Something Missing From Trump Impeachment Defense

  
By:  john-russell  •  3 months ago  •  341 comments

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

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1    3 months ago
Cheat is kind of a childish word.

LOL.  Its no more childish than any other word. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

His election was fair and aboveboard. Exactly how did he cheat?/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @1.2    3 months ago
A number of Democrats have risen today and previously to say that President* Trump tried to cheat the 2020 election  (but got caught)
 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    3 months ago

You didn't answer WallyW's question.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.3  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.2    3 months ago

There's never any point to answering his questions. He asks the same ones over and over, even after repeatedly being provided with proven answers.

Some people don't actually have interest in facts, they're just here to troll.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.2    3 months ago

I did answer him. His question was about the previous election. Trump is not being impeached over the 2016 election. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.5  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    3 months ago
His question was about the previous election. Trump is not being impeached over the 2016 election. 

Oh, I see. Well, since  we can't discuss the 2020 election results yet, Trump isn't being impeached over that one!

So, do explain using details and factual links how Trump "cheated" on the 2016 election. (Caution - we have factual evidence that Hillary and the Obama WH/FBI/DoJ cheated during the 2016 election.)

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.6  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    3 months ago

No, he didn't....there was no proven quid pro quo.

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.7  lib50  replied to  WallyW @1.2.6    3 months ago

Yes there was.  He held up aid and a wh visit to force Zelinsky to announce a fake investigation into the Bidens.  That happened.  The announcement was cancelled at the last minute after the crimes became public.  The crime still happened. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.5    3 months ago
Oh, I see. Well, since  we can't discuss the 2020 election results yet, Trump isn't being impeached over that one!

Do you follow the news? Its hard to tell. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.9  arkpdx  replied to  katrix @1.2.3    3 months ago

"There's never any point to answering his questions. He asks the same ones over and over, even after repeatedly being provided with proven answers."

No he never gets proven answers, he get BS answers made up by the left 

S"people don't actually have interest in facts, they're just here to troll."

Yeah I think they are called democrats and liberals.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.10  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.8    3 months ago
Do you follow the news? Its hard to tell.

No need to make a hostile comment, John, especially when I made a jovial comment that ended with an exclamation point.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.2.11  SteevieGee  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.8    3 months ago

It's easy to tell.  He doesn't.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.12  CB   replied to  arkpdx @1.2.9    3 months ago

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif 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? Demonstrate you have pull with Trump first! That's all.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.13  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.2.7    3 months ago
He held up aid and a wh visit to force Zelinsky to announce a fake investigation into the Bidens

Please link to the witness that testified to this.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.5    3 months ago

So because they did that justifies Trump doing it also?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago
not one of them has said Trump is an honest man who would never cheat

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.3    3 months ago

Yeah everyone lies and cheats as much as Trump. He's just the victim of circumstances. Right. 

Eye-roll-Tina.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    3 months ago
Yeah everyone lies and cheats as much as Trump.

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.

 
 
 
CB
1.3.3  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.3    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
CB
1.3.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.3.2    3 months ago

Nice. Redirection to a smelly 'red-herring' road-kill.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.4.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  SteevieGee @1.4    3 months ago
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:

"Democrats have hated the President from day 1!"

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?

"The evidence is only hearsay!"

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.

"The process is unfair!"

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.

"It's all the Deep State!"

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.

 
 
 
katrix
1.4.2  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.4.1    3 months ago
At best they claimed the evidence against him was "hearsay"

And yet they refuse to allow the first hand evidence to be presented, because they won't let the people testify.

 
 
 
PJ
1.5  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.5.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @1.5    3 months ago

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-affordable-care-acts-individual-insurance-mandate-is-unconstitutional-11576709076

 
 
 
MUVA
1.5.2  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.5    3 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
PJ
1.5.3  PJ  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.5.1    3 months ago

Your comment makes no sense.  [delete]

 
 
 
PJ
1.5.4  PJ  replied to  MUVA @1.5.2    3 months ago

I'm feeling charitable today so I'm not going to respond to your comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.5.2    3 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.5.6  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.5.4    3 months ago

You don't have to answer it was rhetorical notice no question mark. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.5.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.5    3 months ago

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

 
 
 
PJ
1.5.8  PJ  replied to  MUVA @1.5.6    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.9  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.5.7    3 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
1.5.10  CB   replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.5.1    3 months ago

Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled on the Affordable Care Act during the Obama years?

 
 
 
CB
1.5.11  CB   replied to  CB @1.5.10    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    3 months ago

Democrats actually used the word...... "Cheat" ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 months ago

You can't say "Donald Trump is not a cheat " either.  At least not with a straight face. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 months ago

Why say something against something that was NEVER said !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.1    3 months ago

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...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 months ago
You can't say "Donald Trump is not a cheat " either.  At least not with a straight face.

Donald Trump can't even say "Donald Trump isn't a cheat" with a straight face.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.2    3 months ago
Just admit, Trump is a liar and a cheat

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. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 months ago

They did.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3  Ronin2    3 months ago

But soon to be former Democrat has called out his own party for this BS impeachment, and stated it for what it is.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/van-drew-reveals-reason-for-voting-against-impeachment

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it."

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair," Van Drew said on the latest episode of Fox Nation’s "Maria Bartiromo's Insiders."

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 months ago
But soon to be former Democrat has called out his own party for this BS impeachment, and stated it for what it is.

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.

“I’M NOT AN IMPARTIAL JUROR”: MITCH MCCONNELL DOESN’T EVEN PRETEND TO BE FAIR ON IMPEACHMENT

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.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    3 months ago
But you are correct, impeachment should be bipartisan, fair, and based on merit.

The only thing bi-partisan in the impeachment were the Nay votes.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.1    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.3    3 months ago
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"?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.5  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    3 months ago
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...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.5    3 months ago
"I feel like"  "I think"  "I believe"  "If" are not evidence.

That's not true and you know it.  You are making a blanket statement out of context.

Neither is the relaying of third-hand impressions.

Again, out of context.  3rd hand statements are considered evidence in some cases, especially when supported by further evidence.

Combine that with the  "victim " not even knowing the money was on hold

You are out of date with your talking points.

