Something Missing From Trump Impeachment Defense
Like many Americans, I am following the impeachment proceedings today, as the House votes to put him on trial in the Senate, and have seen some of it over the past few weeks.
A number of Democrats have risen today and previously to say that President* Trump tried to cheat the 2020 election (but got caught).
Thinking about all this rhetoric ,today and previously, something struck me. Out of all the dozens of speeches made by Republicans today and over the past few weeks of committee hearings, there is one sentence that we have never heard from a single one of them -
the missing sentence - "Donald Trump is not a cheat".
None of those Republicans want to choke on those words.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
Out of all this rhetoric, dozens and dozens of Republican speeches in the committees, not one of them has said Trump is an honest man who would never cheat. Not one.
Why in the hell would anyone say that? Cheat is kind of a childish word.
"Cheaters never win and winners never cheat". He won.........and will again......without it.......again.
LOL. Its no more childish than any other word.
None of them are going to stand up and say that about the Democratic candidates for president either, even though Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage, where her kids went to school, and about being fired for being pregnant. Even though Joe Biden is a serial liar going all the way back to the death of his first wife and his law school plagiarism days. Even though Bernie Sanders can't even tell the truth about what political party he's in and routinely lies with phony statistics.
Yeah everyone lies and cheats as much as Trump. He's just the victim of circumstances. Right.
That's called a straw man, John. I never said everyone lies and cheats as much as Trump. In fact, it's not something I would say because I don't think it matters. Lying is lying and a liar is not a better person because they lie less often than some other liar. If you're really just about counting the lies, then your moral stance on truth-telling is feeble and useless.
Proverbial apples and oranges. Dealt with and "expired."
While you are digging through the "X" files of yesterday, can you kindly ask President Donald Trump to release the documents and witnesses to the Senate, please. If you can not do that, then why hound democrats? We would love to have the proof of Trump's innocence for the trial now.
Can you ask Trump to release it all immediately? No - why not?
Nice. Redirection to a smelly 'red-herring' road-kill.
I drove around a bit today while working so listened to the radio a lot. Many Republicans talked about how other people have done worse things than Trump and some said how many "great" things Trump's doing so why worry about a little thing like the Constitution. Many claimed that Dems have hated him since before election day. Nobody claimed he was innocent that I heard.
Nope. Not a one. At best they claimed the evidence against him was "hearsay" indicating they apparently believe the accounts are false, but then they refuse to say what actual accounts they object to. This is likely because the witnesses were actually all very credible and told the truth about what they saw, which was a damning indictment of this Presidents conduct. The plethora of weak excuses from republicans wouldn't even hold a morning dew let alone water. So far their defense appears to be a Frankenstein's monster of cobbled together process complaints:
So what? Is that why Donald abused his power? Are we now going to allow a President to abuse his office for political gain anytime he thinks the opposing party is out to get him?
That's only because the President has instructed all the key witnesses not to testify. In the Clinton impeachment, he was impeached for obstructing justice because he tried to coach Lewinsky's answers to obfuscate the truth. In this case, not only is the President trying to obfuscate the truth, he just told all the key witnesses not to even show up or answer any questions at all.
It's virtually the same process as Republicans used to impeach President Clinton and they know it. Their process complaints are the equivalent of a death row inmate trying to delay his execution by smearing himself in his own feces, but Republicans are only delaying the inevitable and now they smell like metaphorical shit as anyone watching the proceedings could see their bitter frustration at having ZERO actual defense of this Presidents actions.
There is no "deep state" other than Republicans "deep state" of denial. The simple fact that the investigation into the Trump campaign was not public knowledge until AFTER the election is evidence there was no "Deep State" conspiracy to sabotage Trump. If there were, and Page and Strzok were part of that as so many Republicans like claiming using their personal texts as some supposed evidence of corruption instead of simply their personal opinions apart from their work, then they would definitely have leaked such an investigation to the press before the election. I mean, who plans to sabotage a political opponent AFTER they are already elected into office? That's just plain stupid. The IG report confirms there was no bias in the decision to start the investigation or the outcomes. Were mistakes made? Of course, what civil service department do we have completely free of human error? Overall, the IG report proved what the Democrats have been saying all along and it's unlikely we'll see any indictments of any Obama era civil servants. But those Republicans keep hoping! They're still hoping they can prove something against Hillary or Joe Biden. In fact they're so desperate they've sent out their Nosferatu Rudy Giuliani to franticly find something to distract from Trumps inevitable impeachment.
And yet they refuse to allow the first hand evidence to be presented, because they won't let the people testify.
Republican politicians have changed America and what America is forever with their relentless attacks against the Constitution and their intentional dismissal of the truth and facts. They have tossed aside the Constitution creating a precedence that we no longer need to follow the laws of the land.
Republican politicians and leaders have attacked America from within. The country will never recover.
The news I’m reading this morning is indicating it was the Democrats that are violating the constitution.
Court Rules Affordable Care Act’s Individual Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional
Your comment makes no sense. [delete]
I'm feeling charitable today so I'm not going to respond to your comment.
You really haven't seen the IG report or the fact none of the Mueller investigation was used as a article of impeachment who's lying and attacking the constitution.
The 'president' and his whole gang of thieves administration.
They had nothing up to (and really including) the Ukraine call..........and that's what this whole thing is predicated on. Not collusion, not obstruction (well the phony "of Congress" bull), not quid pro quo, not bribery, no anything. Not even the emoluments bullshit. They grasped at probably one of the very few last straws to move forward. I know you weren't here (at least typing) the last couple of days but did you read the article about how they were going to continue the "investigations" no matter WHAT the Senate does? Does that sound right to you? That is rhetorical........................
But Trump is all they have
Because so many who voted for Trump don't have the ability to digest more than one or two factual explanations the House thought it best to keep it as simple as possible. simple being the relative word in this situation. Thus the reason for only 2 articles rather than all his illegal actions.
Additionally, I am hoping that the other abuses and illegal acts conducted by the President and his Administration will be pursued after he is out of Office and can be hauled off to jail.
Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled on the Affordable Care Act during the Obama years?
Okay, on Friday I learned the 'whole' story on a Texas court attack against the ACA on MSNBC. Yikes! Independent voters! The republicans are at it yet again. They can not fix healthcare for the nation and yet they insist on not letting democrats 'rest' in having done so!
How long will this republican tampering be allowed to go on? We have a doable healthcare plan in the ACA, why won't republicans work to make it better or just leave it alone?
Democrats actually used the word...... "Cheat" ?
You can't say "Donald Trump is not a cheat " either. At least not with a straight face.
Why say something against something that was NEVER said !
what's the matter me, afraid to state the truth, as you prefer the denial state ?
Just admit, Trump is a liar and a cheat, and certainly not worthy to be our potUS...
Donald Trump can't even say "Donald Trump isn't a cheat" with a straight face.
Now your adding a word ?
well....Trump did "Cheat" the government out of allowing them to keep more of my money.
So I guess.....he's my "Cheater"....and I love it.
They did.
But soon to be former Democrat has called out his own party for this BS impeachment, and stated it for what it is.
