Next Step After The Impeachment Trial May Be An Expungement And Having The Impeachment Stricken From The Record

  
By:  citizen-kane-473667  •  one month ago  •  371 comments

Next Step After The Impeachment Trial May Be An Expungement And Having The Impeachment Stricken From The Record

It is almost a foregone conclusion that the Senate will acquit Trump of the Impeachment handed down by the House, and well it should considering the entire thing has been based on hearsay evidence and "feelings". I certainly wouldn't want a Justice System to decide an individuals freedom, or lack thereof, to be based simply on rumors and impressions of what people who don't like me want to believe I meant when I say something aloud to someone else. How often do we complain about the comments we see on the internet simply because we have mistaken someones intent of a statement because of a lack of tonal inflection in the written word? Thankfully now we have emoji's to help put at least some kind of indicator on what mood we are in when me make those written statements! This case is an excellent example of that; of opponents reading into something, what the evidence doesn't really support.

So where will it go from here if an Acquittal does come about? It is quite possible that due to the blatant abuse of power that we have seen from the House Democrat's that the backlash will be a sweeping of the House in November of those who aided and abetted an attempt to overturn a legal election. If that happens and the Republican's seize the House majority and maintain the Majority in the Senate, we could see an Expungement of the whole Impeachment process be introduced and passed. As a followup to the process, it is also quite possible that a separate bill could be introduced and passed that would strike the entire proceeding from the Federal Records. Before anyone goes off the deep end saying it is impossible, I suggest you actually examine whether or not there is precedent for at least Expungement because there is. It already has happened with a President who was Censured .

So how about that striking from the Federal Record? Could this be done? Since it can be done in Court cases, and this is a Trial by Congress, it does leave the door open for no less than the attempt. Keep in mind the stain on the reputation that an Impeachment would leave on the Party whose Party Member is involved would almost beg the Republican's to at least attempt the move. Ultimately if they did, it would find its way to the Supreme Court I'm sure, as the Democrat's fight to keep the tarnish in place to fulfill Pelosi's proclamation that Trump would be forever impeached. Removing the Impeachment from Federal Records would be spitting in her eye, just like fist-bumping and laughing during a "very solemn occasion" was spitting in the eye of the Republican's in the House.

Mind the CoC and ToS.

Focus on the points raised, not your fellow commentators.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1  author  Citizen Kane-473667    one month ago

When it is all said and done, I just hope Drunk and Dementia Nancy is gone...even if we lose Trump in the process.  It would be worth it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

Based on everything that has occurred so far, if the Senate votes to acquit, Pelosi and her minions will just try to find something else to try to pin on him. They are persistent and won't take their defeat lightly.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    one month ago
Pelosi and her minions will just try to find something else to try to pin on him

After rushing this one through like they did, and it falling so flat on its face as a result of it that they have to demand the Senate to do their investigations for them, I doubt they would be able to pull another one off before the next election. Not without proving to everyone that their sole intent appears to be invalidating the election process that is...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    one month ago

As my father used to say..."Just because a gopher goes down a hole, that does not mean you should stop trying to get it out".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.1    one month ago

Trump colluded to block testimonies and refused to release documents so of course it did not take the time it should have.  If it was "rushed", the finger points to Trump.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.3    one month ago
Trump colluded to block testimonies and refused to release documents so of course it did not take the time it should have. 

Trump has the right, just like every other president, to claim executive privilege.We know most libs think that right came to an end right after the reign of 44.

Democrats could have easily gone the legal, correct route, and used the third branch, the judicial, to make the decision on Trump's claims, but decided not to.

Of course, democrats claimed Trump was an immediate danger to the country and must be removed at once, well, maybe after a month of holding the articles from the Senate.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.3    one month ago
Trump colluded to block testimonies and refused to release documents so of course it did not take the time it should have.  If it was "rushed", the finger points to Trump.

How so?  By telling his staff to not answer questions or respond to subpoenas?  That's called executive privilege.  The one instance where the House did go to court to demand compliance, THEY didn't call the witness.  So, tell us all, who was responsible for that?  They got their court support and then backed off.  It was all meant as a dog and pony show to impress their mindless minions following them that they were doing something....  nothing more.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.4    one month ago
Trump has the right, just like every other president, to claim executive privilege.