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

and that the " victim"  and the accused both say there was no  "deal"
  • The victim that stills need American aid?
  • The victim that knows how vindictive Trump is, and how Trump holds grudges?
  • The victim that fears loss of American aid if it makes statements against Trump, but Trump NOT being removed from office?

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.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.7  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    3 months ago

Yes I have, and you refuse to accept it.  That is what is known as a Personal Problem,

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.7    3 months ago
That is what is known as a Personal Problem,

Dropping to personal insults?  Sure sign of a losing argument.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.9  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    3 months ago

Pointing out that not accepting proof is a Personal Problem is not a personal insult. It is a statement of fact.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.9    3 months ago
Pointing out that not accepting proof is a Personal Problem is not a personal insult.

Except you have provided no "proof".  You have rejected the investigation for no particular reason, and cannot, legitimately, support that rejection.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.11  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.10    3 months ago
  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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    3 months ago

When Trump does it do you say the same thing?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
3.2.1  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.2  CB   replied to  arkpdx @3.2.1    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.3  WallyW  replied to  CB @3.2.2    3 months ago

Innocence requires no proof 

 
 
 
loki12
3.2.4  loki12  replied to  WallyW @3.2.3    3 months ago

They are posting the same ignorant shit they did during the Kavanaugh hearings, He needs to prove he is innocent....No he doesn't, the lying bitches own witnesses said it never happened. She proved herself a liar.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.5  CB   replied to  WallyW @3.2.3    3 months ago

Hiding unclassified communications on highly sensitive national security government servers is NOT indicative of innocence, WallyW. Where did you EVER get that idea?

 
 
 
CB
3.2.6  CB   replied to  WallyW @3.2.3    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
CB
3.2.7  CB   replied to  arkpdx @3.2.1    3 months ago

 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.

 
 
 
Thomas
3.3  Thomas  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 months ago

Cite specific examples from the COTUS where it says:

  • "impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual". (I mean, one would hope that it continues to be, but there is no constitutional requirement that I can find that says it is supposed to be that way.  And would you not consider the possibility of a POTUS soliciting the help of a foreign government in an election exceptionally unusual??)

  • "It is supposed to be bipartisan"  I don't believe there is any mention of parties anywhere in the constitution.

  • "It is supposed to be fair,"....Define "Fair."  The people who wrote the COTUS were adults and probably expected a degree of respect and decorum... I think that has been mostly lost in all political dealings.

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.

 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4  Paula Bartholomew    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4    3 months ago
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?

People don't generally feel the need to ask questions everyone already knows the answer to.  Of course he is.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4    3 months ago
If he wants to play that, then I say expose the dirt in his house about his father.

Already out there and been attempted. Obviously a brick wall trying to make it stick of any consequence. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.1  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2    3 months ago

It has been proven what his father was. A racist prick that was caught.

Doesn't seem to bother a lot of people though...

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.2  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago
Doesn't seem to bother a lot of people though...

Is that like voting for the Wife...Current Wife of a documented Racist?  I'd say that worse, You can't pick your family but you HAVE to choose to stay married to a racist like Bill.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.3  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.2    3 months ago

So according to some, we should condemn Hillary for a family member yet not condemn trump for a family member.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago
It has been proven what his father was. A racist prick that was caught. Doesn't seem to bother a lot of people though...

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.

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.5  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.3    3 months ago

Wow!!!! Can you choose who your father is?

Can you Choose to stay married to a racist? 

Can you see the difference? 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.6  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.4    3 months ago

Some are saying that a family member is a character witness yet only use this criteria for some.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.7  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @4.2.6    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.2.8  KDMichigan  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago
Doesn't seem to bother a lot of people though...

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @4.2.6    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.11  loki12  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.10    3 months ago

It's amazing what lengths the left will go to to protect their racists, while trying desperately to see racism that isn't there. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.12  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.10    3 months ago

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?

Trump was investigated by a  U.S. Senate  committee for  profiteering  in 1954, and again by the  State of New York  in 1966. He made Donald the president of Trump Management Company in 1971, and they were sued by the  U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division  for violating the  Fair Housing Act  in 1973.
 
 
 
Ender
4.2.13  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.11    3 months ago
Minority applicants turned away from renting apartments complained to the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the Urban League , leading the League and other groups to send test applicants to Trump-owned complexes in July 1972. They concluded that whites were offered apartments, while blacks were generally steered away. Both of the aforementioned advocacy organizations then raised the issue with the Justice Department . [53] In October 1973, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil rights suit against the Trump Organization (Fred Trump, chair, and Donald Trump, president) for infringing the Fair Housing Act of 1968. [53] In response, Trump attorney Roy Cohn countersued for $100 million by implicating the DOJ for allegedly false accusations. [53]

Court records showed that four landlords or rental agents confirmed that applications sent to the Trump organization's head office for approval denoted the race of the applicant. [54] A rental agent said that Fred Trump had instructed him "not to rent to blacks" and to "decrease the number of black tenants by encouraging them to locate housing elsewhere." [54] A consent decree between the DOJ and the Trump Organization was signed on June 10, 1975, with both sides claiming victory—the Trump Organization for its perceived ability to continue denying rentals to welfare recipients, and the head of DOJ's housing division for the decree being "one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated." [53] [54] It personally and corporately prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the ... sale or rental of a dwelling," and "required Trump to advertise vacancies in minority papers, promote minorities to professional jobs, and list vacancies on a preferential basis". [54] Finally, it ordered the Trumps to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis with ... the Fair Housing Act of 1968 ." [53] [55]

In early 1976, Trump was ordered by a county judge to correct code violations in a 504-unit property in Seat Pleasant, Maryland . According to the county's housing department investigator, violations included broken windows, dilapidated gutters, and missing fire extinguishers. [i] After a court date and a series of phone calls with Trump, he was invited to the property to meet with county officials in September 1976 and arrested on site. [57] Trump was released on $1,000 bail. [56]

Nope, nothing to see there...

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.14  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.12    3 months ago
The depths some will fall to protect the impeached scumbag.

Do try to keep up, he isn't impeached yet, even the lefts legal scholar says trumps not impeached until that bag of San Francisco shit sends the articles to the Senate, The democrats in the house have provien themselves morons again!