This is about the Democrats being scared shitless of running against him in the next elections. The economy is strong, and that doesn't bode well for any of the Democratic candidates. They can't live with that.
FoxNews, figures. No one else would have the guts to publish that crap.
Care to explain, SPECIFICALLY, what is illegal or improper about this impeachment process?
But you are correct, impeachment should be bipartisan, fair, and based on merit. Something McConnell has already completely disowned.
McConnell rejects Schumer's call for witnesses at impeachment trial
Because all witnesses they could call, support the impeachment. There are no witnesses that refute it.
The only thing bi-partisan in the impeachment were the Nay votes.
All the Republican witnesses called to testify would refute your claim. Trump's own, hand picked, people testified, under oath, against him.
I spoke of the actual Impeachment process, not the farce they were calling the "investigation" on whether or not to actually BEGIN the Impeachment Proceedings.
Would you care to explain, specifically, why you consider the investigation a "farce"?
"I feel like"
"I think"
"I believe"
"If"
are not evidence. Neither is the relaying of third-hand impressions. That is hearsay. Combine that with the "victim" not even knowing the money was on hold, and that the "victim" and the accused both say there was no "deal", you don't have any crime or evidence of a crime.
Think of it this way JR, if I were to run around NT here accusing you of being a paid Democrat Troll simply because it was my opinion of how you act and the only evidence I supply is the opinion of the other people you regularly piss off with your opinions and actions, what would happen to me??? I would get suspended and eventually booted. Keep in mind though, both Trolling and being paid to Troll are violations of the ToS here, so if you actually are, your "crimes" would be far worse than mine. Now say that in order to "legitimize" my claims and to avoid being booted for my hatred of you, I set up a kangaroo court hearing where I summon only the people who have previously told me they would accuse you of being a paid Troll and I refused to allow anyone who wouldn't say it to "testify", would that be a "fair" hearing? Certainly not to you! Of course it would be more than fair for me...it would be cheating! I would be cheating my way out of being held responsible for all the nasty things I had been saying about you--accusing you of doing wrong.
In order to pretend that it is somewhat fair, I allow some of your friends to question my witness's. My witness's can provide no actual evidence that you've done something wrong other than their opinions and some of my witness's were actually disgruntled former Members that you had a hand in their removal from the site. Would you call them "impartial"? What if some of them could only testify to what they heard some people saying about you. Would that be actual evidence that you've been breaking the rules? Or would you demand hard evidence such as recordings, or screen shots of you being a Troll?
Now let's pretend that this was being put to a vote of all the Members here, and 2/3's of the Members were on my side and are willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of you, and only 1/3 supported you. After the vote to boot you, even a few of the people on my side voted against your removal, but everyone on your side voted to keep you. Would you call that "bi-partisan" support for your removal, or would it actually be bi-partisan support for keeping you around?
Sometimes we have to step back from the fray and say "What if that were me they were after. What would I do?". Nothing awakens our sense of Fairness more than a personal stake in the fight, and while I may not like T-Rump, I do like the fact that we have that quirky little twist in law that says you must be PROVEN guilty by your accusers beyond a shadow of a doubt, not prove you're INNOCENT. The "investigation" failed miserably to do so. Under the guidelines of Impeachment, the Senate is supposed to review the submitted evidence and then vote on whether or not to convict. They are not supposed to be calling more witnesses, or searching for evidence, or anything else other than that reviewing. Based on all the evidence I've heard, they haven't proven a damn thing; voila'--a FARCE! Now since this whole thing has been based on opinions, and my opinion is that it is a farce, there is my evidence that it is a farce...
That's not true and you know it. You are making a blanket statement out of context.
Again, out of context. 3rd hand statements are considered evidence in some cases, especially when supported by further evidence.
You are out of date with your talking points.
Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense
Yeah, I'm sure the victim felt no pressure to not go against their own self interests. /sarc
You have yet to explain why you feel the investigation is a "farce", you have made erroneous claims about the witness statements, but nothing about the investigation itself.
Yes I have, and you refuse to accept it. That is what is known as a Personal Problem,
Dropping to personal insults? Sure sign of a losing argument.
Pointing out that not accepting proof is a Personal Problem is not a personal insult. It is a statement of fact.
Except you have provided no "proof". You have rejected the investigation for no particular reason, and cannot, legitimately, support that rejection.
I have rejected it as well as Democrat Congressmen by their Nay votes, lawyers, judges, law professors, and constitutional scholars--all for the same reasons. As for our "proof", all you have to do is watch the hearings and you will see every witness testify that NONE of them personally heard Trump say ANYTHING was conditioned upon getting Biden investigated. People testified to believing that to be the case or assumed it to be the case, but not a single soul testified that it was actually said by Trump and they heard it personally.
Now quit spinning in circles. Pelosi and the Democrats are seeking to undo a legal election. They better come back with more than suppositions, beliefs, and feelings or the backlash could be much worse than a lost election.
When Trump does it do you say the same thing?
I'll take your attempt at distraction to mean you acknowledge that no Republican has said, or could say, "Donald Trump is not a cheat" as a response to accusations that he has cheated.
You aren't going to try and tell me Schumer and the rest of the democrats are impartial are you. I don't have enough room for that load of bullshit.
Where are the Trump witnesses and pertinent government documents. Why the 'blackout' you guy needs relief from the system. Why are you not clamoring for the relevant proofs of Trump's innocence to appear yesterday? Save Donald Trump's presidency! Demand a 'flood' of documents and witnesses, now!
Hiding unclassified communications on highly sensitive national security government servers is NOT indicative of innocence, WallyW. Where did you EVER get that idea?
Not in your world. Listen, by the way, here is what is up: I am discussing a president of the leading country in the world. Now I don't know what the heaven you think you are discussing, but I hold my leaders feet to the proverbial fire and demand a standard of conduct and a strong sense of integrity. Sure, we all miss the mark on occasion, but I expect everyone (including myself) to toe the line on being truthful, decent, and honest.
If you don't that is not my fault. You can let any 'rebel' or 'fool' or "thug" you wish get off on your time. I ain't down with it no-time. So miss me with "innocence requires no proof."
An impeached president should have acted to not let a permanent extreme negative mark not be placed on his record, not with an expectation of some sycophants delivering him rigged justice!
If the founding fathers meant for politicians not to be IMPARTIAL, they would not have added in the word, SOLEMN, itself!
All politicians are politicians, first and foremost. However, that argument of yours (and Mitch's) is specious. Stop enabling Trump. He ain't worth trampling truth.
Cite specific examples from the COTUS where it says:
The President could have cooperated with the investigation, after all, if his phone call was so "perfect", but chose to stonewall instead. Personally, I think he is full of crap and wouldn't recognize fairness if it hit him in the face. He has always lied. He has always cheated. Always. If you get a liar and a cheat for President, what did you think he was going to do? Start behaving nicely?
As for the gentleman's position on why he changed his party, he read the tea leaves and thinks his side is where his bread is buttered. I love mixing metaphors.
One question has never been asked. Is Trump so unsure of himself with the next election that he has to resort to digging up dirt on an opponent's son? If he thinks that he has done such a great job so far, then he should show case those points, not stoop to backyard fence gossip. If he wants to play that, then I say expose the dirt in his house about his father.