Why yes, YES he does. Yet blanket executive privilege does NOT exist and Trump has to cite a REASON for denying the testimony of each person and the withholding of each document. In FACT, FOIA mandates that redaction of even a word must have a documented reasoning behind it being withheld. 

Secondly, executive privilege may NOT be claimed to cover up a crime or wrongdoing.

We know most libs think that right came to an end right after the reign of 44.

Who are 'we' and how do they know that? 

Democrats could have easily gone the legal, correct route, and used the third branch, the judicial, to make the decision on Trump's claims, but decided not to.

The House Intel Committee did go the correct legal route. They issues legal subpoenas. The articles of impeachment against Nixon included contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with such legal subpoenas. 

Of course, democrats claimed Trump was an immediate danger to the country and must be removed at once, well, maybe after a month of holding the articles from the Senate.

Link? 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    one month ago
Yet blanket executive privilege does NOT exist and Trump has to cite a REASON for denying the testimony of each person and the withholding of each document.

Hence the use of the judicial to make the decision on what is privilege and what is not.

Link?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/ilhan-omar-trump-rally-violence-1419338

Of course, she is the one that is a danger to the country, but she is one of several calling Trump an immediate danger.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    one month ago
The House Intel Committee did go the correct legal route. They issues legal subpoenas.

And Trump used his Constitution given right to executive order to have the judicial branch decide on the question between the executive and legislative branch.

We all know liberals think executive rights came to an end at the end of the 44 reign.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.7    one month ago
Hence the use of the judicial to make the decision on what is privilege and what is not.

There has already been multiple rulings stating that executive privilege isn't absolute and cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing or crimes.

That's why the WH has a counsel, to inform the POTUS about jurisprudence and the legality of his actions. The FACT that none of that matters to Trump shouldn't control the actions of Congress. 

Of course, she is the one that is a danger to the country, but she is one of several calling Trump an immediate danger.

Why even bother with such an obtuse comment?

Seriously bugs, that is some weak shit there. I ask you for a link to support your claim that 'democrats claimed Trump was an immediate danger to the country and must be removed at once' and you post a link to an article talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar being in imminent danger because of Trump's rally chants. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.12  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.1    one month ago
After rushing this one through like they did, and it falling so flat on its face as a result of it that they have to demand the Senate to do their investigations for them. . . .

Now that is a potent delusion. Please do not spill any of it on me!

Old tired, worn out hack Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is exposed. As are the rest of Trump conservatives. Trump sadly is right: "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue - witnesses everywhere - and not lose Senator Mitch McConnell's vote!!!"

Well, we can no longer count of making sense to any of that 'wing' of republicans: Their minds are gone. Who would have thunk that a creep like Trump who puts his pants on like every other man I know could wield so much mind control. Disturbing.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.2    one month ago

Let them have Trump, Paula. Let's move on to getting rid of Trump politically as he deserves for his activities. And 'they' can follow him out into the bushes and wilderness.  Don't pity them, either. I am sure they have no sympathy for us!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.14  CB   replied to  bugsy @1.1.4    one month ago

That's a talking point and its untrue. But, I shall not try to stop you from dedicating your time and mind to it. Go for it! Oh, and Trump is impeached and being tried for abuse of executive privilege. We must not EVER let a president get it into his or her BIG or small head that stymieing documents and people away from "the people's house" will be routine. If for no other reason than that: Trump needed to be impeached and hauled before the Senate—each and every time!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.15  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @1.1.12    one month ago
Now that is a potent delusion. Please do not spill any of it on me!

No worries,  I hear TDS will keep you safe. It is available free of charge 24/7 from MSNBC, CNN, or even late night on the Schiff Schitt Show!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.16  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.15    one month ago

Trump has an Obama fetish. And you know what that means for Trump republicans, riiight? (HINT: Republicans got "Obama-fever.)

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.17  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @1.1.16    one month ago
Trump has an Obama fetish.

Small potatoes compared to the TDS I keep seeing in the media...among many other places!

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.18  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @1.1.16    one month ago
Obama-fever

Who's Obama?

