Christs sake. 

The irony of you.... suggesting someone else should give something up.....

Donald Trump is a life long piece of crap.

Yes.  I've said so many times.  I've also said it's immaterial.

For example. In 2011 he made a career out of being the king birther.  After months of harassment by this asshole, Barack Obama released his original long form birth certificate. The next year, 2012 Trump was back to making birther claims on twitter claiming the b.c. was a fake, based on far right conspiracy theories.  On what possible planet in this universe was the asshole Trump presidential material worthy of getting the Republican nomination in 2016? 

On a planet where he gets more votes than the other candidates.  Like this one.

And in the face of dozens of facts like this one, and much more, you have the nerve to talk about "leftist shithousery". 

Absolutely.  You seem convinced that Trump's personal behavior somehow outweighs the democratic process outlined in the United States Constitution.  Other people living under that same delusion have done outrageous and sometimes criminal things attempting to oppose a legally elected President of the United States.  

You and your ilk put this clown in power.

Riiiiiight.  It must have been my voting against him that propelled him to victory.  I guess that makes you part of "my ilk".

He doesn't belong there. Not in a million years. 

I would prefer almost anybody else.  Pretty much the only way somebody could get me to vote for Trump is to nominate an opposing candidate who wants to double my taxes in order to take away my health plan.  

You accept this absurdity, and complain about those who oppose it.

Yes.  I accept the rule of law.  I accept the United States Constitution.   I am not willing to throw out 200+ years of democracy simply because Donald Trump says mean things and makes you angry. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.48  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.46    4 weeks ago

Believe it or not I didn't like when he did that. Obstruction or not I think it weakened the process.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.49  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.45    4 weeks ago
Most of it he does.

I can see that. 

But I do believe there is a segment of the population that oppose whatever he does without even bothering to consider what it is.  It would not be surprising to see him thoroughly condemned for adding milk to his coffee.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.50  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.23    4 weeks ago
If we can separate them, that is certainly true. However, if a person is offering testimony, their credibility is relevant to our analysis of their testimony. 

WTF does the Dems being mean to Trump have to do with judging the credibility of the witnesses testifying in the Impeachment inquiry? 

Trump and his detractors often agree on the facts

Please stick with THIS topic. What facts does Trump even admit to other than that a phone call actually occured? 

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.51  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.49    4 weeks ago

And I can say again that there was a faction that treated Obama the same.

The fringes are nothing new.

He is an nasty asshole and claims first amendment rights then people are condemned for saying something back.

Imo he has been more detrimental to the rule of law, society and general decorum than anyone I can remember in recent history.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.52  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.24    4 weeks ago
Considering the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years

Again with that old bullshit canard. Go read the history of the first year of Obama's term and maybe you'll recognize that Byrd and Kennedy were hospitalized and then Kennedy DIED. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.53  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.47    4 weeks ago

People are not fit for office solely on the basis for having gotten the most votes. Were that the case, Snoop Dog , Snooki from the Jersey Shore, Alex Jones, and the neighborhood barfly would all be "fit" to be president if they merely got the most votes. 

But let's just be honest, you are happy with the endless clown show and lie-a-palooza Trump presents because he makes liberals cry. 

Your constant complaint seems to be that people oppose Trump when they should just vote him out after 4 years. Or 8 years. 

Opposing Trump is far more honorable than accepting Trump. You know that. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.51    4 weeks ago
He is an nasty asshole and claims first amendment rights then people are condemned for saying something back.

Since when is freedom from condemnation protected by the Constitution?

Imo he has been more detrimental to the rule of law, society and general decorum than anyone I can remember in recent history.

He's an endless fountain of bullshit.  But most of what drives his detractors to apoplexy falls under the category of "saying mean things".

The old Texas phrase best fitting him is "all hat and no cattle".  He talks and talks and talks and talks....and people can decide whether to let it wind them up or not.   I choose "not".  I don't particularly care what he says.  I watch what he actually accomplishes...which hasn't been much, but also hasn't been terrible.  

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.55  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.54    4 weeks ago

I guess my point was mainly about his defenders. His do or die crowd. They cheer him when he says the nasty things yet as soon as one has any sort of retort they are labeled as whiners, have hurt feelings, etc.

His major accomplishment I am still totally against. The tax cuts.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.56  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.53    4 weeks ago
People are not fit for office solely on the basis for having gotten the most votes.

The United States Constitution says otherwise.  That document codifies the belief that average Americans are capable of choosing for themselves who will represent them.  

Were that the case, Snoop Dog , Snooki from the Jersey Shore, Alex Jones, and the neighborhood barfly would all be "fit" to be president if they merely got the most votes. 

When one of them gets elected, you'll actually have a point to discuss.  In the meantime, we have a person whom 63 million Americans said was their choice to represent them.

But let's just be honest, you are happy with the endless clown show and lie-a-palooza Trump presents because he makes liberals cry. 

You appear to be on one of your particularly emotional days where you have convinced yourself everybody who doesn't fall lockstep into agreement with your hysterical Trump fetish is somehow lacking in character.

Please understand that I don't give a shit about liberal tears...including yours.....one way or the other.  I care about my family and the means by which I support them, all of which have done very well in the last three years, frankly to my astonishment.

Your constant complaint seems to be that people oppose Trump when they should just vote him out after 4 years. Or 8 years.

My belief is that the vast majority of people who believe they are "opposing Trump" are really just hysterical, hyper-emotional morons grasping for some artificial sense of control over American politics because they're too weak and pathetic to grasp the actual control they already have over their own lives.

It's not a complaint.  It's a lament.

Opposing Trump is far more honorable than accepting Trump. You know that. 

Well how's that working out for you, John?  What's the count, now?  6000 anti Trump articles seeded on 20 different internet forums?  And what have you stopped him doing, exactly?

If individual citizens could effectively oppose a sitting President of the United States, do you really imagine we would have the Affordable Care Act?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.57  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.55    4 weeks ago
I guess my point was mainly about his defenders. His do or die crowd. They cheer him when he says the nasty things yet as soon as one has any sort of retort they are labeled as whiners, have hurt feelings, etc.

True, but every successful politician has those.  There is usually an added attack-mode rationale about how if you oppose Trump/Obama/Bush/whoever you must have some character deficiency.  That's certainly not new and certainly not unique to Trump.  The new thing is that he states that more than other presidents have in the past.

His major accomplishment I am still totally against. The tax cuts.

We've already talked about our differences of opinion on that, so no need to beat a dead horse.  I would say that the most important things are not what he's done, but what he has taken out of the realm of possibility.  We know we're not likely to see lots of increased regulation.  We know we won't see stupid Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders style taxation.  We know we won't see massive changes to the basic structures of the economy, so businesses are more relaxed about growing and investing.  That's the real secret to the Trump economy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.58  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.52    4 weeks ago

why do you always constantly reply to me with falsehoods? Can you not do two minutes of research or do you just want to mislead people?

What I wrote was correct. You are wrong, again, . Byrd voted throughout 2009 and Kennedy was immediately replaced by a democrat.  Look it up.  No legislative filibuster succeeded because one of them was not present during Obama's first year. 

But again, point to any piece of legislation that Republicans stopped by themselves during that time period.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.59  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.58    3 weeks ago
What I wrote was correct. You are wrong, again, . Byrd voted throughout 2009 

If you're going to say my comments are false, get the FACTS first FFS. 

I didn't say Byrd didn't vote in 2009, why the strawman? 

During their Senate careers, both Byrd and Kennedy rarely missed a floor vote. 

Byrd didn't 'vote throughout 2009', he  MISSED 86.5% of the votes from Jun-Sept 2009. 

Here are the numbers for Ted Kennedy MISSED votes in 2009:

2009 Jan-Mar 95.8%

2009 Apr-Jun 95.8%

2009 Jul-Sep 100.0%

That's -2 for those months AND Franken wasn't seated until JULY. That's 3 votes short of a Filibuster proof Senate THROUGH July of 2009 Sean. 

and Kennedy was immediately replaced by a democrat.

Why do you always constantly reply to me with falsehoods?

Can you not do two minutes of research or do you just want to mislead people?

Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009 and Paul Kirk was seated on September 24, 2019. That's NOT immediately, IS it Sean? 

But again, point to any piece of legislation that Republicans stopped by themselves during that time period.

Since that's the first time you mentioned that, how can it be 'again' Sean? You're deflecting.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.60  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.59    3 weeks ago

yrd didn't 'vote throughout 2009

do you  understand English? Seriously.  Of course he did.  Your own little cherry picked statistic proves me correct. He was voting, even if he missed some votes. You lose, again. 

Moreover, you cannot point to a single vote where his absence mattered and gave a victory to Republicans. 

So why do you continue to argue when you are wrong on basic facts? Even worse, your points aren't even relevant. 

That's 3 votes short of a Filibuster proof Senate THROUGH July of 2009 Sean. 