People don't generally feel the need to ask questions everyone already knows the answer to. Of course he is.
Does he even realize the dirt on his children that can be released by his opponents? If that does happen, he will cry "No fair!" But it is him who has opened the door to the possibility.
Already out there and been attempted. Obviously a brick wall trying to make it stick of any consequence.
It has been proven what his father was. A racist prick that was caught.
Doesn't seem to bother a lot of people though...
So according to some, we should condemn Hillary for a family member yet not condemn trump for a family member.
What a silly argument. An elected official's ancestral history (using your inference) is irrelevant to the US Constitution's impeachment laws. Using your criteria, JFK, LBJ, and many other presidents could have been impeached for what their ancestors did.
Some are saying that a family member is a character witness yet only use this criteria for some.
Without your documentation of who "some" are, your comment is meaningless.
If that's the case I guess we should condemn the Democrat party for the racist policies they pushed in the pass...oh wait they are still racist.
I suspect that the people smart enough to not let it bother them have been able to realize that the sins of the father are not visited upon the son.
In other words, whatever you think Trump's father was is completely irrelevant.
Wow! Talk about apples and oranges.
In one case we have a long dead father of the person in question who never attained any level of significant public office and is ancient history. In the other case was have a husband, former POTUS, one of two POTUS's ever impeached in the history of the US and a study in very recent history. I suppose we could say that Bill is also related to JFK (7th cousin twice removed) and got his philandering ways from there but that would be an equally ridiculous comparison as Trump to Trumps father.
That said, what a ridiculous line of thought in either case.
The depths some will fall to protect the impeached scumbag.
You never heard the phrases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, or, like father like son.
What is ridiculous is seemingly sane people falling off the deep end.
Do you all ever stop to think maybe there is a reason trump supporters are always of the defensive?
Nope, nothing to see there...
Your 'president' is 300 pounds of stinky ass shit in a 200 pound bag
Yes do try to keep up. Do you think that any scam trial in the senate will change the house vote?
Yes he will forever have that asterisk next to his name as being impeached by the house.
I guess the right has moved on to denial...or never left there.
The depths some will fall.
So a father, that lived to 99' is a far away ancestor....
Shake it up baby now...twist and shout....
I completely agree. We've been watching a sort of collective "mass hysteria" from the left since Nov 2016. I've got a great memory and recall all the promises to "resist" Trump no matter what. Even if many were finally smart enough to stop saying it. There is little basis to the rants from the TDS ridden. Very little.
Their actions have been unconscionable really and a large portion of the nation knows it. You are digging yourself a deeper hole with each over-reaction and false accusation you make. The only people buying it are the TDS ridden .... no one else.
But you'll find that out the hard way again in 2020. Then you'll have another 2-4 years to spew sophomoric insults at a major portion of this country simply because they are not of like mind with you and yours. Congrats in advance for that .....
Some of us have better memories than others. Have been through eight years of people against Obama. Eight years of he is an illegitimate president.
What is unconscionable and the true TDS are the people so blind in their worship they twist and bend reality and perception.
So how was anything I posted a false accusation? Are you going to deny trump's father was arrested at a klan rally?
So getting so upset that one has to yell....
So no proof of Clinton being a racist except what you decry and there is proof that the trump father was.
In typical fashion blame others for what one is guilty of.
And you have yet to actually post a fact...
Hmmmm when was that? 1927? Many Democrats were the pride of the klan back then. Should that apply equally today? Never mind. I'm not really interested in the latest irrational musings about something that is meaningless today. Just like Trumps father.
Grasp at straws if you so choose. See you in 2020 and you aren't going to be very happy with the results. Better start planning for your next mass hysteria right now ..... it doesn't look good for you. Not good at all.
I can't believe you typed that. According to the US Constitution:
So he was arrested at a klan rally and then investigated for discrimination (with his son).
And the only come back is others were racist too.
No matter who wins in 2020 trump will always have his mark as being impeached.
I bet his father is looking up...
And we all know what is going to happen, just like with Clinton.
Does not remove the mark on his record.
That's a great platform for 2020. Make sure to pass that on to the DNC.
You're sure to clean house then ......
Why not...works for trump. His followers eat it up.
I'm not worried about it, because I've already managed to happily survive through several 2-term presidencies.
Huh? So according to you Clinton was never impeached.
Yeah Trump will. It is a permanent mark. And ain't no sense in trying to cover it up: the period is pass for that.
The time to stop the mark from erupting into plain sight for all time was when the House was asking him to come clean, Mr. President, please—COME CLEAN.
President Trump couldn't produce innocence then and he won't produce it in the Senate. So in come Senator "Toadie" McConnell and Senator "Shame" Graham and the chorus of fearful republicans to delude and water down the truth—if they can.
Anyway. IMPEACHMENT DON'T RUB OFF!
No, it is how Trump rolls. Issue the order, step hounds to track, go to bed; sleep, awaken release 'returns' to the media, pound opponent into the dirt with return bombast. Use media for magnification. Wash and repeat. Easy-peasy.
That depends on what the meaning of of the word "is" is.
So Clinton had to testify.
Why does trump not have to?
And why are all the Trump toadies who demanded facts and interviews when Clinton was impeached totally uninterested in facts when it's Trump - even going so far as to refuse to read the actual reports to see what the evidence is?
They don't care about the refusal of subpoenas, the refusal of handing over documents, the refusal of any cooperation, the continuation of what he is being impeached for.
Unreal. I guess for some a blowjob is worth investigating yet a shadow foreign policy deserves a look the other way.
Clinton did not testify in his impeachment trial.
And they still believe him when he claims to be the most transparent president ever.
It really is unreal. Who knew that so many Americans support our enemies over our country and Constitution?
He agreed to do it after they made an arrangement to drop the subpoena.
Yes. That occurred before his impeachment. Clinton did not testify at any impeachment hearings.
He didn't have to because he gave his deposition.
dn't have to because he gave his deposition
You don't seem to understand what happened. Clinton gave a deposition in a civil lawsuit and lied. He then lied to a grand jury.
That's what started the impeachment process.
He did not participate (as a witness under oath ) in the actual impeachment. He never gave a deposition as part of the impeachment process. Neither the House impeachment committee , nor Senate, ever questioned Bill Clinton under oath.
He made a deal with Starr.
He made a deal with Starr.
Clinton's deal with Starr had nothing to do with impeachment testimony. Starr had no power to make a deal with Clinton over impeachment testimony as Starr had no control or say in the impeachment process.
Ah yes, still resorting to sophomoric insults i see. Too bad.
Unlike others here, when it comes to "real" facts i try to have an unbiased desire to discover them all, regardless of party. That said, I wonder how many Clinton "toadies" here (your word not mine) felt Bubba's lies (a real fact) were acceptable. A whole bunch i bet if folks are honest with themselves. That said i have little interest in "faux" facts driven by only hearsay, TDS and partisan divisiveness.
Too bad more folks here don't feel the same way.