 
 
 
CB
1.1.19  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.17    one month ago

Oh good. Now you feel free and clear to declare what is "small potatoes." Let me see,. . .I have a little somethin'-somethin' for you: jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif .

 
 
 
CB
1.1.20  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.18    one month ago

obama-600x587.jpg

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.21  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @1.1.20    one month ago

So those suffering from Obams fetish are seriuosly mentally challenged  in your humble opinion? Good to know.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.17    one month ago
Small potatoes compared to the TDS I keep seeing

Why do you keep talking about something that doesnt exist ? 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.23  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.21    one month ago

Don't ask loaded 'trap' questions, please.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.24  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @1.1.13    one month ago

Any sympathy for them I will find in the dictionary, right between shit and syphilis.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.21    one month ago

So those suffering from Obams fetish are seriuosly mentally challenged  in your humble opinion? Good to know.

You may want to let trump know, he seems to be obsessed with Obama. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.26  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.25    one month ago

and Greta Thunberg.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.27  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.25    one month ago
You may want to let trump know, he seems to be obsessed with Obama.

If only he were the only one!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

I could be wrong , but in 2018 wasn't there some kind of deal made within the democrats/ party when it came time to elect who their speaker of the house was going to be , that Nancy was only suppose to be speaker for this one term, if she garnered the votes to become speaker this time around? If that is true , then she is gone anyway after the elections , whether the dems keep the house  or not.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2    one month ago
I could be wrong , but in 2018 wasn't there some kind of deal

I vaguely remember something about that myself, and I'm not about to try and search it down.  However, if memory serves me, it was something to try and stop the far left radicals from gaining control of the House, which they have anyway, but not 'officially'.

 
 
 
CB
1.3  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

Okay. So "Drunk and Dementia Nancy" forced a "Very Stable Genius" to permanently destroy his presidential record? Alrighty now!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.3.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @1.3    one month ago
Okay. So "Drunk and Dementia Nancy" forced a "Very Stable Genius" to permanently destroy his presidential record?

Considering her actions since he was elected, it could indeed be argued to that conclusion.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4  devangelical  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

meh, whatever. let mitch the bitch, as he's known by in DC, construct a slamdunk sham trial for the benefit of trump's base. restricting witness testimony and restricting TV coverage over the impeachment procedure won't go without the voters noticing in an election year. potential also for plenty of twists and turns left before it's done. different trump legal issues are still working their way thru the courts and there's no limit to how many times a POTUS can be impeached.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.1  XDm9mm  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago
restricting witness testimony and restricting TV coverage over the impeachment procedure

Are you saying that the people won't tolerate exactly what the Democrats did in their SHAM impeachment hearings in the House?   The Senate will be operating in the Senate Chambers, not in a SCIF in the bowels of Congress like the Democrats did.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4.2  devangelical  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.1    one month ago

false equivalency. impeachment inquiries/hearings are a different procedure than an impeachment trial. gopers were crying that they didn't get to call witnesses in the former, they can in the latter. restricting senate TV coverage of the trial smacks of a continued coverup.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.4.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago
there's no limit to how many times a POTUS can be impeached.

Yes there is. It is limited by The People saying "Are You Fucking Kidding Me!  AGAIN? These assholes are off the fucking rail!"

Of course in this instance, barring some kind of bombshell revelation, we've already pretty much reached that point. No cum-stained dresses? Face it, without the dress, Clin-toon would have walked. Get me some hard evidence like that (pun FULLY intended) and I'll be at the forefront of the lynching party. Keep coming at me with "feelings" and "I think" or "I thought", or "I believe" and I'll keep telling you to GTFO here with your "impressions".

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.4.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago

Now Moscow Mitch is known as Midnight Mitch.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.4.5  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago
restricting TV coverage

? The whole thing is on TV.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.4.6  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.1    one month ago
SHAM impeachment hearings in the House?

Trump was invited to show up, twice, after he complained about his due process being violated, (even though it wasn't), and he refused to show up. Maybe you should assign blame where it belongs. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

Expunged, stricken from the record?

It don't work like that dude.  