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.15  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.13    3 months ago
Nope, nothing to see there...

Agreed!!!! FFS Donald Trump is responsible for Fred Trumps actions?   Hillary is married to a racist POS,

She Chooses to stay married to a racist POS so she is a racist POS. PERIOD!!!!!!

Obama's ancestors owned slaves what a fucking POS he is....Because according to your stellar logic he is responsible for his ancestors actions right?  Is that the bullshit you are supporting? or is only Trump resposible for his ancestors? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @4.2.14    3 months ago

Your 'president' is 300 pounds of stinky ass shit in a 200 pound bag

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.17  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.16    3 months ago

He's your president too!!!!! Congrats!

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.18  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.14    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.19  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.15    3 months ago

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....

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.20  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @4.2.12    3 months ago
What is ridiculous is seemingly sane people falling off the deep end.

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 ..... 

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.21  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.18    3 months ago
Do you think that any scam trial in the senate will change the house vote?

Holy shit.....are you so far behind, What Senate trial? until Pelosi sends the impeachment to the Senate it doesn't exist.  PERIOD!!!!!!  Once it goes to the Senate, and only then is he impeached, you knew this right?

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.22  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.19    3 months ago

And again you are holding the son responsible for the actions of another.  

TRUMP HAD NO CHOICE IN WHO HIS FATHER WAS!!!!!!  BAG O SHIT Hillary the racist does!

Which part of this can you not understand? maybe i can explain the difference between choosing to stay with a racist and having no choice.

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.23  loki12  replied to  Ender @4.2.19    3 months ago
So a father, that lived to 99'

You can't even get the most basic facts right.   Sigh.............Dismissed.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.24  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.20    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.25  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.22    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.26  Ender  replied to  loki12 @4.2.23    3 months ago

And you have yet to actually post a fact...

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.27  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @4.2.24    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.28  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @4.2.18    3 months ago
Do you think that any scam trial in the senate will change the house vote?

I can't believe you typed that. According to the US Constitution:

  • The US HoR provides article(s) of impeachment to the Senate. It cannot convict and sentence.
  • US Senate holds a trial. It convicts or acquits said president.
 
 
 
Ender
4.2.29  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.27    3 months ago

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...

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.30  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.28    3 months ago

And we all know what is going to happen, just like with Clinton.

Does not remove the mark on his record.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.31  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @4.2.29    3 months ago

That's a great platform for 2020.   Make sure to pass that on to the DNC.

You're sure to clean house then ......

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.32  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.31    3 months ago

Why not...works for trump. His followers eat it up.

 
 
 
loki12
4.2.34  loki12  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.27    3 months ago
Many Democrats were the pride of the klan back then. 

They are still telling us that African Americans are too stupid to get into college without their help, or get ID's to vote. doesn't seem like much has changed, except their projections onto others.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.35  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @4.2.30    3 months ago
And we all know what is going to happen, just like with Clinton.

I'm not worried about it, because I've already managed to happily survive through several 2-term presidencies.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2.36  WallyW  replied to  Ender @4.2.29    3 months ago

No matter who wins in 2020 trump will always have his mark as being impeached.

Not if he's acquitted

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.37  Ender  replied to  WallyW @4.2.36    3 months ago

Huh? So according to you Clinton was never impeached.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.38  CB   replied to  WallyW @4.2.36    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
WallyW
4.3  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4    3 months ago

Shouldn't Biden and everything about him be investigated in depth?

After all, Trump has been fair game for years now

 
 
 
CB
4.4  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5  Sparty On    3 months ago

That depends on what the meaning of of the word "is" is.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @5    3 months ago

So Clinton had to testify.

Why does trump not have to?

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.1  katrix  replied to  Ender @5.1    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.2  Ender  replied to  katrix @5.1.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1    3 months ago
So Clinton had to testify.

Clinton did not testify in his impeachment trial. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.4  katrix  replied to  Ender @5.1.2    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.5  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    3 months ago

He agreed to do it after they made an arrangement to drop the subpoena.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.5    3 months ago

Yes. That occurred before his impeachment. Clinton did not testify at any impeachment hearings. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.7  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    3 months ago

He didn't have to because he gave his deposition.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.7    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.9  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.8    3 months ago

He made a deal with Starr.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.9    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @5.1.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.12  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    3 months ago
1998
Clinton appears via closed-circuit television before a grand jury. He admits his relationship with Lewinsky was sexual and later appears on national television to say he "misled people" and to lash out at Kenneth Starr.
Source: https://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/881-chronology

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.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Sparty On @5    3 months ago

Welcome back Sparty

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
katrix
6.1  katrix  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  katrix @6.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  katrix @6.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    3 months ago
Complete reversal. Going from witness' should be called to no witness' etc.

"It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,"  Chuck Schumer 1999.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.4  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    3 months ago

What witness would they have to call against Clinton? Monica so she can outline all the jizz stains on a dress?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.4    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.6  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.5    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.7  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.6    3 months ago
Talk about looking for a crime...

More people went to jail for Whitewater than Russian collusion....Which was zero! Also more people went to jail for Whitewater than Muellers team prosecuted. You knew that right?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.5    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.9  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.7    3 months ago

And...

David Hale , the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal. [3]  The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons. [4]  A  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project.  Jim Guy Tucker , Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter. [5]  Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for  refusing to answer questions  relating to Whitewater.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. Link
 
 
 
loki12
6.1.10  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.9    3 months ago

And that’s not what I said! 

Did more people go to jail for whitewater than Russian collusion?

Can you answer without deflection to something I didn’t say or claim?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.11  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.10    3 months ago

Because a tally is not any type of vindication.

In Watergate 40 officials were indicted or jailed.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.12  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.11    3 months ago

And zero for Russian collusion, so which worthless fucktard were you saying was in search of a crime again? ADam Schitt? Or was it Jerry Nadless?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.13  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.12    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.6    3 months ago
Hearing from the people in the trump Whitehouse would have been informative.

Yeah, I think so.

The only reason for them to ignore orders would be so the don't have to perjure themselves.

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. 

Of course it is fine for them to ignore orders that you or I could not get out of.