Oh right. The Democratic VP from 2000 and the runner up for the nomination who caucused with Democrats were "secret Republicans."   Why do you embarrass yourself with this nonsense?  Again, show a single vote where either of the two "independent" who caucused with Democrats voted with Republicans to prevent Obama from accomplishing. 60 Senators caucased with the  Democrats. Yet another fact you can't weasel your way out of. 

My point, that the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for a period still stands unrebutted. Please stop gaslighting  the forum by pretending otherwise. 

Any more irrelevant deflections you'd like to bring up?

dy died on August 25, 2009 and Paul Kirk was seated on September 24, 2019

Less than a month. Part of which the Senate was in recess.  You are sinking from desperate to pathetic. 

But again. Relevance. What part of Obama's program was voted down during those weeks because they lacked Kirk's vote? 

the first time you mentioned that, how can it be 'again' Sean? 

No,it's not.  But I'll ask again. Name one piece of legislation the Republicans stopped by themselves. 

The Democrats had a filibuster proof control of Congress. 60 caucusing Democrats constitutes a filibuster proof majority if you subscribe to reality. Arguing otherwise is simply  dishonest and Orwellian. 

I know you can't answer the questions I asked earlier, so I'll ask one simple one to see if you have a shred of honesty in you.

Did the Senate Democratic Caucus  ever have filibuster proof control of the Senate in 2009 or 2010?

Simple yes or no with end it one way or the other.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.61  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.60    3 weeks ago
do you  understand English? Seriously. 

Yes I do. You obviously don't. 

throughout:

in every part of

Now MISSING 86.5% of the votes PROVES that Byrd did NOT vote 'in every part' of 2009. Just STOP. 

Moreover, you cannot point to a single vote where his absence mattered and gave a victory to Republicans. 

You're just throwing shit at the wall because I PROVED you were wrong Sean. Pathetic. 

My point, that the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for a period still stands unrebutted. Please stop gaslighting  the forum by pretending otherwise.

You said:

Considering the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years

By 'some' did you mean to say a couple months in the first year Sean? Because if you didn't, YOU are the one attempting to gaslight the forum. Own it. 

The Democrats had a filibuster proof control of Congress. 60 caucusing Democrats constitutes a filibuster proof majority if you subscribe to reality.

Actually Sean, if you subscribe to reality, they need 60 Senator ON THE FLOOR to constitute a filibuster proof majority and since Byrd was in the hospital, Kennedy was a home DYING and Franken hadn't even been seated, that didn't happen.  

Arguing otherwise is simply dishonest and Orwellian.

Less than a month.

The average month is 30 days. Talking about pathetic desperation. 

Part of which the Senate was in recess.  

Irrelevant. 

But again. Relevance. What part of Obama's program was voted down during those weeks because they lacked Kirk's vote? 

Why do you keep deflecting away from the filibuster proof congress. What programs and the vote count is irrelevant. 

I know you can't answer the questions I asked earlier,

You know this how Sean? 

You know, after all the time you've been here, it would be great if you learned how to copy and paste properly so that you posts were easier to follow. As you post them they're a long running statement. 

so I'll ask one simple one to see if you have a shred of honesty in you.

Stop with the fucking bullshit about honesty Sean. Everything I have posted has been honest. Just STOP. 

Did the Senate Democratic Caucus  ever have filibuster proof control of the Senate in 2009 or 2010?

As I said, a couple of months. Are you claiming THATS what you meant? Again, here's what you said: 

Considering the Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years

The Dems on had 60 Senators ON THE FLOOR for only a short couple of months of the first year, isn't that true Sean? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.62  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.39    3 weeks ago
 Name one piece of legislation the Republicans, and Republicans alone, stopped during his first two years in office. 

Here I'll give you two:

S.3217 

S. 3772 

There's many more. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.63  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @5.2.50    3 weeks ago
WTF does the Dems being mean to Trump have to do with judging the credibility of the witnesses testifying in the Impeachment inquiry?

It has a lot to do with it when it is the Dems who are responsible for creating a forum and inviting these people to testify at that forum. Meanwhile there appears to be some effort to deny Republicans the opportunity to present witnesses of their own. The partisan nature of all of this, set against the backdrop of three years of impeachment talk, demands we critically examine the credibility of everyone who testifies. Anyone who is confident in the value and reliability of the testimony offered should have absolutely no quarrel with that.

What facts does Trump even admit to other than that a phone call actually occured? 

The content of the Ukraine phone call at the center of the current scandal and impeachment proceedings, for example. Everyone agrees Trump said certain words, but there is disagreement about the import of those words and what our reaction should look like. There are many examples stretching back into the campaign. Virtually every thing that comes out of Trump's mouth is something he feels totally justified in saying, but Democrats feel is grounds for impeachment, or close to it at any rate.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.2.64  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

It would overturn  the result of the election...

Are you out of your mind? 

  1. There was an election.
  2. Trump won that election.
  3. Trump took the oath of office (he lied about that, but that's for another seed)
  4. He has operated as the president since 20JAN2017.
  5. Trump has potentially committed impeachable offenses which are now being investigated.
  6. If impeached by the house, and found guilty of those charges by the senate, he can be removed from office.

It's about ensuring integrity of the office of the president.  Its about following the constitution.  The one that comes from, by and for the people....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.2.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.58    3 weeks ago

Sean and Dulay,

This conversation has become too personal.  Dial it back a bit, please.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.66  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.2.64    3 weeks ago

You are  humorous  democrats running a kangaroo court have integrity too funny.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.67  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @5.2.4    3 weeks ago
'One would think people could see dirty politics at its best.'

Or at its' worst which is what the gop is now known for, nothing but dirty tricks from the gop.  

Nothing but lying, cheating, stealing from the gop.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.68  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    3 weeks ago

'I say what happened to Obama was unprecedented. When he was first inaugurated republicans promised they would not let him accomplish anything and would do everything in their power to get him out of office and not let him be re-elected.'

Mitch, Putin's little bitch, made that a priority from day one.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/tnawa2/key-and-peele-obama-s-meeting-with-republicans

  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.2.69  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @5.2.66    3 weeks ago

Please get back to us when you can provide facts to support your statement MUVA....or at the very least some new Fox approved talking points.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.70  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.68    3 weeks ago

There's policy reasons for that. Think real hard about his "vision". You know, fundamentally change America. To fundamentally change something, one must break it and tear it down to its core. That was NOT going to happen. And that is also what helped Mr. Trump win in 2016. Own it.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.71  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.2.69    3 weeks ago

You only need to look at who is running the inquiry it's captain Kangaroo himself.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.72  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.2.34    3 weeks ago
'I am 52 and disagree. What happened to Obama was unprecedented. Most of the outcry about trump is from his own words and doing.'

I'm 57 and agree with you wholeheartedly.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.73  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.62    3 weeks ago

ame one piece of legislation the Republicans, and Republicans alone, stopped

While I'm glad you've given up the futile attempt to find legislation that the Republicans stopped when Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress and submitted , please do your research before responding to me:

S. 3217  Not only did a Democrat vote against this bill, but it was the Senatorial basis of Dodd-Frank and the substance became law. so you fail on both counts.

S. 3772.  Again, Democrat Ben Nelson voted against the bill, which is why Reid killed the bill by not holding a vote on it until after the 2010 electoral wipe out of the democrats, despite the house passing the bill in January 2009. 

Please get your facts straight before responding. There's only so much time in the day to correct you. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.74  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.61    3 weeks ago
ou're just throwing shit at the wall because I PROVED you were wrong Sean. Pathetic

Do you even understasnd what's going on. You "proved" Byrd missed some votes (I never said he didn't) and that he voted others. You also failed to prove any of his missed votes matter. Please try and make your posts relevant.

R to constitute a filibuster proof majority and since Byrd was in the hospital, Kennedy was a home DYING and Franken hadn't even been seated, that didn't happen.  

But Byrd did vote, Kennedy was replaced and Franken was seated. So they did have 60 votes. Those are facts. Deal with it

Irrelevant. 

Now that's funny. Yet,  You still can't show a single vote where any of the issues surrounding Byrd, Kennedy or Franken prevented the Democrats from passing legislation. Nothing you've written is actually relevant. Just your usual parade of logical fallacies and factual misstatements,  

I said, a couple of months. Are you claiming THATS what you meant? Again, here's what you said

Yes. You quoted what I wrote. Read it again. I'll highlight the operative word for you:

      "democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years"

So now that you finally agree I'm correct, please stop the silliness of claiming I'm not, while proving I am.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.75  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.70    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.76  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

When Clinton was impeached, it no more overturned his election than it would overturn the current one if Trump is impeached.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.77  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.73    3 weeks ago
While I'm glad you've given up the futile attempt to find legislation that the Republicans stopped when Democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress and submitted , please do your research before responding to me:

You asked this question:

Name one piece of legislation the Republicans, and Republicans alone, stopped during his first two years in office. 

I named 2. Both were stopped on cloture by Republicans refusing to vote for cloture. At 57-41, Nelson's vote did NOT effect the cloture vote. DO THE MATH. 