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.5.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tessylo @1.5    one month ago

You may be right. I guess we will have to see if Trump tries it. If he does, it will make an interesting case for the SCOTUS to decide that will reverberate all the way down to local courts.  Does a person found innocent in court proceedings deserve to have the full honor of their name restored by having the court records stricken? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2  author  Citizen Kane-473667    one month ago

I'm hoping they do get the Biden's to testify. There would probably be criminal cases following that testimony.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2    one month ago
I'm hoping they do get the Biden's to testify. There would probably be criminal cases following that testimony.

Honestly, I'm done with the Biden's.   Unless there is hard evidence of Joe doing something to get Hunter in the position, other than his name, Joe is done and Hunter is still a loser addict.

What I want is the Intelligence Community (DNI ?) IG to testify EXACTLY when the form regarding whistle-blower information was changed and who exactly was involved with that decision.  The last briefing I received was from an Obama appointed IG who told us very specifically that to make a formal complaint, we had to have "personal first hand knowledge" of the incident or situation and what we were legally testifying to via the form we filled out was NOT//NOT hearsay or gossip overheard.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2    one month ago
I'm hoping they do get the Biden's to testify. There would probably be criminal cases following that testimony.

What RELEVANT facts do you presume either of the Biden's will have about the charges in the Articles of Impeachment? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.2.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.2    one month ago
What RELEVANT facts do you presume either of the Biden's will have about the charges in the Articles of Impeachment?

Whether or not they engage in activities that warranted investigation in the first place.

Honestly, I'm surprised that this question hasn't been beaten to death already on every front!  IF Trump had knowledge that the Biden's DID deserve investigation, then it is very likely he WOULD ask how it was going.

Now I have a question for you: Do you think it is possible that maybe Trump knew something you don't ?

Hmmm... how about that U.S. ambassador he fired; one of those " star witnesses " thrown out there by Schiff???? What was her name? Ivanovich, right? I wonder why Trump torpedoed her?  Maybe because she actually didn't like Zolensky and supported his predecessor? Could that be it? 

Maybe you should read the transcript without the colorized Op-Ed of the news media and see what you think...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.2.1    one month ago
Whether or not they engage in activities that warranted investigation in the first place.

Which is relevant to the Articles of Impeachment HOW?

Honestly, I'm surprised that this question hasn't been beaten to death already on every front!  IF Trump had knowledge that the Biden's DID deserve investigation, then it is very likely he WOULD ask how it was going.

Trump didn't as how it was going CK, he asked for an ANNOUNCEMENT to be made. 

Now I have a question for you: Do you think it is possible that maybe Trump knew something you don't ?

Based on the documented evidence, NO. 

Hell, Trump doesn't even know what he doesn't know. 

Oh and BTFW, I have posted here on NT multiple times that there is a Treaty between the US and Ukraine  for mutual legal assistance. 

THAT is where Trump documents his vast [read non-existent] knowledge of corrupt actions by either of the Bidens. Testimony by Taylor proves that the Ukraine asked the US to make such a documented request. Trump did NOTHING. 

Hmmm... how about that U.S. ambassador he fired; one of those " star witnesses " thrown out there by Schiff????

What about her? 

What was her name? Ivanovich, right?

NO. 

I wonder why Trump torpedoed her?  Maybe because she actually didn't like Zolensky and supported his predecessor? Could that be it? 

Or maybe it was because Letsenko wouldn't give Rudy what he wanted until she was out. At least that's what Parnas said and he has text messages to prove it. 

Maybe you should read the transcript 

Which transcript is that CK? 

without the colorized Op-Ed of the news media and see what you think...

That's hilarious considering the fact that most of your comment is based on RW media propaganda.

Unlike you, I not only read all of the testimony transcripts, I understand them and recognize the facts they document.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.2    one month ago
e asked for an ANNOUNCEMENT to be made.

So no one ever  asked for an investigation.

Wow. Impeachment keeps turning into an even bigger  joke.

But you should tell your fellow travelers to stop lying and claiming Trump requested an investigation of the Bidens Ukranian boondoggle.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.3    one month ago
So no one ever  asked for an investigation.

Strawman Sean. I never said no one ever asked for an investigation.

There's video of Trump doing just that live on TV. 

Seriously, just stop. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.4    one month ago

Do you really not understand how our legal system works?

Demonstrating Biden's corruption shows Trump had a public purpose in asking for an investigation, which is of couse relevant to motive.