The point being made is moot. Clinton admitted his guilt at this point. The impeachment process continued with that knowledge. "Knucklehead" Donald owns nothing at all. Indeed, he is still decrying how "Perfect!" all his phone calls to world leaders are, even though he is suspected of using improperly secured communication lines, and making indecent and/or illegal nation-state propositions.
Welcome back Sparty
I have noticed that none of the republicans actually argue for trump on the merits of the case against him. They just decry the process and question motive.
The have forgone any attempt at governing for the people, it is for party line.
When we have the top senate repub saying he will work in tandem with trump and will not even try to appear impartial, something is seriously wrong.
I can't believe they will so blatantly violate their oaths. But then, their supporters simply don't care about laws or ethics or morals, so why should they?
It blows my mind when they show the difference with McConnell and Graham during the Clinton trial and now.
Complete reversal. Going from witness' should be called to no witness' etc.
Also shows me these people have been in office way to long.
His supporters use their often own bad behavior to justify supporting Trump's.
Lie - no problem
Cheat on taxes - no problem
Cheat on their spouses - no problem
Cheat creditors - no problem
Incestuous behavior and thoughts about their children - no problem
They see "no problem" because after all, the POTUS has and does do it so it must be okay.
"It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses," Chuck Schumer 1999.
What witness would they have to call against Clinton? Monica so she can outline all the jizz stains on a dress?
He was impeached for witness tampering. Hearing from those people would have been informative.
Hearing from the people in the trump Whitehouse would have been informative.
The only reason for them to ignore orders would be so the don't have to perjure themselves. Of course it is fine for them to ignore orders that you or I could not get out of.
Tripp secretly recorded conversation and they were investigating multiple things. From White water to the firing of travel agents. Talk about looking for a crime...
The even seized Monica's computer hard drive.
One thing that came out of it was the SC ruled that a president is not immune from civil suits.
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). The tampering was part of the OOJ. Hearing from the witnesses that Trump has blocked from testifying would be more informative.
And...
Because a tally is not any type of vindication.
In Watergate 40 officials were indicted or jailed.
And yet now we all know how Russia is trying to undermine elections.
It should have been known before yet now it is general public knowledge.
Yeah, I think so.
There is an element of "not dignifying something with a response", but avoiding perjury would certainly be a motivator.
You have to think the WH legal team is on the lookout for potential perjury traps.
Isn't that going before the SCOTUS? Should be interesting.
True. I get a feeling that either way it is ruled on will not be good.
Seems like a catch 22 situation.
Best friends until the end huh...
Saying Obama colluded with Russia is a desperate attempt to throw misdirection.
You are not wrong. No matter how that comes out, 30% of America is going to scream about needing to change the Court, 30% will celebrate them "finally doing the right thing" (aka "agreeing with those people), and 40% won't pay attention.
that is a fact.
if they are not on prescribed psychotropics, they should be.
Projection. It was not Obama that believes putin over our own intelligence agencies. Or basically giving Syria over to the Russians. Nor having meetings for unknown reasons.
if trump said this, the left would explode.
Talk about revisionist. Are you going to deny trump pulled out and Russia took over an air field...
Obama is the one who told our agencies to stand down in the face of Russian interference in the election.
And how was THIS good for us? Remember? You may want to read current events instead of old Trump puke.
Oh wait, of course we know why he did this. Not for the USA, that's for sure
You are right. He should have intervened and started world war three.
Funny to me how your only defence of trump is to attack Obama.
And if he would have done something the right would be screaming that he interfered in the election.
No, don't project.
Although it's funny you believe he was such a terrible President that he was petrified of doing anything to stop Russia because he might be criticized for it.
You actually think if he came out, with all that has happened, the right would have praised him?
No matter what is said it won't make a difference.
It will only be Obama did this, Obama didn't do that.
Some are so blind in their worship they can't see straight.
Seems like you can.
Oh, man, that wins the projection of the seed.
The entire world knows Trumps is Putin's cock holster. No way to spin that relationship.
Ender - 1
loki12 - 0
I don't care if they all say it. Nothing he has done would enable to him to "cheat" the election. The election will be just fine, thank you, in spite of all the hysteria we are hearing to the contrary.
They're just prepping the excuses.....................
McConnell has offered to proceed with the trial under the same rules all 100 Senators agreed to during the Clinton impeachment.
Why won't Democrats treat Trump the same as Bill Clinton?
That would mean trump would have to testify under oath.
He would still lie, even under oath.
Democrats started calling for Trump's impeachment before he was inaugurated. Neither they, nor Republicans, did that to Bill Clinton.
Using false, illegal FISA warrants, to boot!
So how was the trump campaign spied on when it was announced that there was no spy in his campaign?
Also Page had left the campaign when he was under surveillance.
Basically you are lying.
Who was that?
You can't figure that out?
Trump should have quit when he was ahead then,after Mueller testified to Congress and the consensus was he was a dud.
Instead, because he is an asshole, the very next day Trump asked yet another foreign government to help him in an election.
Maybe he should be kicked out for gross arrogance and stupidity.
Actually the IG said there was no partisan misconduct.
That is absolutely untrue. The opposite was found.
You will never convince a deep state conspiracy theorist that facts are true.
I think they're allergic.
you should read then report.
What baddish wrote it 100% accurate.
P.S. Your source doesn't address the point.
Unless BF can supply links to support that, it is not a fact.
yepp, trump is not playing the lefts childish games.
if I was trump, at this point id not give the left the time of day.
cheers
You mean besides an impeachable offense to defend against?
There is no defense at all, not from one Republican during the entire thing, all they did was make excuses and rant. Trump has admitted the wrong doing and doesn't care. That is the problem, and Republicans refused to have Trump, any witnesses or requested documents presented. Republicans blocked it, including Pence who refused to release his own defense by providing his transcripts of his own phone calls.
A flashback to a time before some of you were even born:
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,"
- Junior congressman Jerry Nadler on the Clinton Impeachment
O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
Apples and oranges. Clinton did. Trump won't. Marked difference.
President Donald Trump is an aggressive fraud. He won't come out with his hands up; even thoughhe is surrounded by republicans who love him, and the media which will air all the laundry he hampers over to it!
_
Sparty on! Hey, while you are digging through the "X" files of yesterday, can you kindly ask President Donald Trump to release all necessary documents and witnesses to the Senate, please. If you can not do that, then why hound democrats? We would love to have proof of Trump's innocence for the trial now.
Tell Donald Trump it is time to help us - help him! Release the documents and witnesses now!
Did what? Won't what?
Hey CB, how about you address the posted content instead of trying redirect or obfuscate what was said.
I know its tough for you but give it try. It will set you free
Clinton did turn over documents and witnesses to the House. Trump continues to obstruct the House and Senate by withholding those who can document and profess his innocence.
/ / / / /
Pick up your 'red herring.' Donald Trump, your president, has been impeached ALREADY. It is permanent. It is a stain. Why didn't President Trump who proclaims innocence not do everything in his power to avoid a permanent stain on his government record? Why, Sparty On?
Until you can answer why an innocent man would rather be 'branded' IMPEACHED rather than support his innocence - your comments are a distraction and you are not helping us or Trump with Trump.