Isn't that going before the SCOTUS?  Should be interesting.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.15  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.14    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.16  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.13    3 months ago

Obama did know, he did the same thing he did when his friend Putin annexed Crimea, or bombed Americans in Syria. Nothing!

Hillary also knew, she was paying someone to work with Russia to gather information on her opponent, Steele ring a bell?

Thanks to Mueller, the only 1 we are 100% sure didn’t collude with Russia is Donald Trump.

how is it you don’t know this?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.17  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.16    3 months ago
President-elect Donald Trump got a letter of holiday greetings from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump's transition team provided a translated copy. In it, Putin says he hopes the two leaders will be able to act in a constructive and pragmatic manner to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation and collaborate on the international scene. Well, Trump called the letter very nice and said Putin's thoughts were so correct. Earlier today, Putin held his annual press conference in Moscow. As NPR's Lucian Kim reports, Putin heaped praise on Trump and skewered the Obama administration. Link

Best friends until the end huh...

Saying Obama colluded with Russia is a desperate attempt to throw misdirection.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.18  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.17    3 months ago

It’s factually based! The trump cooperation with Russia is the fantasy of idiots, I listed several things where Obama bowed to Russia. Plus he refused to sell weapons to Ukraine, Trump sold weapons to Ukraine!

if anybody was sucking Putin’s dick, it was Obama, there is no disputing this.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.15    3 months ago
Seems like a catch 22 situation.

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.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.20  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  loki12 @6.1.18    3 months ago
The trump cooperation with Russia is the fantasy of idiots,

that is a fact. 

if they are not on prescribed psychotropics, they should be.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.21  loki12  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.20    3 months ago

It is amazingly simple, if the democrats accuse you of something, look at their actions, Odds are they are guilty themselves and are just deflecting from their own bad actions.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.22  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.18    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @6.1.22    3 months ago
Projection. It was not Obama that believes putin over our own intelligence agencies.

if trump said this, the left would explode.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.24  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.22    3 months ago

Talk about projection!!! It was absolutely Obama Putin’s cock holster who turned over Syria to Russia, holy crap! Do you not remember the red line that Putin used Barry’s ass to erase? 

You do know the only one to order the bombing and killing of Russians in Syria was trump right? 

So while Putin was bombing Americans under Barry, We have been bombing and killing Russians under trump.

How can you post on political forum and be so uninformed?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.25  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.24    3 months ago

Talk about revisionist. Are you going to deny trump pulled out and Russia took over an air field...

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.26  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.25    3 months ago

A whole airfield? After Obama  gave them the entire country?

you realize Russia had ports and airbases there already, right? Those things trump bombed while Barry did nothing.

so how many Americans are you willing to Kill to overthrow Syria? Just a rough number will do.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.27  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.25    3 months ago

Just out of curiosity, was this airfield bigger or smaller than Barry’s gift of Crimea to his lover Vlad?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @6.1.22    3 months ago
t was not Obama that believes putin over our own intelligence agencies

Obama is the one who told our agencies to stand down in the face of Russian interference in the election. 

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.29  lib50  replied to  loki12 @6.1.26    3 months ago

And how was THIS good for us?  Remember?  You may want to read current events instead of old Trump puke.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10160873/us-bombs-its-own-syrian-base-weapons/

THE US Air Force has carried out precision strikes on its own ammo dumps in Syria over fears weapons could fall into the wrong hands. The munitions were left behind when Donald Trump suddenly pulled his troops out of the battle-scarred country at the beginning of last week.

Oh wait, of course we know why he did this.  Not for the USA, that's for sure

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-free-hand-syria-putin-cant-believe-luck-2019-10

Russian President Vladimir "Putin likely can't believe his luck, " said a Western military official from the anti-ISIS coalition who recently served in Syria. "A third of Syria was more or less free of ISIS, and its security was good without any involvement of the regime or Russia, and now because of the Turkish invasion and American pullout, this area is wide open to return to government control.

"What was supposed to be a diplomatically complex issue that would have involved US and European military power suddenly got as simple as sending in tanks and units unopposed throughout the eastern third of Syria," said the official, who did not have permission to speak to the media.

Syrian troops and their Russian advisers were invited into the enclave that Kurds call Rojava by the head of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-dominated militia that with US assistance had driven ISIS out of northeastern Syria, after the realization that the Americans would do nothing to protect the group from an invasion of Turkish troops and Syrian rebel proxies along the border.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/us-syria-isis.html

Indeed, just last week the Defense Intelligence Agency warned in an inspector general’s report that with American and Syrian Kurdish operations diminished, ISIS would most likely exploit the reduction in counterterrorism pressure to regroup in Syria and expand its ability to conduct transnational attacks. These concerns have spurred American commanders to rush to resume their missions with the Syrian Kurds.

The intelligence agency said that the death of Mr. al-Baghdadi would probably have “little effect” on the Islamic State’s ability to regroup.

Mr. Trump had first declared victory in the fight against ISIS in late 2018, and ordered a full withdrawal of the 2,000 American troops on the ground. The military reduced the number to 1,000 — but quietly continued fighting ISIS, in particular working with Syrian Kurds.

After Mr. Trump ordered the withdrawal of the 1,000 troops in October, Vice President Mike Pence reached a deal with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that accepted a Turkish military presence in a broad part of northern Syria in exchange for a cease-fire. The deal amounted to a near-total victory for Mr. Erdogan , as thousands of Syrian Kurds were forced to flee south, often battling with ill-disciplined Turkish proxy forces as they went.

The United States considers the Syrian Kurds a pivotal partner in the fight on the ground against ISIS, but Turkey views them as terrorists, a distinction that has repeatedly put Washington in a difficult position.

Syrian Kurds who counted the United States as a friend and an ally accused Washington of betrayal immediately after the withdrawal from the border and the Turkish offensive. Army Green Berets who had fought alongside the Kurds and praised them for their valor said they felt ashamed at how the United States had treated the Kurds.

General McKenzie insisted that relations between the two sides were now “pretty good.” He did not say, however, how long American troops would stay in northern Syria. “We don’t have an end date,” he said twice during an interview with reporters on Saturday.