Imagine thinking you can accuse the President of abusing his power without allowing him to present exonerating evidence as to  motive. . 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.5    one month ago
Do you really not understand how our legal system works?

That's a ridiculous question.

Demonstrating Biden's corruption shows Trump had a public purpose in asking for an investigation, which is of couse relevant to motive.

Sean, Trump has NOT requested an investigation by the US DOJ into either of the Bidens.

Since when is it 'a public interest' for an American to be investigated by another country? 

You should read the rest of the thread, in 2.2.2. I cite the Treaty that's pertinent to Trump showing a 'relevant motive'. 

Imagine thinking you can accuse the President of abusing his power without allowing him to present exonerating evidence as to  motive. 

Trump HAS no 'exonerating evidence as to motive' that is FACT based. Again, Trump has the power of the entire executive branch behind him and all he can come up with is innuendo, allegations and accusations. That don't cut it.

During the Impeachment Inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee Trump could have presented all of the 'exonerating evidence' he wanted. Nothing, NADA. Instead he whined and bitched and his lawyers made ridiculous arguments equating to 'You were mean to him so we're not participating.' 

The all important Council of Foreign Affairs conference that so many of Trump's sycophants post videos of occurred on Jan. 23, 2018. Yet Trump STILL requested $250 million for Ukraine military aid in his 2019 budget released in February of 2018 and which he signed into law in Oct. 2018. 

At NO time during 2018 did Trump say a fucking word about Biden acting corruptly in Ukraine or in fact ANYTHING about corruption in Ukraine. That didn't happen until AFTER Biden announced his candidacy for POTUS. Then SUDDENLY it became Trump's policy to investigate the Bidens. All things that make you go Hmmmm. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.6    one month ago
ump has NOT requested an investigation by the US DOJ into either of the Bidens

Are you familiar with the transcript? He asked the President of Ukraine to work with the DOJ. 

. I cite the Treaty that's pertinent to Trump showing a 'relevant motive'. 

The treaty has nothing to do with Trump's motive. Motive is subjective.

hat don't cut it.

I don't think you understand what goes to motive. The Bidens actions (Hunter taking a job he admits he only got because his last name was Biden) show he had a good faith reason to believe something corrupt happened in Ukraine. To this day, no one has argued with a straight face that Biden got his job as an outside director (that he was legally unqualified for)  due to merit.  Trump is entitled to show why he thought Ukraine would have evidence of crimes committed by a former VP and his son (which any honest American will admit it is in the American interest to expose). It's not like he asked Ukraine to investigate the actions of someone like Pete Buttigieg, who Trump would have no reason to suspect committed any crimes in Ukraine.

During the Impeachment Inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee Trump could have presented all of the 'exonerating evidence' he wanted

Why do you say things that aren't true? Trump was not allowed to call witnesses, nor examine the witnesses hand chosen by the Democrats. Don't you remember reveling how Trump wasn't entitled to any process in the impeachment hearings? Funny you now try and rewrite history to pretend Trump the impeachment process was fair to Trump. 

 Then SUDDENLY it became Trump's policy to investigate the Bidens. All things that make you go Hmmmm. 

So what? That's a counter argument that's not relevant to Trump's right to present evidence.  Again, do you understand how our legal system works?  Both sides get to make their arguments and then the finder of fact decides. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.7    one month ago
Are you familiar with the transcript? 

Sean, the SUMMARY of Trump's call is NOT a transcript. It states as much right on the fucking document. 

He asked the President of Ukraine to work with the DOJ.

Yet AG Barr's spokeswoman insisted that there has been NOT contact between Barr and Ukraine. NONE. 

The treaty has nothing to do with Trump's motive.

I didn't cite the Treaty in reply to your motive comment. I cited it in reply to your comment about Trump knowing more than I do. Since he didn't seem to know that the US has Treaty obligations, I doubt it. 

Motive is subjective.

Well if this 'motive' is supposed to exonerate him, Trump's 'feelings and opinion' better have a basis in fact. Since neither Trump or anyone else has provided any to date, I have to wonder WTF they are waiting for. 

I don't think you understand what goes to motive. The Bidens actions (Hunter taking a job he admits he only got because his last name was Biden) show he had a good faith reason to believe something corrupt happened in Ukraine.