It's FALSE that Reid killed the bill BECAUSE Nelson's vote. In FACT the purpose of Reid voting against cloture was to KEEP the bill alive.

Oh and since you're so interested in process, I note that Reid actually brought bills to the floor, allowed amendments and debate.

Mitch McConnell, not so much. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.2.78  katrix  replied to  MUVA @5.2.2    3 weeks ago
It would overturn  the result of the election disenfranchising millions of voters all over some not liking the out come of a election.

Did you spout the same nonsense when Clinton was impeached?

Funny how someone who is honest and unbiased, and who provides honest testimony no matter where it leads, is instantly considered a liberal - by right wingers. It's bizarre that they brag about their party's lack of ethics and integrity.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.79  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.74    3 weeks ago
Do you even understasnd what's going on. 

Why yes, YES I do. 

(I never said he didn't)

You claimed that Byrd voted 'throughout' 2009. I PROVED that he DID NOT. 

THAT'S what's 'going on', isn't it Sean? 

But Byrd did vote, Kennedy was replaced and Franken was seated.

Yes Sean, I said ALL of those things. 

So they did have 60 votes. Those are facts. Deal with it.

I DID deal with it using FACTS. I asked you:

I said, a couple of months. Are you claiming THATS what you meant? 

Where's your answer? It looks like your acquiescing that your claim that the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate for part of the first 2 years. You and anyone else reading this discussion KNOW that misrepresents the FACTS.

Deal with it. 

You still can't show a single vote where any of the issues surrounding Byrd, Kennedy or Franken prevented the Democrats from passing legislation.

How many times are you going to move the goal posts Sean? Go back and review your questions. I've answered them and NONE of them included the absence of those Senators preventing the Democrats from passing legistaltion. Just STOP. 

So now that you finally agree I'm correct, please stop the silliness of claiming I'm not, while proving I am. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.80  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.77    3 weeks ago
I named 2u

And neither fit what I asked. Seriously, you have to be pulling my leg. No one can believe that the Republicans stopped Dodd's bill from becoming law. Dodd-Frank is one of the more famous pieces of legislation passed by Obama during his entire Presidency.  Why don't you google Dodd-Frank before you embarrass yourself any further? Could you not follow the name change in committee?  Is that what confused you?

Sad!

. In FACT the purpose of Reid voting against cloture was to KEEP the bill alive

. Another factual mistake. Reid voted for cloture.

Please either do research or argue honestly . I know it's your strategy to flood threads with fallacies,  falsehoods and irrelevancies until people tire of your nonsense and move on, but please stop. It's annoying. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.81  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.79    3 weeks ago

Where's your answer?

Wow.  Try and read my post again.  did you really miss it? I'll try with bigger font to make it as easy as I can for you:

 "democrats had filibuster proof control of Congress for some of the first two years"

That's what I originally wrote in 5.2.24

It looks like your acquiescing that your claim that the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate for part of the first 2 years.

I don't know what that means

But  let's review. 

I originally claimed the Democrats had a filibuster proof control of Congress for some of Obama's first two years, which they of course, did. You've wasted all of our time to "prove" that I was correct.  Good job!

How many times are you going to move the goal posts Sean

Pay attention. The original issue was the false claim that Republicans prevented Obama from enacting legislation after he was inaugurated. .  Here's a little lesson on relevance. The only relevant rebuttal to my claim would be to point to actual legislation that Republicans prevented from being enacted. Savy?   It's the exact opposite of moving the goalposts.  Rather than address that, you brought up irrelevant topics like Byrd and Kennedy and I've politely tried to bring you back on topic by asking for evidence of  their relevance, which you of course couldn't do. Because, as we've demonstrated, Republicans by themselves didn't stop any significant pieces of legislation until subsequent elections gave them the power to do so. 

You've wasted everyone's time with factual misstatements and irrelevant diversions,  and the original goalpost still stands, inviolate. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.82  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.80    3 weeks ago

I can give you the facts, I can't make you understand them Sean. 

Another factual mistake. Reid voted for cloture.

YOU cited the FIRST cloture vote where Nelson voted against. That vote was 57-41 and Reid voted against also. The REASON the Majority leader voted against was to keep the bill alive. Ask McConnell why HE votes against bills HE wants to eventually pass the Senate, maybe HE can help you understand. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.83  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.82    3 weeks ago
YOU cited the FIRST cloture vote where Nelson voted against.

No. I didn't. Democrat Senator Nelson opposed both bills (one of which became law)

I was  referring to Reid's vote for cloture in the bill you posted,. S. 3372. 

hsk McConnell why HE votes against bills HE wants to eventually pass the Senate

If you insist.  Reid voted for cloture because he wanted to kill the bill. Happy?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.84  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.83    3 weeks ago
No. I didn't. Democrat Senator Nelson opposed both bills (one of which became law)

Sen. Nelson voted FOR S. 3217

I was referring to Reid's vote for cloture in the bill you posted,. S. 3372. 

Yes and as I pointed out, Nelson's opposition did not effect the cloture vote OR Reid's vote. In short, it wasn't going to get 60 votes because the GOP voted against in block and 58 + 1 doesn't = 60. The GOP block vote stopped that bill. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.85  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.36    3 weeks ago
I don't get the line of thinking. So an elected official can commit a crime and stay in office because of an election? No matter what they do they should stay because it is thought of as the will of the people?

Whenever a president fails to complete his term of office, the election that put that person in office is overturned in the sense that the will of the people has been overridden. 

This is not limited to impeachment.  For example, the American people did not elect Lyndon Johnson as president in 1960, nor did they elect Andrew Johnson as president.  When Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated, the elections were "overturned" in the sense that the right of the American people to choose their own leadership was abridged.

Sometimes the will of the people needs to be overridden because information comes to light that was not known at the time they made their decisions.  The option to impeach exists to cover the eventuality that the American electorate inadvertently puts a criminal in office and the nation decides that person must be removed.  The situation is...and should be....exceedingly rare.

The Trump impeachment hearings are problematic because it's going to be very difficult to actually prove this was a crime. I realize heads exploded as I typed that, but I base that statement on a conversation over the weekend with a staunch "yellow dog" Democrat friend who happens to be a prosecutor.

If the House does actually decide to impeach him, the Senate is almost surely not going to remove him, so the entire exercise appears to be a joint effort among House Democrats to appease the base and keep each other from getting primaried by AOC style crazed leftists.

The added bonus might be that they are able to weaken Trump's re-election bid, which may be the only chance for the nominee from the weakest Democratic field since 1988.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.86  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.85    3 weeks ago

No matter what happens, an election is not over turned. The election still happened and the person was in office for however long they were.

Three years into a term is in no way overturning anything.

That is only a bumper sticker talking point that appeals to, you got it, feelings.

So withholding aid until a country investigates a political rival is not a crime...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.87  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @5.2.86    3 weeks ago
So withholding aid until a country investigates a political rival is not a crime...

In other words, withholding aid until a prosecutor investigating the firm your son works is fired is not a crime?   No need to thank me for the salient correction.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.88  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.86    3 weeks ago
No matter what happens, an election is not over turned.

The will of the people is overridden and their right to self-governance is abridged.

Three years into a term is in no way overturning anything.

He was not elected for a three-year term.

That is only a bumper sticker talking point that appeals to, you got it, feelings.

I think feelings abound in all of this.

So withholding aid until a country investigates a political rival is not a crime...

I think the idea that they're going to be able to actually prove that happened is naive, at best. 

I have no doubt that the anti-Trump camp cannot possibly imagine any other scenario, and the pro-Trump camp sees this as "No-Collusion, v2.0".  The reality is that the events so far are open to multiple interpretations, and the information so far seems only to be confirming pre-entrenched biases.

But unless they come up with a better "smoking gun" than they seem to have currently (taped conversations, blue dress, etc.), I don't see them having much success with this.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.89  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.87    3 weeks ago
"Barack Obama put a permanent stop on this military aid to the Ukraine - he never allowed it to go," Gaetz   tweeted   Oct. 21. "You’re telling me Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump for delivering aid that Obama didn’t deliver? That’s ludicrous." Gaetz made similar remarks in a   Fox News interview   with Jeanine Pirro.

In both instances, Gaetz oversimplified the facts and didn’t tell the full story. 

The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014. The decision came as Russian forces invaded the eastern territory of Crimea in 2014 after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president. But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons.

Further, Gaetz misrepresented the focus of the impeachment inquiry, which is about whether   Trump temporarily withheld aid   to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden.

Link
 
 
 
Ender
5.2.90  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.88    3 weeks ago

The will of the people is secondary. Someone dying in office does not negate the will of anyone just because a replacement is made. It is the law of the land.

Someone that resigns does not negate the will of the people. They cannot be forced to continue a term just because they were voted in.

Same with corruption or unlawful practice. Just because someone is voted in and they are removed does not negate the will of the people as criminal action does not allow one to keep their post, just because of an election.

It is talking in absolutes when there is no such thing.