With a mercurial president who has twice in 10 months ordered all American troops out of Syria immediately — only to reverse himself twice after aides implored him to reconsider — other senior commanders say the Pentagon has to be ready for another no-notice message on Twitter that American troops are leaving, oil or not.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.30  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.27    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.31  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.28    3 months ago

And if he would have done something the right would be screaming that he interfered in the election.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @6.1.31    3 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.33  loki12  replied to  lib50 @6.1.29    3 months ago

Is that better or worse than leaving our embassy and all weapons behind for Iran in Yemen?

i will ask you , how many American lives is the shit hole Syria worth to you?

Its obvious Obama wa Putin’s cockholster after everything he gave him.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.34  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.31    3 months ago

You mean like campaigning for Hillary and using the FBI to spy? Thinks like that?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.35  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.30    3 months ago

It’s funny how you don’t hold Odickhead to the same standards you do trump. How many Americans has Trump murdered without due process?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.36  loki12  replied to  lib50 @6.1.29    3 months ago

Holy fuck! You’re whining that trump left Syria after he kicked Obama’s buddies ISIS ass? That’s what you are whining about? Obama sucked ISIS dick and trump takes all their territory and you complain about trump?

how many dead Americans will it take to satisfy your trump hate? 1000? 10,000? How many?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.37  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.30    3 months ago

He should have started WW3 he says sarcastically as he whines about trump who is actually doing something in defense of Putin’s Cockholster. 

You just can’t make this shit up.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.38  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.32    3 months ago

You actually think if he came out, with all that has happened, the right would have praised him?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.39  Ender  replied to  lib50 @6.1.29    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.40  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.37    3 months ago
You just can’t make this shit up

Seems like you can.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.41  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.40    3 months ago

Repeating your position is not making it up, everything I post is fact, you have feelings, which is why the left will fail in their impeachment efforts.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.42  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.39    3 months ago

Pot or kettle? Obama sucks Putin’s cock so you hate trump.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.43  lib50  replied to  loki12 @6.1.42    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.44  loki12  replied to  lib50 @6.1.43    3 months ago

Of course it's so obvious, after trump allowed Putin to annex Crimea,  and then bomb US soldiers in Syria, and then he allowed him to mess with the 2106 election.  After Bush put crushing sanctions on russia for invading Georgia, Trump sent his pet bitch with a plastic reset button to mollify putin..... You convinced me, the person who did all these things is definitely Putins cock holster and little bitch!   Try harder, 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.45  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @6.1.40    3 months ago

Ender - 1

loki12 - 0

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2  WallyW  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago

The Democrats certainly have not been impartial or fair

 
 
 
The People's Fish
6.2.1  The People's Fish  replied to  WallyW @6.2    3 months ago

I mean Democrats are fair, They found someone to do the Russia Hoax investigation that didn't know who Fusion GPS was. "Do you know who Fusion GPS is?" Um no....You are hired.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  The People's Fish @6.2.1    3 months ago
I mean Democrats are fair, They found someone to do the Russia Hoax investigation that didn't know who Fusion GPS was. "Do you know who Fusion GPS is?" Um no....You are hired.

And the relied so much on Mueller's report. Once it was a dud, they moved onto other sparkly things.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    3 months ago
A number of Democrats have risen today and previously to say that President* Trump tried to cheat the 2020 election

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago

They're just prepping the excuses.....................

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

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? 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 months ago

That would mean trump would have to testify under oath.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @8.1    3 months ago

He would still lie, even under oath.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 months ago
Why won't Democrats treat Trump the same as Bill Clinton? 

Democrats started calling for Trump's impeachment before he was inaugurated. Neither they, nor Republicans, did that to Bill Clinton.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.2.1  The People's Fish  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.2    3 months ago

Let's not forget they spied on his campaign too and still couldn't beat the guy. Ooops bad candidate I suppose. She cheated and still lost. Instead of cleaning up their act they've doubled down. Ouch, it's not going to end well.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.1    3 months ago
Let's not forget they spied on his campaign too and still couldn't beat the guy.

Using false, illegal FISA warrants, to boot!

 
 
 
Ender
8.2.3  Ender  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.1    3 months ago
Republican lawmakers have claimed the FBI overreached when it sought a warrant to monitor Page in October 2016, shortly after he left the Trump campaign . Link
 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.2.4  The People's Fish  replied to  Ender @8.2.3    3 months ago

Are we going to debate spying synonyms? I'm really good at that just a fair warning.

The Obama admin spied on the opposition political party, it's just a fact. "hey but Adam schiff said......" Err ya and the IG shmeckled Adam shiff with his dick and his report.

 
 
 
Ender
8.2.5  Ender  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.4    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.4    3 months ago
The Obama admin spied on the opposition political party, it's just a fact.

Who was that? 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.2.7  The People's Fish  replied to  Ender @8.2.5    3 months ago

They used wire taps, confidential informants and a phony intelligence briefing. Please pay attention homeslice. The IG uncovered it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @8.2.5    3 months ago
how was the trump campaign spied on when it was announced that there was no spy in his campaign

You can't figure that out? 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.2.9  The People's Fish  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.8    3 months ago

Someone didn't read the IG report. I'm not going to call anyone out specifically, that would be rude.

Funny thing is the lefty media actually reported all of this prior based on leaks designed to weaken the president but then they denied it later and said they were misinformed. Then the IG made them out to be liars....but but Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.9    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.2.11  Ender  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.9    3 months ago

Actually the IG said there was no partisan misconduct.

The FBI interest in Manafort dates back at least to 2014

.

Investigators have spent years probing any possible role played by Manafort's firm and other US consultants, including the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC, that worked with the former Ukraine regime. The basis for the case hinged on the failure by the US firms to register under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law that the Justice Department only rarely uses to bring charges. 

.

As Manafort took the reins as Trump campaign chairman in May, the FBI surveillance technicians were no longer listening. The fact he was part of the campaign didn't play a role in the discontinued monitoring, sources told CNN. It was the lack of evidence relating to the Ukraine investigation that prompted the FBI to pull back. 

.

Manafort was ousted from the campaign in August. By then the FBI had noticed what counterintelligence agents thought was a series of odd connections between Trump associates and Russia. The CIA also had developed information, including from human intelligence sources, that they believed showed Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered his intelligence services to conduct a broad operation to meddle with the US election, according to current and former US officials.
The FBI surveillance teams, under a new FISA warrant, began monitoring Manafort again, sources tell CNN. Link
So the two people that were investigated were not part of the campaign when they were investigated...
 