So by that standard, Ivanka and Jared cause a 'good faith reason to believe that something corrupt' is happening in America. 

To this day, no one has argued with a straight face that Biden got his job as an outside director (that he was legally unqualified for)  due to merit.

I repeat, Ivanka and Jared.

BTW, Hunter Biden was on the board, he wasn't a director of anything.  

Trump is entitled to show why he thought Ukraine would have evidence of crimes committed by a former VP and his son

Remember this question Sean? 

Since when is it 'a public interest' for an American to be investigated by another country? 

What's your answer? 

(which any honest American will admit it is in the American interest to expose).

First of all, cut the BULLSHIT about 'any honest American.

Secondly, you have GOT to be kidding. Trump is the guy who pardoned a fucking war criminal. Trump could not care less about Americans perpetrating crimes overseas. 

Trump has NO evidence that the Bidens did anything corrupt and neither do you. PERIOD full stop. 

It's not like he asked Ukraine to investigate the actions of someone like Pete Buttigieg, who Trump would have no reason to suspect committed any crimes in Ukraine.

Come on Sean, if everyone investigated everything Trump 'suspected',  the whole fucking world would be investigating each other. Hell, Fox and Friends could have a competition with Hannity to see how many world wide investigations they could start during one show. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.8    one month ago

Here we go down the rabbit hole of irrelevancies and other distraction as you avoid trying to make a coherent argument.

n, the SUMMARY of Trump's call is NOT a transcript

No shit. And the Democratic witnesses Vindmann and Williams have already tesitifed the summary is substantively accurate. I believe Vindmann said it was "very accurate" but the point is too irrelevant to  bother with. If you are reduced to relying on secret, undisclosed evidence in the phone call, I think it's clear to everyone impeachment is a joke.

s spokeswoman insisted that there has been NOT contact between Barr and Ukraine. NONE.

Again, so what? The issue is Trump's intent and he asked for cooperation with the DOJ. Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant. He asked for an investigation in cooperation with the DOJ. 

 I cited it in reply to your comment about Trump knowing more than I d

That wasn't my comment. And my point still stands, since motive is the actual issue at play regarding the relevance of the Bidens.

y that standard, Ivanka and Jared cause a 'good faith reason to believe that something corrupt' is happening in America.

What foreign company has hired either of those two since Trump was elected? But no, it's not generally illegal for family run companies to hire family members. 

BTW, Hunter Biden was on the board, he wasn't a director of anything. 

It's perfectly appropriate to refer to a member of the board of directors as a director.  Again, the irrelevance is off the charts.

What's your answer? 

For starters, if its suspected the VP of the country is exploiting his position and influence in a foreign country to enrich his family.

t of all, cut the BULLSHIT about 'any honest American

So you think it's okay for american officials to exploit their position in foreign countries for personal gain.  I'm shocked anyone would claim that exposing such crimes is against American interests.

as NO evidence that the Bidens did anything corrupt and neither do you

Biden's appointment itself id evidence of corruption. As I pointed out, no one even bothers to justify that he was given this position (or really any he ever had) on merit  at the same time his father was overseeing Ukranian policy for the Obama administration. Hunter himself admitted his last name got him the job. Combine that with the evidence discovered by John Soloman among others and it's simply false to claim there is no evidence.

You may not believe it or find it compelling, but to claim no evidence exists is simply false.

That's the point of a trial, for both sides to put their best evidence forward and let a judge or jury determine what evidence they give credence to.

 
 
 
CB
2.2.10  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.5    one month ago

What part of GAO determines Trump violated Campaign Finance Law by asking a foreign government/national to investigate his political opponent is not sinking in to your consciousness? Now you can exist in a 'cloud' of alternative reality all you want, but when you do come down, facts are facts!

 
 
 
CB
2.2.11  CB   replied to  Dulay @2.2.6    one month ago

The situation is clear, friend Dulay! President D. Trump and his 'fanboys and girls' want us to ignore facts and the Rule of Law and just let Trump beTrump.

I mean who needs any small-fry Rule of Law and facts when you have a "stable genius" who is out-calculating and name-checking generals, partially running all his cabinet positions, and "who's your daddy" the republican senate every chance he gets?