Although impeached, he won't be removed by his Trump bots in the Senate. It is just too bad that there isn't a law prohibiting an impeached president from running for ANY office EVER. Of course Trump doesn't mind wearing a scarlet I as it fires up his base to send even more money, money he will keep.
Good Christmas Eve, Paula! Impeachment is a mark against the man who held the office. He will be casted with the infamous who are only a small number and thus, he can not hide in a 'sea' of other men. Though the die is not fully cast yet on Trump's trial, have expectation that this 'sewer' will upon his probable acquittal in the Senate, have the gall and fix his lips to seek to have his permanent Impeachment (stain) removed. Whether that can be done or not remains to be seen. He is the man to ask, nevertheless! Watch this space.
Apparently, Nancy isn't ready to "Let Go" !
The Houses so-called "Impeachment" is looking more like the "Ringling Brothers" Circus now !
Must …. find …… more …..unsubstantiated oddities ……. to make the house …… Great again !
Trump is such a narcissist that he will sign EO's removing the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson so he can claim being the only one to be impeached. He hates sharing the limelight with anyone or anything.
The good news I hear is impeachments are not pardonable. So Trump and those two others are SOL. This is the permanent mark! Though I don't think we have heard the worse of "King" Trump's discontent over it.
Makes sense since an impeachment is simply the equivalent of filing formal charges. Pardons are to excuse convictions, not accusations.
Makes sense. Of course, Donald Trump, I have expectancy, will ultimately get around to tweeting, talking, investigating, in an attempt to wipe out the strong blemish of impeachment from his political record. Afterall, he asked for it by his dangerous behavior.
He will be calling on loyalists to support his impeachment removal, nevertheless. I "fancy" this man relishes in the challenges of life.
Clinton DID lie under oath. Clinton WON"T tell the truth. That's a proven fact. Kinda unpresidential don't you think? But i understand that appears to be acceptable to you since your problem in this case isn't CDS but rather TDS.
That said you still haven't addressed my original comment but continue your attempts to deflect and obfuscate.
Sad, but nothing new in this case ..... SOSDD.
So conveniently you are quoting a democrat?
The point: Perjury is bad about a sex act is bad - it is not the same as abuse of power and (severe) obstruction of justice.
As to Nadler's statement above - he was posturing then, just as republicans are posturing now. The constitution does not concern itself with where the votes for impeachment come from-nor did it or could it anticipate the games politicians could and would invent for themselves in an effort to gainsay it.
Both sides would serve this nation better to get back in the center of the spirit of the constitution, by not quoting each other's pass insufficient statements.
Lastly, the people of this country deserves a government which works "on all cylinders" not this lawyerly all shades and no solids institution where truth is scuttled for lies.
Can you kindly ask President Donald Trump to release all necessary documents and witnesses to the Senate, please. If you can not do that, then why hound democrats? We would love to have proof of Trump's innocence for the trial now.
You can't be so obtuse as to not get the connection ...... can you? Posturing?
Nadler was right back then just like Reps are right today. Impeachment was never meant to be used as an oppositions political tool. Therefore, i was against it on Clinton just like i am with Trump and for exactly the same reasons. No President should get impeached to serve some misplaced sense of partisan expediency.
And that is all both were. Nothing complicated about it. High crimes and misdemeanors were not proven in either case. Not even close. No matter how hard the butt-hurt from either time tried/try to make it so.
I am NOT going to waste my time on your deflections. The case is made. The 'bed' is made. Now, the Senate needs to step up to do its proper job. Either the Senate will invite and hear the witnesses out-and read the documents, or it will not. At which point, the public will get to judge THE SENATE.
"Nothing complicated about it."
Still, you "beat feet" away from the actual statement:
Nice, the old Peewee Herman "i know you are but what am i" gambit.
Well played sir, well played. /S
Sparty On, you left 'consumables' on your plate.
You do realize that none of the House members are practicing lawyers and/or sitting judges correct?
The operative question you keep driving your big "Come And Take IT -cannon" wide field of is-President Donald Trump has been impeached. It will permanently mar his "stellar" record in the Trump Library no doubt. (Wonder where he will 'park' that gem of an impeachement document.)
Had he a proper defense, in the House would have been the forum to deliver his defense. No, your guy expects to come to the Senate, that house that is SUPPOSE to be the no-nonsense institution, and have senators eating out of his hand and still offer no defense.
Donald Trump is one corrupt son of a gun. And clearly, conservatives like that very thing about him.
You're making Trump into a kingpin in conservatism; the party that tries to tell everybody else to disavow kings. The pretense of truth and the "American Way" has fallen on hard-times among conservatives.
And what is so screwed up about it is, in order to 'win' some conservatives have turned to dishonest tactics and lying and cheating - heavens anybody can 'win,' to a point anyway,if they just want to be a pack of lying, cheating, thieves.
See 13.1.12 .... apply, lather, rinse, repeat as necessary ......
Yeah. Nothin' but net!
You can't even ask the child-like president to participate in his own defense. I told you-you were all about distraction and dropping red-herrings for others in discussion.
I know, I’ve always been a great shot.
Nice of you to notice. 👍
BRASS TACKS:
How do the House Republicans know President Donald Trump is innocent and not guilty when President Trump has not released the factual documents, emails, letters, records, or witnesses to any proceedings?
The House republicans are exposed committing an open fraud against their duties and responsibilities. The Democrats are right to move ahead with impeaching an un-actionable president.
see how fast that all fell apart?
LOL
Okay, explain that. What transcript? The summary version of the Ukraine-USA discussion (that one with the eclipses (. . .) that Trump can hide Air Force One in?), or the unsecured TRANSCRIPT tucked away 'smartly' on an highly-sensitive classified server in the government?
The witnesses? Well, I won't even dignify that one. No comment.
I repeat:
How do the House Republicans know President Donald Trump is innocent and not guilty when President Trump has not released the factual documents, emails, letters, records, or witnesses to any proceedings?
They did not deny any Republican witness who had actual knowledge of the issue at hand other than the whistleblower due to whistleblower protections they all previously agreed on. They did deny the Republican moronic request for Hunter Biden because he had NOTHING to do with what the whistleblower had complained about, the abuse of power by this President in an attempt to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political rival which would directly benefit his 2020 re-election bid. Republicans were basically trying to do the Presidents bidding even though they aren't the party in control of congress, to start their own investigation into the Hunter Biden conspiracy theories fed them by Russian propaganda. None of that has ANY bearing on what Trump did. Proving that Hunter Biden did or didn't do anything does not exonerate this Presidents clear abuse of power.
What apparently Republicans think justifies this is that IF Joe Biden is guilty of something, they want everyone to know before the 2020 election. Now, they have no actual evidence of any crime, zero, zilch, nada. All they have is their own opinions of Hunter being paid more than they think he was worth by a Ukrainian oil and gas exploration company. Did Burisma likely hire Hunter because of his name and contacts? YES! Companies do that shit all the time. It happens virtually every day in this nation. Now, is a company using a famous or connected person or their children for their name/reputation and connections illegal? Of course not.