 
 
lib50
8.2.12  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @8.2.7    3 months ago
They used wire taps, confidential informants and a phony intelligence briefing. Please pay attention homeslice. The IG uncovered it.

That is absolutely untrue.  The opposite was found.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/786323546/doj-inspector-general-testifies-on-fbi-probe-of-trump-campaign

In response to Democrats on the panel, Horowitz said his office "certainly didn't see any evidence" in FBI or Justice Department files that former President Barack Obama asked the U.S. government to investigate Donald Trump's campaign, as Trump has charged . Nor, Horowitz said, was there any evidence that the Obama administration tapped Trump's phones at Trump Tower.
 
 
 
katrix
8.2.13  katrix  replied to  lib50 @8.2.12    3 months ago

You will never convince a deep state conspiracy theorist that facts are true.

I think they're allergic.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @8.2.12    3 months ago

you should read then report.

What baddish wrote it 100% accurate. 

P.S. Your source doesn't address the point.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.2.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.6    3 months ago

Unless BF can supply links to support that, it is not a fact.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
9  The People's Fish    3 months ago

The democrats had no choice, two flagged money laundering payments to Joe Biden's son were going to be investigated. Joe Biden is the likely nominee. They had to accuse Trump of wrong doing to run cover for Joe. Unfortunately Joe will likely go down in flames over his admitted Quid Pro Quo. There is no doubt because he confessed on tape.

Their impeachment deflection backfired. A beatable at the ballot box Trump will shlong them now. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. They are fluffing the donald for 2020.

Get a viable candidate and a platform that resonates with voters. Right now you have neither.

Americans know the economy is amazing. How will democrats improve that economy? We've heard not a single Idea that a reasonable person would attribute to economic prosperity.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @9    3 months ago

Can you say "Donald Trump is not a cheat"  with a straight face ? 

Maybe you can be the first person in history to do so. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
9.1.1  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    3 months ago

Oh that's right, he beat Hillary and you told us she was guaranteed to win 107%. She tried to cheat by hiring a foreign agent to collect Russian disinformation. Then she and Obama spied on his campaign and still couldn't find cheating. Then they hired 13 democrats headed by a drooling has been and they couldn't find cheating. Then we found out the FBI cheated on the fisa warrant. 

Whatever makes you feel better because you will need it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @9.1.1    3 months ago

The word Trump does not appear in your reply. 

You do refer to Hillary three times, Obama once, Hillary and Obama together twice, and the FBI once. 

No Trump though. 

Thank you BF, you make a good witness for the prosecution. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
9.1.3  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    3 months ago

There must first be a crime for a prosecution homeskillet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @9.1.3    3 months ago

High crimes and misdemeanors home fry. 

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.5  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.4    3 months ago

Is a high crime one that is committed will smoking weed home boy?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.4    3 months ago
High crimes and misdemeanors home fry

Define them please................Onion ring

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @9.1.5    3 months ago

when you have no facts, tell jokes.  Understandable. 

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.8  MUVA  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.6    3 months ago

You tell them cheese curd.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.9  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.7    3 months ago

What's fact do you want I willing to teach you anything you need.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.10  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.7    3 months ago

I thought it was a clever play on words.  Many of us have used a play on words before to make a clever comment.  I know I have.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
Something Missing From Trump Impeachment Defense

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 :)

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
11  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 months ago
Something Missing From Trump Impeachment Defense

You mean besides an impeachable offense to defend against?

 
 
 
freepress
12  freepress    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13  Sparty On    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
CB
13.1  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13    3 months ago

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! 

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1    3 months ago
Clinton did. Trump won't.

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

 
 
 
CB
13.1.2  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.1.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @13.1.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.4  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13.1.3    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13.1.3    3 months ago
Although impeached, he won't be removed

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 ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @13.1.4    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.7  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13.1.6    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  CB @13.1.7    3 months ago

Makes sense since an impeachment is simply the equivalent of filing formal charges.   Pardons are to excuse convictions, not accusations.   

 
 
 
CB
13.1.9  CB   replied to  TᵢG @13.1.8    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.11  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.1.10    3 months ago
"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

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1.11    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.13  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.1.12    3 months ago

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:

  1. 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.
 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1.13    3 months ago
I am NOT going to waste my time on your deflections.

Nice, the old Peewee Herman "i know you are but what am i" gambit.

Well played sir, well played. /S

 
 
 
XDm9mm
13.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @13.1.13    3 months ago
If you can not do that, then why hound democrats?

If the Democrats did not have sufficient EVIDENCE to impeach President Trump, maybe they should have waited until they did.  You know, like take Trump to court and have the courts force Trump to make witnesses available.  What is actually quite telling is that the one time they actually did that, they never even called the person to testify.   Why is that CB?  Were they simply terrified that they would not hear what they oped they would?

We would love to have proof of Trump's innocence for the trial now.

Here's a hint CB.  In our system a defendant does not need to prove innocence.  The "prosecution" needs to prove guilt.  And the best part now is that the Democrats have proved nothing.  About the only thing they have proved is a deep seated vitriolic hatred of Donald Trump and any and all that support him, Republicans in general, and their own failures. 

 
 
 
CB
13.1.16  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.1.14    3 months ago
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:

  1. 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.

Sparty On, you left 'consumables' on your plate. 

 
 
 
CB
13.1.17  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @13.1.15    3 months ago
In our system. . .

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1.16    3 months ago

See 13.1.12 .... apply, lather, rinse, repeat as necessary ......

 
 
 
CB
13.1.19  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.1.18    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.1.19    3 months ago
Yeah. Nothin' but net!

I know, I’ve always been a great shot.

Nice of you to notice.   👍

 
 
 
CB
14  CB     3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14    3 months ago
Trump has not released the factual documents,
  • trump released the factual documents AKA the transcripts
or witnesses to any proceedings
  • the house denied the gop witnesses

see how fast that all fell apart?

LOL

 
 
 
CB
14.1.1  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1    3 months ago
trump released the factual documents AKA the transcripts

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?