After Nixon we are never going to see tapes of any kind. We are allowing secrecy and backdoor channels that should not be allowed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.91  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.90    3 weeks ago
The will of the people is secondary.

Secondary to what, exactly?  

Someone dying in office does not negate the will of anyone just because a replacement is made. It is the law of the land.

Someone being assassinated absolutely negates the will of the people.  I'm not sure how that's in question.

Someone that resigns does not negate the will of the people. 

Of course it does.  Nobody gets elected with the idea they're going to quit in the middle.

They cannot be forced to continue a term just because they were voted in.

No, but if they accepted the office, they did so for the duration of their term.  The will of the voters is overridden if they fail to complete the job they ran for.

Same with corruption or unlawful practice. Just because someone is voted in and they are removed does not negate the will of the people as criminal action does not allow one to keep their post, just because of an election.

Again, the process of impeachment presumes that the American people did not knowingly elect a criminal and that they would have voted differently had they known what he was at the time.

After Nixon we are never going to see tapes of any kind.

You would think that.  But I've stopped being surprised at the stupidity of people.  You would think we wont see a president banging interns again, but my guess is that's just a matter of time.

We are allowing secrecy and backdoor channels that should not be allowed.

To what are you referring, specifically?

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.92  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.91    3 weeks ago

Secondary to the rule of law.

One could argue that the electoral college negates the will of the people.

The 'will of the people' is, as I said, nothing more than a talking point. Just because the will of the people is wanting to bring back someone from the dead, doesn't make it a priority or a fact of circumstance.

The so called will of the people is still not some sort of absolute.

Nothing is negated just because some may want something.

specifically?

Mostly Giuliani and backdoor channels. Using people that some think do not have to be held accountable.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.93  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.88    3 weeks ago
The will of the people is overridden and their right to self-governance is abridged.

So Pence goes too? 

He was not elected for a three-year term.

He was elected to uphold his OATH. He failed. 

I think feelings abound in all of this.

Yes, the GOP counsel keeps asking witnesses about Trump's feelings. 

I think the idea that they're going to be able to actually prove that happened is naive, at best. 

Are you saying that you don't believe any of the witnesses that have testified to that fact? 

But unless they come up with a better "smoking gun" than they seem to have currently (taped conversations, blue dress, etc.), I don't see them having much success with this.

Well David Holmes has yet to testify at the hearing, Suriya Jayanti has yet to be deposed and there may be one more coming. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2.94  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.91    3 weeks ago
Secondary to what, exactly?  

Apparently to the electoral college. The "will" of the majority of voters, nearly 66 million of them, voted Democrat. just under 63 million voted Republican. To say the "will of the people" is represented by the minority of voters is disingenuous at best, and I believe many would consider that simply a wild fabrication.

Of course it does.  Nobody gets elected with the idea they're going to quit in the middle.

But what you seem to be missing is that when people do bad shit, they should be fired. Sure, you hire someone to mow your lawn but if you come home to find him fornicating with your dog instead, my guess is you'd fire them, right after calling the police. It's not "negating your will", it's a response to new information.

"if they accepted the office, they did so for the duration of their term.  The will of the voters is overridden if they fail to complete the job they ran for."

Nonsense. They take an oath when they accept that elected office, and if they break that trust and breach that oath as the majority of Americans believe Donald Trump has done, then they should be removed. Just because they got elected does not give them an ironclad four years to do whatever the fart they want. And Presidents are expected to perform their duties for ALL Americans, not just their minority base that elected them who doesn't care about their lawbreaking. ALL Americans get to decide whether they are doing their job or not, which is why we have the impeachment process spelled out in the constitution. This really, really moronic claim by Republicans that this is somehow "subverting the will of the people" is pure, laughable fan fiction. Anyone with more than half a brain knows it's is nothing but porta-potty discharge being spouted by those with no farting clue how actual civics, government and the constitution operate.

"Again, the process of impeachment presumes that the American people did not knowingly elect a criminal and that they would have voted differently had they known what he was at the time."

Oh, so that's the defense now? the minority of 63 million knowingly voted for a criminal so the majority is supposed to just sit quiet while the criminal rapes our founding fathers and micturate on our constitution? I think not. And what a truly sad defense to have to make. To be forced to admit that your candidate was a known piece of shit before the election is quite the admission.

 
 
 
charger 383
5.2.95  charger 383  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2.94    3 weeks ago

Should football be changed to team that gains most yards win, instead of the way the rules have been?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.96  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.93    3 weeks ago
So Pence goes too? 

He was not elected president.  Installing him represents something other than what the American people voted for.

He was elected to uphold his OATH. He failed. 

I suspect you formed that opinion before he was ever elected.

Are you saying that you don't believe any of the witnesses that have testified to that fact? 

I don't think they're lying.  But they're telling us their opinion of what they believe Trump meant.  Other people with knowledge of the events seem to disagree with their interpretation.  Hardly the basis to remove a sitting president.

Well David Holmes has yet to testify at the hearing, Suriya Jayanti has yet to be deposed and there may be one more coming.

It will be interesting to see if they have any additional facts to add.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.97  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2.94    3 weeks ago
Apparently to the electoral college. The "will" of the majority of voters, nearly 66 million of them, voted Democrat. just under 63 million voted Republican. To say the "will of the people" is represented by the minority of voters is disingenuous at best, and I believe many would consider that simply a wild fabrication.

The electoral college exists because of the will of the people. Or do you imagine we don't have a mechanism to remove it should we desire to do so.

But what you seem to be missing is that when people do bad shit, they should be fired.

I assure you I'm not.

Sure, you hire someone to mow your lawn but if you come home to find him fornicating with your dog instead, my guess is you'd fire them, right after calling the police. It's not "negating your will", it's a response to new information.

And....as I have already explained in great detail....that process is what the impeachment process represents.

"if they accepted the office, they did so for the duration of their term.  The will of the voters is overridden if they fail to complete the job they ran for."
Nonsense. They take an oath when they accept that elected office, and if they break that trust

You're not paying attention and arguing a point I haven't made.

Oh, so that's the defense now? the minority of 63 million knowingly voted for a criminal so the majority is supposed to just sit quiet while the criminal rapes our founding fathers and micturate on our constitution?

Don't guess at what I'm thinking.  You're really pretty shit at it.

I think not.

Clearly.  Maybe you should start.

And what a truly sad defense to have to make.

If only someone were making it, you might have a point.

To be forced to admit that your candidate was a known piece of shit before the election is quite the admission.

I voted against Trump, and yes, he's been a piece of shit since the 1970s.   But since you mention it...Hillary was a known piece of shit, also. 

However "being a piece of shit" is not actually a "high crime of misdemeanor". 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.98  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.95    3 weeks ago
Should football be changed to team that gains most yards win, instead of the way the rules have been?

Only if their team loses, and then only after the fact.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.99  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.2.92    3 weeks ago
Secondary to the rule of law.

In America, the laws themselves are subject to the will of the people.  There is literally no law we can't change.

One could argue that the electoral college negates the will of the people.

Not intelligently.

The 'will of the people' is, as I said, nothing more than a talking point.

I think you'll find the Constitution treats it differently.

Just because the will of the people is wanting to bring back someone from the dead, doesn't make it a priority or a fact of circumstance.

Obviously not. That doesn't change the fact that Kennedy's assassination overrode it.

The so called will of the people is still not some sort of absolute.

Sure.  That's why mechanisms exist to change laws.

Mostly Giuliani and backdoor channels. Using people that some think do not have to be held accountable.

I'm not sure the backdoor channels don't exist in every administration.  That said, Trump's character makes it much easier to believe they could be misused.

I sort of see accusations against Trump the way I saw them against Clinton.  There is sooooooo much smoke there is probably a fire somewhere.  Whether or not it happens to be 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.100  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.96    3 weeks ago
He was not elected president.  Installing him represents something other than what the American people voted for.

No, Pence was elected VP and one of his FEW duties is as first in line for the Presidency. Oh and the American people did indeed vote for that since Pence was on the ballot too. 

I suspect you formed that opinion before he was ever elected.

I was of the opinion that Trump is incapable of following an oath. I was right. 

I don't think they're lying.  But they're telling us their opinion of what they believe Trump meant.  Other people with knowledge of the events seem to disagree with their interpretation.  Hardly the basis to remove a sitting president.

What other people? EVERYONE who has testified has cited the SAME reason for Trump's actions. BTW, most of them have testified that Trump's reasons were bullshit. 

It will be interesting to see if they have any additional facts to add.

All the witnesses have testified to 'interesting' facts. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.101  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.100    3 weeks ago
No, Pence was elected VP and one of his FEW duties is as first in line for the Presidency. Oh and the American people did indeed vote for that since Pence was on the ballot too.

So we agree.  The American people did not choose him as their president.

I was of the opinion that Trump is incapable of following an oath. I was right.

I'm sure you imagine ten thousand such offenses.

What other people? EVERYONE who has testified has cited the SAME reason for Trump's actions. BTW, most of them have testified that Trump's reasons were bullshit. 