What Republicans and dishonest Donald are claiming is that somehow Hunter used his family connection to get his father to abuse his power and get a prosecutor fired to protect their company. There is ZERO evidence of this claim. All the evidence we have shows Joe Biden following State department established policy in regards to the removal of a known corrupt pro-Russian prosecutor Viktor Shokin who had numerous ties to pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs was accused of, among other issues, slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.
So Joe Biden, following State Department and US foreign policy, pushed for Shokins removal. That's the entirety of the evidence the right has.
There is no smoke let alone smoking gun. They've been trying to claim that the smoke is the amount of money Hunter Biden was paid, but the facts show his pay was actually in line with many other gas and oil exploration company "consultant" hires, which we all know are just people who get them in the door to shake hands and meet their contacts which could prove financially beneficial for the company which isn't illegal although it may be distasteful. However, this does not in any way mean Burisma used their connection to Joe Biden to get him to fire the investigator (especially since Shokin was actually slow-walking the Burisma investigation), much like Trump actually did with Comey thinking that would take the heat off him over the "Russia thing". There is ZERO evidence of any calls, conversations, whistleblower complaints, state department personnel accounts, no one is coming forward from that time to say they have any evidence of Hunter Biden asking his father to corruptly remove the Ukrainian prosecutor in exchange for his paychecks from Burisma.
So we have much evidence of Trumps phone call and actions taken within the State department to withhold aid to an ally on condition of their announcement of investigations specifically into Burisma which the Trump campaign would LOVE to have for the 2020 Presidential campaign, especially after Trump saw the Fox poll putting Biden ahead by 11 points nationally in an imaginary match up between Biden and Trump. But we have ZERO evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden or his son, yet the Republicans want to call Hunter Biden as a witness in the case against Trumps actions? There really is only one reason Republicans would attempt so call Hunter Biden during the Trump impeachment hearings which is to obfuscate and distract from the fact they have ABSOLUTELY NO defense of dishonest Donald's actions as clearly laid out by numerous credible State department employees and civil servants.
Democrats called credible, honest and forthright civil servants to testify as to this Presidents corrupt acts that they had been informed had occurred by an official whistleblower who followed official whistleblower protocol.
Republicans wanted to call Hunter Biden and his business partner Devon Archer for a completely irrelevant fishing expedition so they could deflect and distract and actually give dishonest Donald what he wanted, dirt on Joe Biden for the upcoming 2020 election, along with the protected whistleblower who is also irrelevant because everything they blew the whistle on has been proven accurate from the mouths of the credible civil servants testimony.
The doctored transcript with at least 10 minutes missing
Also see CBs accurate version of the event not your whackjob version
Why, the truth makes you laugh?
the senate's job as a prosecutor is to prove him guilty. they failed, game over.
when/if the house files the paperwork trump will defend himself in the senate.
unless she does the paperwork pelosi has acquitted trump by default.
The game is not over.
That's just whack
sure it is... no matter what pelosi does trump is not being removed from office and he will be re-elected
in any scenario, the left loses again.
cheers
And pigs wanna be off the Xmas dinner menu. Speaker Pelosi does care about republican or Trump bluster: these days its all the same (bluster) anyway.
That is exactly what they were trying to do. Turn the inquest into trump into an inquest into the Bidens.
if trump has to defend himself from leftwing bs....
biden can handle some bs from the rightwing.
goose meet gander... LOL
("The House of") Mitch spoke : "This is a political process. This is not anything judicial about it." the Kentucky Republican continued. Afterwards:
("The House of") Nancy spoke : ' Not just yet—we need to see what the process is on the Senate side.'
WallyW, you were saying. Please proceed. . . .
Furthermore, if any of this was literal 'court,' a decision about documents and witnesses exposure would have been rendered a mere "thousand years ago."
Do you think a judge in a case against us would let you or I turn it into a narrative into someone/something else?
Thank you, DP. I, for my part, have no more tolerance for smelly republican red herring.
No tap dancing around this evidence. Republicans can not rule Trump acquitted unless they hear out both sides of the impeachment case against him. That requires documents and witnesses.
DP! Please email or phone Speaker Pelosi's office and leave a supportive message for her to stay the course and get righteous results.
Nancy Pelosi (email)
Washington, DC Office
phone: (202) 225-4965
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm
Everybody ! Call and email Speaker Nancy Pelosi! Show support and ask her to hold the articles of impeachment in her care until the Senate comes to its proper senses. Do not give republicans anything they can claim 'mileage' on. Let 'em choke out—politically.
Trump explaining why he asked the Ukraine help weed out corruption is NOT another subject. it goes to "motive. showing any evidence he had at the time to warrant looking into things is germaine to the conversation.
objection overruled.
Though he never once asked or talked about corruption.
Not in the 'transcript'.
so what... that does prove or disprove his intent. if he had real evidence and was just looking for more that is all he needs to prove intent.
if he was just on a fishing expedition his lack of evidence at the time would prove that as well.
here is the fun part.... details of bidens activities in the ukraine were read into the congressional record several times in the houses attempts to "get trump" for looking into the bidens.... LOL
Did you type that with a straight face ?
So you are going by...dare I say...hearsay.
I sometimes wonder if people realize that argument actually makes the case for the Dems. He is wanting for the country to dig into Biden.
Don't screw with my disco Nadine...
Boogie fever....
Duh! The House has impeached President Donald J. Trump, because Donald can't produce anything to show just how innocent an innocent thing he is. Boo!
Moreover, the Senate duties and responsibilities are to remove Trump (oust him) from office, or to allow him to stay (continue to serve); what evidentiary documents and witnesses serve to do is facilitate, establish an accurate assessment, and create a record of the decision-making process of the end result.
If you are not clear on what is happening, ask somebody already.
Odd how some change what they wrote completely....
I...Got the boogie fever...
You...Got the boogie fever...
that is exactly how innocent until proven guilty does not work.
the house only voted to impeach trump. when pelosi actually files the paperwork that is when he is officially impeached.
impeachment is the complete process, not a vote without further process.
all that happened is the senate failed to prove its case against trump. and exposed the bidens corruption to the congressional record multiple times.
personally I hope she does send it to the senate. nothing could be funnier than that.
cheers
Except Biden can't be impeached. And nor can he be locked up on "trumped up charges" —Pun intended.
I just thought of something. . . Biden can't be impeached. . . unless he becomes President of the Unit—gasp. . . . Very interesting my republican 'horserider.'
hearsay and speculation is all they had in the senate against trump.
do you have a problem with the bidens being treated differently than trump?
so we know for sure, I say, let the courts sort it all out.
besides, I am sure the bidens would be more forthcoming with evidence proving their innocence than trump was... wink wink
The operative question is this.
Can a presidential candidate ask a foreign country and its agents to look into his political rivals during campaign season?
T' Magic Eight Ball, please answer this one for the room.
it was not campaign season. (see next year)
now it is my turn.
can a president use foreign and national intelligence agencies to spy on a presidential candidate days/months before the election?
And all the record will show is just how half-ass asleep and mindnumbingly dumb republican congress persons can be. For I heard them quote a 1:40ish portion of a longer Youtube video where Joe Biden is holding a live sit down talk with two other men. In the longer video context shoots the pitiful results of the poorly edited version to stupid-ville. The only one's impressed by the stupid-version is republican congress persons who read it into the congressional record several times.