 
 
 
loki12
14.1.2  loki12  replied to  CB @14.1.1    3 months ago

Lets start with a simple question, do you know what country you are in?

If the Answer is the USA, then you should know that Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence to anybody, the low functioning morons in the house have to prove guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt, which they failed to do spectacularly, which is why the vote to NOT impeach was bipartisan, and the vote to impeach was a group that shares a single brain.

 
 
 
WallyW
14.1.3  WallyW  replied to  CB @14.1.1    3 months ago

Guilt has to be proven.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1    3 months ago
the house denied the gop witnesses

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1    3 months ago

The doctored transcript with at least 10 minutes missing

Also see CBs accurate version of the event not your whackjob version

 
 
 
MUVA
14.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @14.1.5    3 months ago

You are making me laugh my ass off.

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @14.1.6    3 months ago

Why, the truth makes you laugh?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.1    3 months ago
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?
  • it is not trumps job to defend himself from every bs accusation the leftwing lunatics accuse him of.

the senate's job as a prosecutor is to prove him guilty.  they failed, game over.

  • innocent until proven guilty - not the other way round

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.8    3 months ago

The game is not over.

That's just whack

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @14.1.9    3 months ago
The game is not over.

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 :)

 
 
 
CB
14.1.11  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.10    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.12  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.1.4    3 months ago

That is exactly what they were trying to do. Turn the inquest into trump into an inquest into the Bidens.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @14.1.12    3 months ago
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

 
 
 
CB
14.1.14  CB   replied to  WallyW @14.1.3    3 months ago

("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.'

OIP.y1ETVO_e8bKSq3m0ofeJtAHaF2?w=255&h=1OIP.y1ETVO_e8bKSq3m0ofeJtAHaF2?w=255&h=1OIP.y1ETVO_e8bKSq3m0ofeJtAHaF2?w=255&h=1

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."

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.15  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.13    3 months 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?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.16  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.1.4    3 months ago

Thank you, DP. I, for my part, have no more tolerance for smelly republican red herring.

[ W]e 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.

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)

https://www.speaker.gov/contact

Washington, DC Office

1236 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

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.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @14.1.15    3 months 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?

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.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.18  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.17    3 months ago

Though he never once asked or talked about corruption.

Not in the 'transcript'.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.19  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @14.1.18    3 months ago
Though he never once asked or talked about corruption.

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

 
 
 
pat wilson
14.1.20  pat wilson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.17    3 months ago
Trump explaining why he asked the Ukraine help weed out corruption

Did you type that with a straight face ?

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.21  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.19    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.22  CB   replied to  Tessylo @14.1.5    3 months ago
 
 
 
Ender
14.1.23  Ender  replied to  pat wilson @14.1.20    3 months ago

Don't screw with my disco Nadine...jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Boogie fever....

 
 
 
CB
14.1.24  CB   replied to  MUVA @14.1.6    3 months ago

LMAO.jpg   Like some Elmer's to help with this? Needle and thread?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.25  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.8    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.26  Ender  replied to  Ender @14.1.23    3 months ago

Odd how some change what they wrote completely....

I...Got the boogie fever...

You...Got the boogie fever...

 
 
 
dennis smith
14.1.27  dennis smith  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.8    3 months ago

Useless Pelosi took her ball and went home when she realized that "impeach Trump" has been an exercise in futility for over 3 years.

Dems proved themselves the party of partisanship over country and they will have no one but themselves to blame after they lose the House in 2020.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.28  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.25    3 months ago

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 :)

 
 
 
CB
14.1.29  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.13    3 months ago

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.'

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.30  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @14.1.21    3 months ago
So you are going by...dare I say...hearsay.

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  

 
 
 
CB
14.1.31  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.17    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.32  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.31    3 months ago
ask a foreign country and its agents to look into his political rivals during campaign season?

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?

 
 
 
CB
14.1.33  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.19    3 months ago
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

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.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.34  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.30    3 months ago

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....

I called the doctor on the telephone (doctor, doctor)
Said doctor, doctor, please, ah ah ah
I got this feeling
Rocking and a'reeling
Tell me, what can it be, is it some new disease
They call it boogie fever
 
 
 
CB
14.1.35  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.28    3 months ago

Okay. I guess we can stop here. You are going with "impeachment interruptus" - got it.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.36  Ender  replied to  CB @14.1.31    3 months ago

Notice you didn't get an answer. Like there is any particular time of year for campaigning.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.37  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.33    3 months ago
Got it, T' Magic Eight Ball? Research is your friend.

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.38  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.32    3 months ago

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

promo-trump-rally-map_wide-fb1e75469bd88

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 : https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jun/18/trump-set-to-officially-launch-reelection-but/

 
 
 
CB
14.1.39  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.32    3 months ago
can a president use foreign and national intelligence agencies to spy on a presidential candidate days/months before the election?

I say no.

What you got for me?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.40  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.38    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.41  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.37    3 months ago

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.

I took my baby to the drive-in show
She turned the speaker down
And then she turned on the radio
I watched a silent movie, diggin' funky sound
She's got the boogie fever
 
 
 
CB
14.1.42  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.37    3 months ago
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.

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!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.1.43  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.1.42    3 months ago
I hope Nancy and democrats are reading this!

LOL no need.

I learned it from watching them.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
14.1.44  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.32    3 months ago
it was not campaign season. (see next year)

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.45  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14.1.40    3 months ago

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. . . .

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.46  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @14.1.44    3 months ago

Doncha know, it's Christmas year round.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.47  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @14.1.44    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
14.1.48  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  CB @14.1.47    3 months ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
14.1.49  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ender @14.1.46    3 months ago
Doncha know, it's Christmas year round.

His inauguration resembled a campaign rally with the low turnout and the silly pass-the-hat shenanigans.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
14.1.50  dennis smith  replied to  CB @14.1.42    3 months ago

 Pelosi finally realized that she has allowed a witch hunt in the House with no results so she tucked her tail between her legs and went home saying "wait until next year".

She is correct about waiting until next year when the Dems will lose the House majority due to their 3 + year failures.  