The Ukrainians themselves.  Of course all of Schiff's witnesses are going to testify similarly.  That was the point of calling them.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.102  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.101    3 weeks ago
So we agree.  The American people did not choose him as their president.

Yet you seem desperate to deny that Pence was elected too. 

I'm sure you imagine ten thousand such offenses.

You aren't sure about anything about what I imagine Jack. 

The Ukrainians themselves.

What Ukrainians disagree? Where's their testimony? Links? 

 Of course all of Schiff's witnesses are going to testify similarly.

Do you think that is because they are 'Schiff's witnesses' or because they are all telling the truth about what they heard and saw? 

 That was the point of calling them.

Who has Schiff refused to depose that you think have relevant information on Trump's with Ukraine? 

Oh and BTFW, when did Trump offer witnesses? Why is he refusing to allow Bolton et al to testify in his defense? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.103  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @5.2.102    3 weeks ago
Yet you seem desperate to deny that Pence was elected too.

I don't recall seeing a separate place to vote for V.P. on my ballot !

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.104  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.102    3 weeks ago
Yet you seem desperate to deny that Pence was elected too

You seem desperate to disagree with obvious facts...to the point where you create artificial points of view and assign them to other people.   It's a bit bizarre, really.

You aren't sure about anything about what I imagine Jack. 

Riiiiiiiiight.  Because your fanatical bias is not exhaustively chronicled in your posts or anything.

What Ukrainians disagree? Where's their testimony? Links? 

Both the current and previous presidents, apparently.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-01/former-ukrainian-president-poroshenko-trump

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian-president-denies-trump-pressured-him-during-july-call-11570707164

Do you think that is because they are 'Schiff's witnesses' or because they are all telling the truth about what they heard and saw?

Mr. Schiff is going to call witnesses that support his case for impeachment.   That does not mean that their statements are not truthful, but rather that they have been selected specifically because they strengthen his case.  They are one side of the story, which includes their interpretation of events and their interpretation of what appears to be some ambiguous language surrounding them.

Who has Schiff refused to depose that you think have relevant information on Trump's with Ukraine? 

"Refuse to depose"?  Since when did that become the standard?  What kind of nonsense is that?  This is you doing that thing where you attempt to invent points you can argue successfully because you can't handle the ones that exist in real life.

Oh and BTFW, when did Trump offer witnesses? Why is he refusing to allow Bolton et al to testify in his defense? 

Why would it be his responsibility to do so?  I don't remember Clinton offering witnesses prior to articles being drafted.  Trump maintains that the inquiry is a politically motivated witch-hunt (as did Clinton), and offering witnesses simply adds legitimacy to it.  

Mr. Schiff is the one trying to make the case for why we should remove a duly elected President of the United States.  It's his responsibility to present overwhelming evidence.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.105  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.104    3 weeks ago
Because your fanatical bias is not exhaustively chronicled in your posts or anything.

You're right Jack, I do have a fanatical bias for the FACTS. 

Mr. Schiff is going to call witnesses that support his case for impeachment. 

That doesn't answer my question. 

As far as I know, the Intel Committee has released every transcript of the depositions once they are ready for release. 

Now there are still around a dozen people that have been asked or subpoenaed to testify yet Trump has blocked their testimony. There are also undoubtedly thousands of documents that have been withheld. So it's quite disingenuous for them to whine about not having 'the whole story' when Trump is holding back so many of the principles. 

Since when did that become the standard?  What kind of nonsense is that?

It's the standard set by 660 and every witness brought into an open hearing have been previously deposed. 

This is you doing that thing where you attempt to invent points you can argue successfully because you can't handle the ones that exist in real life.

So you don't have an answer to my simple question. Got ya. 

Why would it be his responsibility to do so?  

If he, and it look like you too, want to whine about the witnesses, one would expect that either he or you would name relevant witnesses. 

I don't remember Clinton offering witnesses prior to articles being drafted.  

Do you remember Clinton ignoring subpoenas? 

Trump maintains that the inquiry is a politically motivated witch-hunt (as did Clinton), and offering witnesses simply adds legitimacy to it.  

I don't give a fuck what Trump maintains. Trump and his lawyer are idiots. 

Mr. Schiff is the one trying to make the case for why we should remove a duly elected President of the United States.  It's his responsibility to present overwhelming evidence.

Well, with Trump's assistance, Schiff already has overwhelming evidence that Trump had obstructed Congress. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.2.106  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @5.2.71    3 weeks ago

So you opted for new Fox talking points over facts...… Well, at least it's a change of scenery. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.107  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.105    3 weeks ago
You're right Jack, I do have a fanatical bias for the FACTS.

Of course you do.  Riiiiiiiight.

That doesn't answer my question. 

It does.  You just don't like the answer.

As far as I know, the Intel Committee has released every transcript of the depositions once they are ready for release.  Now there are still around a dozen people that have been asked or subpoenaed to testify yet Trump has blocked their testimony. There are also undoubtedly thousands of documents that have been withheld. So it's quite disingenuous for them to whine about not having 'the whole story' when Trump is holding back so many of the principles. 

We have the Democrats bringing forward witnesses who will support their case for impeachment.  We have Trump keeping people away because he says it's a kangaroo court.  So naturally we're getting unbiased data.....riiiiiiight.

It's the standard set by 660 and every witness brought into an open hearing have been previously deposed.

There is a gargantuan difference between failing to depose and refusing to depose.  But nice try, though.

So you don't have an answer to my simple question. Got ya.

Your question was utterly irrelevant and another transparent attempt to redefine the parameters of the discussion to suit your fantasy.  So no, you'll need to do much better.

If he, and it look like you too, want to whine about the witnesses, one would expect that either he or you would name relevant witnesses.

Pointing out that witnesses have been chosen specifically because they support a case is simply stating fact.  You might try it sometime.  I'm very sure Trump is being counseled not to participate in this proceeding in any way, as doing so lends legitimacy.

Do you remember Clinton ignoring subpoenas?

Sort of, yes.  I remember a very long debate on whether or not the president could even be subpoenaed.  I seem to recall they worked out a deal where they did it over videoconference or something.

I don't give a fuck what Trump maintains. Trump and his lawyer are idiots.

I'm sure you don't.  But let's be honest.... you are significantly more biased than an Alabama fan sitting inside Bryant-Denny during the Iron Bowl.

Well, with Trump's assistance, Schiff already has overwhelming evidence that Trump had obstructed Congress. 

Then I'm sure they'll impeach him.  Again...let's be honest...they're going to impeach him....and the senate will acquit him...and Nancy will hope she's given Joe or Pete enough of a boost to win the election.  That's really what this is all about.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.108  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.107    3 weeks ago
Of course you do.  Riiiiiiiight.

Glad we agree. 

It does.  You just don't like the answer.

So your answer is that the witnesses' truthful answers strengthen Schiff's case. I agree.

So naturally we're getting unbiased data.....riiiiiiight.

So naturally, you and your fellow travelers whine about bias yet try to pretend that Trump isn't the biggest obstacle to mitigating it. Well done. 

There is a gargantuan difference between failing to depose and refusing to depose.  But nice try, though.

The only witnesses that Schiff has failed to depose are those that Trump refuses to allow to come forward. 

So no, you'll need to do much better.

So you don't have an answer to my simple question. Got ya.

Pointing out that witnesses have been chosen specifically because they support a case is simply stating fact.

Again, all of the deposition transcripts haver been released. WHO hasn't testified in open hearings that you want to hear from SPIT IT OUT!

 You might try it sometime.  

Pfffft. 

I'm very sure Trump is being counseled not to participate in this proceeding in any way, as doing so lends legitimacy.

As I said, Trump and his lawyer are idiots. Failing to cooperate with subpoenas is contempt of Congress. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.109  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.108    3 weeks ago
So your answer is that the witnesses' truthful answers strengthen Schiff's case. I agree.

That is the entire point of calling them.

So naturally, you and your fellow travelers whine about bias yet try to pretend that Trump isn't the biggest obstacle to mitigating it. Well done.

Failing to walk lockstep with your angry biased railing is now "whining".   Riiiiiiiight.

The only witnesses that Schiff has failed to depose are those that Trump refuses to allow to come forward. 

There is absolutely no possible way you could know that.   However the fact that you pretend you know it is unsurprising.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.110  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.109    3 weeks ago
There is absolutely no possible way you could know that.   However the fact that you pretend you know it is unsurprising.

Yet after being asked more than once you still can't name even ONE witness that you think has relevant information about Trump's actions with Ukraine that isn't already being withheld by Trump or hasn't been deposed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.111  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @5.2.110    3 weeks ago
Yet after being asked more than once you still can't name even ONE witness that you think has relevant information about Trump's actions with Ukraine that isn't already being withheld by Trump or hasn't been deposed. 

Why would it be up to me to name someone?  What an utterly ridiculous suggestion.  Like you have a list of every clerical or other type of employee who might have information on the topic. *eyeroll*  What bullshit.