Got it, T' Magic Eight Ball? Research is your friend.
As far as I know the senate had done nothing...So therefor they don't have anything...
Why in the hell should Biden be treated the same as trump when he is not the one on trial? What in the world kind of logic is this?
Let me ask you a question...If they were actually looking for corruption and it included some of our own, why do they have a narrow scope?
I would think if it was true, look at Obama and his administrations actions. Look at the Ambassador at the time.
Noooo. It is Biden that did this. Only him. He is crooked.
Sure....
Okay. I guess we can stop here. You are going with "impeachment interruptus" - got it.
Notice you didn't get an answer. Like there is any particular time of year for campaigning.
that was the old world this is a brave new world. ya see things have changed or have you forgotten so soon?
all we need to do now is make an accusation and then we get to investigate the bidens or anyone for yrs if need be until we find something all the while demanding they are guilty until they prove they are innocent.
the new precedent set by the left has advantages for everyone... LOL we should add this as an amendment to the constitution. Ha.
Is Donald Trump a candidate for the 2020 campaign season, T' Magic Eight Ball?
Read it and weep:
Trump Set To Officially Launch Reelection Bid, But Hasn’t He Been Running All Along?
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Jessica Taylor / NPR
Photo by NPR
T rump Set To Officially Launch Reelection, But Hasn't He Been Running All Along?
President Trump will officially kick off his 2020 reelection campaign with a rally in Florida on Tuesday night. But in reality, he has been running for a second term ever since he took office.
The former reality TV star and real estate mogul — the first president without prior political or military experience — used an unorthodox campaign style to notch an upset win in 2016, with massive rallies to excite supporters. And he's employed that same strategy, with a heavily blurred line between official duties and trying to sell his agenda muddled with outright politicking, since taking office.
In fact, Trump filed his official paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 20, 2017 — mere hours after he was inaugurated. And less than a month later, he would hold a rally (also in Florida) that was paid for by his campaign committee. When asked by a reporter if this was too early in his presidency to hold such an event, Trump replied, "Life is a campaign." As president-elect, he also launched a "victory tour" of sorts to battleground states.
So while the Trump campaign may bill this as the official start of the president's bid for a second term, it's truly anything but. Since 2017, Trump has held more than 60 rallies. Nearly three-quarters of those occurred during 2018, where he was often stumping for down-ballot candidates in the midterm elections.
Source :
I say no.
What you got for me?
so then every day is campaign season?
OK fine. my bad.
so then there is no doubt obama spied on trump during campaign season. I'm ok with that.
and it won't help quid pro joe one bit.
That is the playbook for the right. Hell they did it to Hillary for years...
Now they want to do it to Biden.
I wonder what the common denominator is..oh yeah, they were/are presidential contenders.
Just don't look behind trump's own curtain.
Yeah. Tired, old, tactics are overrated. You know, all the opposition has to do is accuse one of another tactic: Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Thus, starting a dIFFerent set of investigations. Check-mate.
Thanks for the strategy heads-up! I hope Nancy and democrats are reading this!
LOL no need.
I learned it from watching them.
On January 20, 2017, also known as Inauguration Day, Trump filed a form with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) declaring that he qualified as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election.
The man held his first 2020 campaign rally on February 18, 2017.
Season schmeason.
Cute, but your horse has misstepped. Trump filed his official paperwork in January 2017 right after inauguration. Trump did it. He was being 'smart.'
Come to think of it, perhaps another deeper probe is called for to determine whether Trump has been illegally appropriating foreign information on other campaigns during his ENTIRE presidency.
Trump may prove to be too cute by half in continuing his official presidential campaign his whole presidency!
I'm going to contact. . . .
Doncha know, it's Christmas year round.
Sister! I was missing you this joyous season!!! So good to cross your path again in this line of 'work'! (Heavens, who cares if "they" think we take shifts?)
Hey you! Loving every moment reading you as you go by!
His inauguration resembled a campaign rally with the low turnout and the silly pass-the-hat shenanigans.
Now wait just a minute-before you depart. What do I do with this, Dennis? Tell me in all seriousness. Whatda I do with this?!
Just make sure you have a pillow for hard chairs.
Trump providing the transcript of the call is like a bank robber providing the hold up note. It would only say "This is a". The rest would be missing.
Naw. There has to be a reason Trump staff put an unclassified transcript into one of the "deepest" and "securest" servers in Washington, D.C.
I will tell you this. I am angry all day with how democrats and independents, and republicans (who care) have played "footsy" with President Donald Trump who is using his "small-majority" and the power of the presidency to steal from liberals what is justifiably the truth or make it of no effect!
It is time for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to get off their damn soft cushions (rhetorical) and get angry and get to brass tacks on showing Donald Trump what political 'warfare' looks like when it is fully engaged!
For example: As the democrats, independents, and republicans wait for the trial time to square itself - they should ask, demand, plead even with the courts to EXPEDITE all their cases. Congress should have at least this capacity with the third branch of government! After all, Congress is a synonym for "the people of the United States"!
I am taking bets now as to how many times Trump will mention the word Impeachment at his rallies.
Funny to me that they call all the witness testimony hearsay yet all they have from donald is hearsay.
Right on!
Gee maybe that because our system of Justice requires hard evidence to charge someone with wrong doing and those accusing are to provide it. The one being accused does not really have to produce any hard work evidence of his innocence . You know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing the left always forgets about.
See @ 14.1.14 Itty bitty baby
So there goes your theory of the case up in smoke. Now then, when the witnesses and documents do speak on the merits of the case, we will see how the politics fare for Trump.
For the record we can not treat Donald Trump any fairer, and neither can any republicans, if we don't have facts to peruse (go through). You don't want Donald to cheat or be cheated: do you?
The system also requires us, you know, regular folk, to reply to subpoenas. Not just be able to deny them and refuse to testify.
Watch how fast we would be jailed and fined if any of us regular folk refused a court ordered subpoena.
Good point! BTW, are democrats FORGETTING THE OBVIOUS if Donald Trump is not allowed to keep his office either by trial in the senate or through 2020 voting - he is going to face a "boatload" of legal cases and accompanying charges. It is another incentive to not listen to the chaos managers in Trump-land/Trump TV!
If we want Trump to finally face all the charges he has already and continually is stacking up; SEE THE MAN: get busy, "float like a butterfly; sting like a bee" and let's get the electoral college and popular vote on our side.
Democrats should already be working to listen and impress delegates to the college, if they know who they are (or suspect) whom they will be!
That may work.
After all, Democrats were predicting the largest amount of electoral defections in history in 2016, and they turned out to be exactly right!
...
I say go for it---AGAIN! It worked out so well last election I fervently hope Democrats adopt that tactic as standard election strategy.
Yeah well, I was not 'talking' to a Trump-lover extraordinaire. You have your king in service already. Perhaps Trump will navigate a different round of lies and smoke and mirrors this time around?
But why are you speaking anyway? You have yet to answer a question:
How do the House Republicans know President Donald Trump is innocent and not guilty when President Trump has not released any factual documents, emails, letters, records, or witnesses to any proceedings?