 
 
 
CB
14.1.51  CB   replied to  dennis smith @14.1.50    3 months ago

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?!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.52  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @14.1.6    3 months ago

Just make sure you have a pillow for hard chairs. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.53  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @14.1.5    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.54  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.1.53    3 months ago

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"!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.55  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @14.1.38    3 months ago

I am taking bets now as to how many times Trump will mention the word Impeachment at his rallies.

 
 
 
Ender
14.2  Ender  replied to  CB @14    3 months ago

Funny to me that they call all the witness testimony hearsay yet all they have from donald is hearsay.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.1  CB   replied to  Ender @14.2    3 months ago

Right on!

 
 
 
arkpdx
14.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @14.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.3  CB   replied to  arkpdx @14.2.2    3 months ago

See @ 14.1.14   Itty bitty baby OIP.y1ETVO_e8bKSq3m0ofeJtAHaF2?w=255&h=1

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?

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.4  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @14.2.2    3 months ago

The system also requires us, you know, regular folk, to reply to subpoenas. Not just be able to deny them and refuse to testify. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @14.2.4    3 months ago

Watch how fast we would be jailed and fined if any of us regular folk refused a court ordered subpoena.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.6  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.2.5    3 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.6    3 months ago
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!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_United_States_presidential...

I say go for it---AGAIN! It worked out so well last election I fervently hope Democrats adopt that tactic as standard election strategy.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.8  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.7    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.9  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.8    3 months ago
You have your king in service already

You already had yours. I think they called him ….. "Barrack Hussein Obama" !

Good Times....Good Times. jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif The "Beer Summits" were great back then. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

I really do miss that "Beer Summit" thingy. It was such a …...ummmmm …. hmmmmmm …. "Bacon-hater" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.8    3 months ago
You have your king in service 

ooh, sorry, no, that is so false.

See, I live in America. where no one is king--not even in your fevered imagination.

But why are you speaking anyway? 

Because it is a public forum, and I can. Next inane 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?

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??

 
 
 
CB
14.2.11  CB   replied to  It Is ME @14.2.9    3 months ago

Well at least you DO realize you have a republican "King" Cyrus. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif I don't know, might the historic King been more honorable? jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.11    3 months ago
Well at least you DO realize you have a republican "King" Cyrus

I did ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Where did that happen ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
14.2.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.10    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.2.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.10    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.2.15  author  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @14.2.13    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.13    3 months ago
That's full of BS. King Donad Trump has whipped the republicans in line. We all are mature enough to recognize the 'trappings' of the royal treatment. Jim Jordan, Lindsay graham, mitch, "the boys and the gals"? They are all under service and sway of the 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.

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.17  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.13    3 months ago
King Donad Trump has whipped the republicans in line.

How did he do that ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

"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 ! jrSmiley_104_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
CB
14.2.18  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.14    3 months ago

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.].

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.14    3 months ago
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. 

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.

The Republicans have more than enough time to replace Trump on the party's ticket for next November.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.2.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.19    3 months ago
Only a fucking MORON would think it wise to change.

Or someone who has a working moral compass. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.21  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.18    3 months ago
The hard truth is we will simply have to beat these republicans.....

Impeachment" isn't working ? jrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif

Now it's the "Voting Booth" again. That didn't work last time. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.22  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.20    3 months ago
Or someone who has a working moral compass. 

Like the Destruction of Libya for oil ?

That type of "Moral Compass" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.20    3 months ago
Or someone who has a working moral compass. 

My statement stands true as written.

Only a fucking MORON would think it wise to change.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.18    3 months ago
Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham can go straight to [fill in the blank.].

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.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.25  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.16    3 months ago

I don't take my cues to reality from a King. No doubt that causes you some confusion about me and mine.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.26  CB   replied to  It Is ME @14.2.17    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.27  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.26    3 months ago
For his abuse of the power vested in his office I am angry all damn day with Trump.

So much good passes you by with thinking like that.

It's as if you "Thought" the Political Regulars.....were "Gods", before Trump. 

 
 
 
CB
14.2.28  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.15    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.25    3 months ago
I don't take my cues to reality from a King.

Whew! That's good news. Especially since we have no king.

Yay you!

No doubt that causes you some confusion about me and mine.

Oh, not in the least. I see you!

 
 
 
CB
14.2.30  CB   replied to  It Is ME @14.2.27    3 months ago

Okay, finally ran out of new material? Good. No need to spin. We can call it a day.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.2.31  It Is ME  replied to  CB @14.2.30    3 months ago

Ouchy ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
14.2.32  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.29    3 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.32    3 months ago
Looks like you have drained all your material too?

Naw--just what was necessary.

Why use the atomic bomb when a pea shooter will work just as well?

 
 
 
CB
14.2.34  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.33    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.34    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
CB
14.2.36  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.35    3 months ago

"King Trump" —can you say and write it? He controls nearly every republican thought. You need not try to deny it-it matters  not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.2.36    3 months ago

You are just as cute as a button with all of your King Trump hysteria, yes you are!

 
 
 
CB
14.2.38  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.2.37    3 months ago

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.

How do the House and Senate 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?

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!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
14.2.39  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @14.2.36    3 months ago
"King Trump" —can you say and write it? He controls nearly every republican thought.

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  

 
 
 
TᵢG
16  TᵢG    3 months ago
Donald Trump is not a cheat

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".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
16.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @16    3 months ago

Not a cheat????jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif   Ivana and Marla I think would disagree.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @16.1    3 months ago

I am not sure anyone could utter the words:  'Donald trump is not a cheat' without tripping a lie detector.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
16.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.1    3 months ago

If Trump does testify he should be hooked up to a lie detector as he does.

 
 
 
Sparty On
16.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @16.1.2    3 months ago

Well, if it did happen, wouldn't be the first time a POTUS lied under oath now would it?  

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
16.1.4  CB   replied to  Sparty On @16.1.3    3 months ago

This is an issue with lying - it claims its defenders.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
16.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @16.1.3    3 months ago

No, but Trump would take it to a new level.

 
 
 
Sparty On
16.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @16.1.5    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
16.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @16.1.6    3 months ago

It would be interesting.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
Something Missing From Trump Impeachment

the only thing missing? is pelosi... LOL

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sparty On
Snuffy
loki12
Freewill
Freedom Warrior
devangelical


39 visitors