The fact is you have zero clue about what actually happened beyond what you've seen on television or read on the internet....which has been completely managed by House Democrats.  Now...you don't care one iota because they're telling you what you want to believe and you have less than zero interest in objectivity anyway, but pretending your ridiculous assertions have any validity is just idiotic.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.112  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.111    3 weeks ago
What bullshit.

Ditto.

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     4 weeks ago

A pair to draw to...Lair/conman,,,Conman/lair

Donald-Trump-and-Roger-Stone_660014_ver1

 
 
 
Ender
6.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Kavika @6    4 weeks ago

With a Nixon stamp of approval. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Kavika @6    3 weeks ago

09dc-trumpspstein1-articleLarge-v2.jpg?qtrump-epstein-wide.jpg?resize=865,452

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2    3 weeks ago

It always amazes me when the left tries to draw some kind of close relationship between President Trump and Epstein when their boy slick willie has been to pervert island numerous times flying on the Lolita express. Release the tapes they confiscated from his home....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
It always amazes me when the left tries to draw some kind of close relationship between President Trump and Epstein

It always amazes me when the right refuses to acknowledge the relationship between Trump and Epstein.  Clinton was NOT at the island, but Trump was, more than once.

 
 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

tRump and Epstein both took turns raping Ivanka.  

If tRump could still get it up, he'd still be boinking Ivanka.  

Look at how someone's references to Bill Clinton being on Lolita express is all from Fux 'new's or World Nut Daily or some blogs and other nonsense.

NOT VALID SOURCES.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    3 weeks ago

Shoot that messenger!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    3 weeks ago
TRump and Epstein both took turns raping Ivanka

did you post this to the wrong site? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.3    3 weeks ago

Denial is not a river in Egypt...

No it is not, it is also the number 1 political strategy for Trump apologists.

trump-epstein-wide.jpg?resize=865,452

WHEN HAS TRUMP BEEN ACCUSED OF RAPE OR ATTEMPTED RAPE? ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE A CHILD, HIS WIFE AND A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    3 weeks ago
Look at how someone's references to Bill Clinton being on Lolita express is all from Fux 'new's or World Nut Daily or some blogs and other nonsense.

What amazes me is the speed of the right wing nuts, and paid (Russian, Chinese, RNC, etc) posters to jump on every Epstein article to try and divert attention away from Trump.  The speed and vehemence of it, is indicative of absolute fear.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.8    3 weeks ago

Nice photoshopped picture.

Allegation against Trump by left wing nut jobs.

I agree that Trump is no saint. He is a womanizer/playboy.

Never one allegation against Trump until he became the Republican candidate.

Lets get back to my original comment you can't defend.

Trump may have bumped into Epstein hanging around the Clintons and Democrat fundraisers. Trump did not hang out at pervert island like Slick willy did no mater how much in your fantasy world you believe he did. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.8    3 weeks ago

Paula Jones was the one that opened the flood gates of accusations. She worked for Clinton during his stint as the Governor of Arkansas and won a massive $850,000 settlement from Clinton. The stipulation, of course, was that Bill did to have to admit to any wrongdoing as long as he inked that check.

Juanita Broderick was a nursing home administrator that claimed Bill raped her in a hotel room in 1978. She has recently resurfaced to warn people how evil these two are and that they cannot be allowed to once again get into the White House.

Kathleen Willey was a volunteer who alleged Bill attacked her in 1998. Her original accusations came to light during a “60 Minutes” special.

Eileen Wellstone has one of the more disturbing claims due to the fact it goes back to when Clinton was at Oxford University as a student in 1969. I say this because it was not just political power that led to this behavior if her claim is true. This would establish him as a serial rapist with behavior that started decades before he ever came into prominence.

Carolyn Moffet met Clinton at a fundraiser in 1979. She claims she was invited by Bill to go back to his hotel room, where Bill demanded she perform sexual acts. It is yet another example of Bill using his position to lure a woman in and then assault her once he got her behind closed doors.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen won the Miss America contest in 1982 and alleged Clinton forced her to have sex shortly after gaining the crown.

Becky Brown served as Chelsea’s nanny. Two people came forward to reveal that Bill Clinton made sexual advances on her while she was serving in this capacity at the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas. Her husband and local state trooper backed up her story.

Helen Dowdy claims to have been groped by Bill during a family wedding while she was on the dance floor. That seems to be a popular move by Bill as we have seen in several videos that have come to light in recent weeks.

Cristy Zercher was one of those girls I just spoke about, as she claims Clinton groped her while she was serving as a stewardess on his campaign jet. In her interview with Star Magazine, she said the alleged incident took place for approximately forty minutes.

This, of course, is not the full list, as there are numerous other “alleged” rapes, illegitimate children, and mistresses. And this is the man the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural First Gentleman.

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-bill-clinton-of-sexual-misconduct/

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.10    3 weeks ago
Never one allegation against Trump until he became the Republican candidate.

And Not one Conviction either !

Democrat and Liberal types "Forget" ….. to easily. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    3 weeks ago
NOT VALID SOURCES.  

Expert Opinion ?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.14  KDMichigan  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.6    3 weeks ago
did you post this to the wrong site? 

She is blocked from posting to me but still seeks my attention. You should see the private msg's she sends me.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.15  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.11    3 weeks ago
And this is the man the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural First Gentleman.

Funny, Hillary isn't running for office - and neither is Bill.

Yet the Trump supporters keep throwing their names out there anytime someone brings up Trump's corruption, as if that somehow makes what he's doing OK. Talk about hypocrisy. If Bill's actions bothered you as much as you claim, there should be no possible way you could support Trump.

A decent person would put morals and ethics ahead of policies in some instances, as you seem to imply with your comment - but Trump supporters don't do that.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.16  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @6.2.15    3 weeks ago

Try following the thread before you jump in with your self righteous indignation.

 If Bill's actions bothered you as much as you claim

Thanks for helping me out and admitting Bill Clinton is a pervert though.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.17  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.16    3 weeks ago
Thanks for helping me out and admitting Bill Clinton is a pervert though

Anytime. I call it like I see it, and Clinton is a pervert.

You said "the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural Frist Gentleman" - the tense you use implies that somehow Hillary is running for President.  So perhaps you should learn about tenses before you try to insult me for my comment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.14    3 weeks ago

Please check your PN's. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.19  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @6.2.17    3 weeks ago

That's the article I copied....

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.20  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.18    3 weeks ago
Please check your PN's. 

I keep getting sexually suggestive chats from female members here. I am a man not a piece of meat. 

My therapist said i should say that.

Thanks,

Sincerely the actor that plays the people's fish.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.2.21  Kathleen  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.20    3 weeks ago

😂

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.22  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.22    3 weeks ago

Looks like Trump is "Socializing" with Melania to me.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.24  KDMichigan  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.23    3 weeks ago

Frosty is not capable of following a thread either.

Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.25  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.11    3 weeks ago

Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it. I am SO shocked... /s

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.26  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.27  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    3 weeks ago
Frosty is not capable of following a thread either.

After you just posted an article about Bill Clinton, which has what to do with the current impeachment? I mean, other than nothing at all? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.28  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    3 weeks ago

Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said. 

Sorry! Didn't mean to trigger you so easily.. 
 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.29  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
6.2.31  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    3 weeks ago

Billy lied in civil case in a deposition where he was found to have exposed himself to Paula Jones and later paid Paula Jones 800,000 later and lost his law license.Trump made a phone call his detractors don’t like.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    3 weeks ago
Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it.

None of the Witness's for the "Schiff Parody Prosecution" has said any such thing !

Besides....where did that infamous "Prid-Quo-Pro" wording go anyway ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.33  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    3 weeks ago
Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

No.  He was impeached for obstruction of justice, multiple counts of perjury and witness tampering.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.34  KDMichigan  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.27    3 weeks ago

Again I know it's hard but try following the thread instead of jumping in.

256

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.35  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    3 weeks ago
But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it. I am SO shocked

Yeah I know right?   

I mean when he was sitting there and noted that if the Prosecutor wasn't fired he would withhold $1.5 billion in American aid and then noted he would have to be fired in the next six hours because his flight left then.......   and then bragged it happened.  

Oh fuck, that's right that was Joe Biden, then the Vice President of The United States that was EXTORTING the President of the Ukraine.  My bad.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.36  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.12    3 weeks ago
And Not one Conviction either ! Democrat and Liberal types "Forget" ….. to easily.

What happened to "lock her up"?  Now you're waiting for convictions????

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.37  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.36    3 weeks ago

We are still waiting for all those indictments for Obama and Hillary and everyone in his administration 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @6.2.35    3 weeks ago

You sound exceedingly bitter and venomous 

Dominoes falling?

Tick tock

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.39  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.36    3 weeks ago
Now you're waiting for convictions????

I'm Not waiting for a damn thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.2.17    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.28    3 weeks ago
'Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said.'

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Says Mr. Off Topic Inappropriate Memes.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.27    3 weeks ago

giphy.webp?cid=790b76110c21720140f6d498d

But, but, the Clintons!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.43  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.39    3 weeks ago
I'm Not waiting for a damn thing.