You already had yours. I think they called him ….. "Barrack Hussein Obama" !
Good Times....Good Times.
The "Beer Summits" were great back then. 
I really do miss that "Beer Summit" thingy. It was such a …...ummmmm …. hmmmmmm …. "Bacon-hater" ?
ooh, sorry, no, that is so false.
See, I live in America. where no one is king--not even in your fevered imagination.
Because it is a public forum, and I can. Next inane question?
Do you really care? If so, why? House Republicans have no say in impeachment trials. It would be rather silly to get worked up over someone who has no control over proceedings.
The House Republicans don't have to know if he is guilty or innocent. He isn't on trial in the House---or the Senate either, for that matter.
Trump is under no obligation to defend himself in any way. It is up to the House managers to prosecute their case successfully---if and when Nancy decides to send the impeachment to the Senate.
Why again is she dragging her heels again? Wasn't the 2+ years she admitted they have been working on impeachment enough? Wasn't the Great Mueller Report enough? Remember when a Trump Presidency constituted a Constitutional crisis??
Well at least you DO realize you have a republican "King" Cyrus.
I don't know, might the historic King been more honorable? 
I did ?
Where did that happen ?
That's full of BS. King Donad Trump has whipped the republicans in line. We are all mature enough to recognize the 'trappings' of the royal treatment. Jim jordan, Lindsay graham, mitch, "the boys and the gals republicans"? They are all under service and sway of King Trump.
The Republican Party has sold out. All which remains is to see just how long King Trump can reign in the United States. Just how long with the people allow it.
As soon as Trump asked the head of a foreign government to investigate Joe Biden he had committed an impeachable offense. It doesnt matter if there was a quid pro quo and it doesnt matter if Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld and it doesnt matter if the aid was eventually released.
The only thing that matters is if Biden was a 2020 election opponent of Trump on July 25, 2019. Since they are both running for the exact same office that requirement is completely met.
Trump has no defense to this charge. None at all. The only thing left to decide is if the USA Congress will do the right thing and remove him from office.
The Republicans have more than enough time to replace Trump on the party's ticket for next November.
One can see the extent of the Trump cult by noting how they start their replies by denying there is even any issue. They start with the conclusion that he must be protected at all cost and then try to cobble together a defense from there. Most of the defense is a simple denial of reality.
You have a rich imagination. Sometimes I fear you have blurred the line between reality and your imaigination.
This is definitely one of those times.
How did he do that ?
"Keep your own money" ?
"Jobs need to stay in America" ?
"Having jobs available for American Citizens is good" ?
"Our Military Citizens need to come home" ?
"America is the one that is supposed to be great" ?
"It's ILLEGAL to come across our borders" ?
"Illegals" are "Illegal" and break OUR laws, and should be stopped ?
"The rest of the world needs to pay their FAIR SHARE" ?
etc.....etc…..etc....
I'll take that whipping any time.
Those few things really suck, don't they !
Merry Christmas John! They are not going to speak on the merits. They want to put this fhit off right "in yo face" by ignoring rules and law. The proof is in the pudding. Watch Mitch McConnell go on Hannity and tell the "Kingdom" what he planned to do in plain sight of the opposition. Next, that ignoramus Graham has already said he is "making it plain" just how partial he plans to be in the impeachment trial—knowing he has to take a solemn oath of IMPARTIALITY ahead of his duties and responsibilities.
The hard truth is we will simply have to beat these republicans outright at every term. We have been told this is a war and rules do not apply. Call your congressperson and call Speaker Pelosi. Tell them, this is a political war without rules. So fight it that way!
Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham can go straight to [fill in the blank.].
Ok, and he has been impeached. Why again is Nancy dragging her heels? Wasn't her two+ years of impeachment enough, or the Great Mueller Report not enough?
You better hope the Democratic Party finds a more suitable candidate to run against him in 2020 than the clown show they have put on so far.
Now, that would be an incredibly stupid decision when the GOP already has a candidate who has proven that he could beat the very best the Democratic Party could offer up. Only a fucking MORON would think it wise to change.
Or someone who has a working moral compass.
Impeachment" isn't working ?
Now it's the "Voting Booth" again. That didn't work last time.
Like the Destruction of Libya for oil ?
That type of "Moral Compass" ?
My statement stands true as written.
Only a fucking MORON would think it wise to change.
Mitch and Lindsay can go straight to the Senate and wait on Nancy Pelosi to stop playing games and send the articles to the Senate.
Mitch and Lindsay can go straight to Trump's inaugural in January 2021.
I don't take my cues to reality from a King. No doubt that causes you some confusion about me and mine.
King Donald Trump has whipped the republicans into thinking high crimes and misdemeanors are a president's prerogative. For a good work I do not fault the man! For his abuse of the power vested in his office I am angry all damn day with Trump. And, It Is Me there ain't a damn thing you can say about it.
So much good passes you by with thinking like that.
It's as if you "Thought" the Political Regulars.....were "Gods", before Trump.
Apparently King Trump has the power to mastermind his own impeachment. Is there no one who can stop him now? Dead republican presidents are tossing and groaning in their graves this Christmas, watching this pompous ass colleague "do" impeachment poorly.
Whew! That's good news. Especially since we have no king.
Yay you!
Oh, not in the least. I see you!
Okay, finally ran out of new material? Good. No need to spin. We can call it a day.
Ouchy !
Looks like you have drained all your material too? I hope we're done here. Nice holiday we're set to have, how about you?
Naw--just what was necessary.
Why use the atomic bomb when a pea shooter will work just as well?
Cute. Big talk; small results. I'm sure any "atom bombs" republicans possess are under the control of one Donald J. Trump, the party's Liege.
Not sure quite how you misunderstood my post.
No need for me to use an atomic bomb when a pea shooter works just as well.
I'll explain it further if necessary.
"King Trump" —can you say and write it? He controls nearly every republican thought. You need not try to deny it-it matters not.
You are just as cute as a button with all of your King Trump hysteria, yes you are!
And you're cute in your denial of the truth ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT. This 'tap-dancing' around any question that would cause you to criticize Trump in any small or large way is not wasted on me and should not be on any one else here.
The question is 'fading' out from lack of any attempt at answering it from republican "big fhit" talkers! Spin! Distract! Spin! It all republicans got!
breaking news:
trump has brainwashed everyone, is going to put a lot of people behind barrs (pun intended) and then remain in office for a total of 16 yrs
It would be silly for someone to try to argue that Trump is an honest person.
Unfortunately, dishonesty is perfectly legal. For the moment, it also does not rise to the constitutional level of: "treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Not a cheat????
Ivana and Marla I think would disagree.
I am not sure anyone could utter the words: 'Donald trump is not a cheat' without tripping a lie detector.
If Trump does testify he should be hooked up to a lie detector as he does.
Well, if it did happen, wouldn't be the first time a POTUS lied under oath now would it?
This is an issue with lying - it claims its defenders.
No, but Trump would take it to a new level.
You don't like Trump, i get it. I think Clinton is a POS. I suppose we could try to debate levels of POSness but i'm afraid that would get us nowhere, so no point to it really.
It would be interesting.
the only thing missing? is pelosi... LOL