You're waiting for your next talking point to show up in your spam folder.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.44  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.43    3 weeks ago
You're waiting for your next talking point to show up in your spam folder.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    4 weeks ago
that very badly mischaracterizes what they said

No, it really doesn't. You can think all sorts of negative things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he should be removed from office. That's the point Scalise was making. He didn't try to claim the witnesses approved of Trump's actions. All he said was that none of them would say the president should be impeached over it.

 
 
 
Ender
7.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 weeks ago

They didn't say he shouldn't be either.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @7.1    4 weeks ago

Democrats are looking for someone in this list of witnesses to push everyone else over the edge with them. They want a witness who makes it unequivocally clear that Trump did something that requires impeachment and it's just not happening. None of these career people are dumb enough to put their heads on the chopping block and tell the committee they need to impeach the president.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

You know that Hill, Volker and Morrison have already resigned right? Their testimony is upcoming. 

Sondland is DONE and he'll just have to 'scrap' by on his nest egg. He has 3 choices, claim the 5th and be seen as a liar, LIE and have jail hanging over him or suck it up and tell the truth. 

I think that the Democrats should seek an affidavit from Yermak, Zelensky's top aid. 

 
 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    4 weeks ago
No, it really doesn't.

Yes it really does. 

You can think all sorts of negative things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he should be removed from office.

You can think all sorts of positive things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be removed from office. 

That's the point Scalise was making.

If that was indeed the point that Scalise was TRYING to make, he failed miserably. 

He didn't try to claim the witnesses approved of Trump's actions.

He just tried to dismiss the witnesses as Schiff minions. 

All he said was that none of them would say the president should be impeached over it.

NONE of them were there to state their OPINION about what the Congress should DO about Trump's conduct. All but Morrison stated that they felt that Trump's call was at minimum 'inappropriate'. Yet even Morrison knew that there was an issue with the content of the call and HIS reaction was to insure that it was buried. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Dulay @8    4 weeks ago

That is all he did, try to shift blame.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8    3 weeks ago
He just tried to dismiss the witnesses as Schiff minions.

Who called them to testify?  Isn't Schiff organizing all this?

All but Morrison stated that they felt that Trump's call was at minimum 'inappropriate'.

"Inappropriate" is simply their opinion.  Not saying they're wrong, but "inappropriate" does not necessarily equal "impeachable".

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2    3 weeks ago
Who called them to testify?  Isn't Schiff organizing all this?

So that inherently makes them 'Schiff's minions'? How? 

Should we all then view Morrison and Volker as Nunes' minions?

"Inappropriate" is simply their opinion.  Not saying they're wrong, but "inappropriate" does not necessarily equal "impeachable".

The House will make that decision. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.1    3 weeks ago
So that inherently makes them 'Schiff's minions'? How? 

"Minions" was your term.  He said "Schiff's witnesses", which appears to be accurate.

The House will make that decision. 

And the Senate will make theirs.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2.2    3 weeks ago
"Minions" was your term. 

Which you answered by inferring that they WERE. 

He said "Schiff's witnesses", which appears to be accurate.

No he wasn't accurate because they were FACT witnesses and Volker, who the GOP called, stated that those prior FACT witnesses caused him to alter his own testimony. In short, Volker recognized them as giving truthful testimony. 

I note that you didn't answer me about whether we should all view Volker and Morrison as Nunes' 'witnesses'. 

And the Senate will make theirs.

Now your getting it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.3    3 weeks ago
Which you answered by inferring that they WERE. 

I think you mean "implying", but I wasn't.  You are doing the inferring.  Incorrectly.  Again.  

No he wasn't accurate because they were FACT witnesses and Volker, who the GOP called, stated that those prior FACT witnesses caused him to alter his own testimony. In short, Volker recognized them as giving truthful testimony.

The witnesses Schiff called are most certainly "Schiff's witnesses".   

I note that you didn't answer me about whether we should all view Volker and Morrison as Nunes' 'witnesses'. 

If he called them, then yes.  

Now your getting it. 

*eyeroll*

Oh sweetie....... bless your heart.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2.4    3 weeks ago
You are doing the inferring.  Incorrectly.  Again.  

What are you 'inferring' that I am 'inferring' incorrectly? Please be specific. 

The witnesses Schiff called are most certainly "Schiff's witnesses".   

No again. They are Committee witnesses. 

If he called them, then yes.  

Well gee Jack, Nunes and the Minority requested that the Committee call those witness. So are they Nunes' witnesses or not? 

Oh sweetie....... bless your heart.

Not your 'sweetie' Jack. I need no blessing. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.5    3 weeks ago
If he called them, then yes.  
Well gee Jack, Nunes and the Minority requested that the Committee call those witness. So are they Nunes' witnesses or not? 

Oh good grief.

And yes...most definitely...bless your heart.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9  Freedom Warrior    4 weeks ago

If anything has been badly mischaracterized it's the notion that Trump did anything of a criminal nature.  

I especially like the one where the testimony essentially was hurt someone's feelings so he should be impeached.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    4 weeks ago

I especially like the one where some still believe that there needs to be a crime to impeach. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    3 weeks ago
If anything has been badly mischaracterized it's the notion that Trump did anything of a criminal nature.

It is kind of funny that throughout all this NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.  

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2    3 weeks ago
It is kind of funny that throughout all this NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.  

They're fact witnesses, NOT experts on what's impeachable. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
9.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2    3 weeks ago

NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.

That is not their function.  They are there to present factual information.  It is the house membership that will determine if the fact rise to the level of impeachment.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.1    3 weeks ago

The "they" I'm referring to are those who THINK that the President has done something that is impeachable.  These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.2.2    3 weeks ago
It is the house membership that will determine if the fact rise to the level of impeachment.

You said "will determine".

I think you mean "have determined".  Probably sometime back in 2016.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.3    3 weeks ago
The "they" I'm referring to are those who THINK that the President has done something that is impeachable.  

I KNOW he has. 

These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 

So let me ask you something Jim. Is it your position that no matter what Trump does, he's untouchable? 

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.4    3 weeks ago
I think you mean "have determined".  Probably sometime back in 2016.

Well that's okay Jack because all of the conservatives here 'have determined' that the Senate is going to let him off. No worries. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.6    3 weeks ago
Well that's okay Jack because all of the conservatives here 'have determined' that the Senate is going to let him off. No worries. 

The smart money is most certainly on that outcome.  

At the end of the day, this is primarily a political stunt.  Unless they come up with something much more compelling than a phone call that 8 people interpret 8 different ways, there is no hope of removing him.

But impeaching him appeases their rabid base so they won't get primaried back home, and Pelosi hopes it will weaken Trump enough to enable one of their weak candidates to squeak out a victory.

It would have been better to simply nominate a great candidate, but those don't actually grow on trees and they really don't appear to have one right now.  Pete looks like he wouldn't be a calamity, and he's gaining some traction, so that's encouraging.  If Biden were 58 instead of 78, he'd walk away with it.  He should have run 4 years ago.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.5    3 weeks ago
I KNOW he has. 

Riiiiight.  

Were you on "the call"?  Do you have super secret documents signed by Trump that demand campaign contributions and a new hat for Melania in exchange for military aid?  Do you also have video of Trump conducting ritual sacrifices of babies and eating them? 

The fact is you don't actually "know" anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know.  The second fact is that you don't actually want to know anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.8    3 weeks ago
Riiiiight.  

Yep. 

Were you on "the call"? 

Don't you listen you Trump? READ the transcript. 

Do you have super secret documents signed by Trump that demand campaign contributions and a new hat for Melania in exchange for military aid? 

Why would I need that? 

Do you also have video of Trump conducting ritual sacrifices of babies and eating them? 

Pfffft. 

The fact is you don't actually "know" anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know. 

I know what the witnesses testified to, in both their depositions and their open testimony. I also know what Trump said and what Giuliani said. 

I'll put my knowledge about this issue up against yours any day Jack. 

The second fact is that you don't actually want to know anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know

That comment is a lie and it's pretty pathetic coming from a sycophant. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.9    3 weeks ago
That comment is a lie

You pretend your post history doesn't give you away.

Your rampaging bias blinds you to any other possibility besides the one you desperately want to be true.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.10    3 weeks ago
You pretend your post history doesn't give you away.

You pretend that you know what I want. 

Your rampaging bias blinds you to any other possibility besides the one you desperately want to be true.

I deal in facts Jack, things with which you're obviously having issues.

BTW, I note that you didn't deny being a sycophant. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Now how about you get off of your whining jag about me and get back to addressing the topic. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.11    3 weeks ago
You pretend that you know what I want. 

Oh sweetie....  Everybody knows what you want. 

I deal in facts Jack, things with which you're obviously having issues.

You deal with what you wish the facts were. 

BTW, I note that you didn't deny being a sycophant.

Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.  You forget I voted against Trump, and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence.  But don't let that get in the way of the "facts" you wish were true.

Now how about you get off of your whining jag about me and get back to addressing the topic. 

Sure. 

You claim you "know".  You don't.  You interpret everything you hear through the mist of your extreme brainless bias and then you believe yourself some sort of armchair expert on a case that has divided people much, much, much smarter than you.  You can't even read comments on this forum correctly, yet you imagine you are some sort of constitutional scholar.  You pretend the tiny amount of data you see must be all of it, because you lack the sophistication to even imagine you might only be getting one side of the story.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.13  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.12    3 weeks ago
and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence

OK, I just have to ask you, if I may - why would you prefer Pence?

I'm really on the fence about this.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.12    3 weeks ago
Oh sweetie.... Everybody knows what you want. 

If YOU did, you wouldn't be calling me sweetie. 

Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.  You forget I voted against Trump, and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence.  But don't let that get in the way of the "facts" you wish were true.

Gee, Graham called Trump every name in the book. Yet he's a sycophant and so are you. 

you believe yourself some sort of armchair expert on a case that has divided people much, much, much smarter than you.  

I didn't claim to be an expert Jack, I merely claimed to know MORE about the issue than you [Removed]

You can't even read comments on this forum correctly, yet you imagine you are some sort of constitutional scholar. 

I need only be more of a scholar than you Jack, [Removed]

You pretend the tiny amount of data you see must be all of it, because you lack the sophistication to even imagine you might only be getting one side of the story.

I'm sophisticated enough to know that the tiny bit of one sided data that you've offered is a small fraction of what I've reviewed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.14    3 weeks ago
If YOU did, you wouldn't be calling me sweetie. 

Just because we all know what you want doesn't mean you're getting it.

Yet he's a sycophant and so are you.

As I said....Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.

I didn't claim to be an expert Jack,

That's not true, though, is it?  You said, "I KNOW".  

I merely claimed to know MORE about the issue than you

That's not all you claimed, though is it?  So you're backtracking now?  

and I don't even have to be smart for that to be true. 

Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?  It's nice that you've found something you can handle.

I need only be more of a scholar than you Jack,

If you could manage to read posts correctly through your angry biased mist, you would see that I have made no claim about what I know.  Only an idiot would believe that what we see on television and read on the internet is even a small fraction of the pertinent information on the situation.

I'm sophisticated enough to know that the tiny bit of one sided data that you've offered is a small fraction of what I've reviewed.

I've offered data?  What was that, exactly?  Do cite that for us.  You really, really, don't read these posts very well, do you? All I've done is state that you don't know nearly as much as you want to think you do.   

We're talking about the US Government at the highest levels of foreign policy.  We're also talking about a massively partisan political gambit with everything at stake.  Almost everything will be completely clandestine.  

There may actually be an actual "smoking gun" out there.  There may be written communication from Trump or RG stating that the Ukranians are not getting aid until they announce a Biden investigation.  The President of Ukraine may change his story and state publicly that Trump attempted to blackmail him.  Or there may be evidence of Joe Biden being aware of money laundering, bribery or extortion that hasn't been revealed yet.  

The point is we the public are not privy to the overwhelming majority of information.  So there isn't any way you can possibly "KNOW".

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.15    3 weeks ago
Just because we all know what you want doesn't mean you're getting it.

Does pretending to speak for anyone other than yourself make you cool in your circle? 

As I said....Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.

Well YOU brought up post history as a standard. I rest my case. 

That's not true, though, is it?  

Yes, it's true Jack. 

You said, "I KNOW".  

Why yes, YES I did and I went on to cite what I know, didn't I Jack? 

Saying that one knows something isn't a claim of expertise no matter how desperately you insist that it is. 

Only an idiot would believe that what we see on television and read on the internet is even a small fraction of the pertinent information on the situation.

Only an idiot would believe what Hannity, Solomon, Nunes and Jordan disseminate in leu of factual and historical documentation on the subject. 

As I have stated before, besides the summary of the call, I have read ALL of the opening statements from the witnesses, the text messages, ALL of the witness depositions, the Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification in multiple states, certain chapters of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", the basic rules of the House and Senate and the additional provisions on Impeachment, too many articles and essays on the subject to list including the bullshit that Dershowitz wrote that was posted here. 

Now perhaps even you may be able to admit that just because I reviewed some to that material on the internet doesn't mean that it is irrelevant or unreliable. 

Is all of that a 'small fraction of pertinent information on the situation'. Why yes, YES I'm sure it is. Yet there is no doubt that it is a MUCH LARGER fraction than you or any of your fellow travelers have bothered to pursue. 

I've offered data?  What was that, exactly?  Do cite that for us.  You really, really, don't read these posts very well, do you? All I've done is state that you don't know nearly as much as you want to think you do.   

So you're stating that you haven't offered any facts in any of your repllies to me. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Almost everything will be completely clandestine.  

That's a ridiculous statement Jack. We have transcripts of every word stated in the SCIF and two weeks of OPEN hearings broadcast live across the nation. NONE of that meets the definition of 'clandestine'. 

There may actually be an actual "smoking gun" out there. 

Well see what the FOIA suits expose. Pompeo just had to release a tranche of documents yesterday. Oh, I READ those too...

The point is we the public are not privy to the overwhelming majority of information.  

Trump is doing his best to keep it that way. 

So there isn't any way you can possibly "KNOW".

One thing I KNOW for a fact is that your supercilious strawman FAILS. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.5    3 weeks ago
I KNOW he has. 

And your evidence of this is where?  Apparently it only exists in your mind.  Have another sip of the kool aid.

These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 
So let me ask you something Jim. Is it your position that no matter what Trump does, he's untouchable? 

1. Who is Jim?  

2.  No he's not untouchable.  So far there is nothing to prove he's done anything wrong.  Liberal / Leftist / Democrat freak out because they cannot handle loss is not an impeachable offense.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.17    3 weeks ago
And your evidence of this is where? 

Read 9.2.16 for what I have reviewed to reach my opinion. 

Apparently it only exists in your mind.  

That's only apparent in your mind and in those who are obtuse. 

 No he's not untouchable.  So far there is nothing to prove he's done anything wrong. 

There is overwhelming evidence that he has done a hell of a lot wrong. 

As an aside, there isn't enough popcorn on the planet for the day McGahn testifies. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.18    2 weeks ago
Read 9.2.16 for what I have reviewed to reach my opinion. 

So I was right.  It's only in your mind.

There is overwhelming evidence that he has done a hell of a lot wrong. 

Then why, after about 3 years of "investigating" is there no evidence?  Why was he not indicted?  Oh that's right. Because the crime is that he LEGALLY beat the Democrats.  Now the Democrats, left and liberals can't handle rejection and you all have been crying like spoiled little shits in Walmart.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.19    2 weeks ago
So I was right.  It's only in your mind.

Obtuse. 

Then why, after about 3 years of "investigating" is there no evidence?  Why was he not indicted?  

Go review the OLC opinion. 

Oh wait, you have no fucking clue wtf I'm talking about. Go LOOK UP the OLC opinion about a POTUS being immune to prosecution while in office. 

You've played your last 'hold my hand' card. 

Oh that's right. Because the crime is that he LEGALLY beat the Democrats.  Now the Democrats, left and liberals can't handle rejection and you all have been crying like spoiled little shits in Walmart.

More obtuseness. Well done. 

 
 
 
freepress
10  freepress    3 weeks ago

Even Fox is starting to see the writing on the wall. Lies, misinformation, disinformation is the basis for Republicans and Fox. Add gerrymandering, voter suppression and allowing election interference by hostile foreign influence and the GOP proves time and time again, they know they cannot win with the real majority of Americans and the popular vote, so they cheat and lie. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

"Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting   that many of them   became immediately upset "

Chris has "rapped" jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif himself up in the "Feelings" train ! jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

Even Chris didn't say it was an "Impeachable" offense ….. just like "NONE" of the "Others" have ever said either ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

In fact....."NONE" of the so-called "Witnesses" have said anything of the sort. All they can "Report" on…. is that they "Feel" ! jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
11.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  It Is ME @11    3 weeks ago

Nice gymnastics with the truth....

The "Witnesses" are providing facts/testimony of the call when asked questions on the substance of that call.

When asked about their feelings of the substance matter, they are supplying their feelings.

Two distinct differences, but you seem to only realize one because you have a narrative you want to push.  Being a "Forever Trumper" is quickly becoming as popular as a case of gonorrhea....  

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @11.1    3 weeks ago
The "Witnesses" are providing facts/testimony of the call when asked questions on the substance of that call.

Like:

NO....to hearing Bribery ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

NO....to hearing extortion ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

NO....to hearing a "Prid-Quo-Pro" (Which isn't used by Democrats anymore. Not "SHOCKING enough) ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

But - #feelingsmatter jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

KDMichigan
JBB
Sunshine
Wishful_thinkin
jungkonservativ111
Gordy327
Ozzwald
Tessylo
Ronin2
SteevieGee

bccrane
Freefaller
Just Jim NC TttH
Texan1211
loki12


32 visitors