Trump has practically dared more than half the nation to politically stop him or else. . . deal with the consequences of a 'madman.'

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.12  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.9    one month ago
Again, so what?

This will become the defense in the 'trial' and the main talking point of the apologists after the proceedings in defending their vote.

They will all concede his actions were dubious but were not impeachable, despite not hearing from eye-witnesses to those dubious acts. In blocking the appearance of those that may have corroborating testimony to his nefarious deeds, 'so what' will be the extent of their defense and the specious argument that will somehow satisfy his base.

The truth be damned.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.12    one month ago
They will all concede his actions were dubious but were not impeachable, despite not hearing from eye-witnesses to those dubious acts. In blocking the appearance of those that may have corroborating testimony to his nefarious de

Um... Yeah.  Like Democratic Senators decided actual felonies weren't worthy of removal. Republican Senators are entitled to believe that Trump's actions (which unlike Clinton's are not actual crimes) simply don't rise to the level that justifies removal. Do you think Democrats would have removed Clinton if they just had heard more proof that Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice? Are you honestly claiming Democrats voted to acquit because they didn't think Clinton lied under oath? 

Do you imagine "more corroboration" of the same facts would somehow change something. IF 5 people testify someone jaywalked, does that mean the crime is worse then if one person does?

Just because Trump was impeached (on a purely partisan basis no less) doesn't somehow mean the Senators are bound to believe the impeachment is justified if the House can prove its versions of events occurred.  Just like proving jaywalking doesn't entitle the infliction of the death penalty, proving whatever it is Democrats think they can prove doesn't mean removal is warranted

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @2.2.10    one month ago

You should read what the GAO report actually claims. It doesn't claim Trump violated  campaign finance law. Kind of makes it hard to take you seriously when you misstate such a basic fact.

Now you can exist in a "cloud" of alternative reality all you want, but when you do come down, facts are facts!

Kinda ironic you wrote this, huh?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.13    one month ago
Do you imagine "more corroboration" of the same facts would somehow change something.

If the corroboration came from those who were first-hand witnesses to the alleged crime, yes, it probably would. To date, those very witnesses have been barred from testifying. The partisan wrangling is simply disgusting, from both sides. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.16  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.15    one month ago
If the corroboration came from those who were first-hand witnesses to the alleged crime, yes, it probably would. To date, those very witnesses have been barred from testifying.

So then, you've accepting the fact that the House Democrats have impeached the President on nothing more than hear say, suppositions, innuendo and personal feelings with absolutely no valid substantiation of any charge.

Thank you so much for the acknowledgement.  It's refreshing to realize you know the truth, but disheartening knowing you're continuing to support the charade.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.15    one month ago

Why? Corroboration doesn't change any facts. Again if the conduct isn't removable, why would more people describing the same conduct change anything?  Jaywalking is jaywalking whether 2 people testify to it, or 10. It doesn't become more serious because more people saw it happen.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.18  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.16    one month ago
So then, you've accepting the fact that the House Democrats have impeached the President on nothing more than hear say, suppositions, innuendo and personal feelings with absolutely no valid substantiation of any charge.

No, I think the House sending articles of impeachment is appropriate given the testimony presented. Perhaps corroboration was not the proper word to use in the context of attempting to get at the truth, given the reluctance to call those who could testify. Perhaps stonewalling would be more in line.

And with as much respect as can be mustered, putting words in another's mouth is never a worthy endeavor.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.19  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.18    one month ago
No, I think the House sending articles of impeachment is appropriate given the testimony presented.

So you are in fact supportive of Impeaching a President on nothing more than hearsay, suppositions, and personal feelings as nothing more was presented.

Perhaps corroboration was not the proper word to use in the context of attempting to get at the truth, given the reluctance to call those who could testify. Perhaps stonewalling would be more in line.

Again, you support Impeaching the President even when the House of Representatives did not use the full power of their position in government and the power of the courts to compel testimony of reluctant witnesses.  And the SINGLE time they avail themselves of the power of the courts successfully, they refused to call that witness to attempt to support their contentions.

And with as much respect as can be mustered, putting words in another's mouth is never a worthy endeavor.

I'm hardly putting words in the mouth of anyone.  I'm simply using the words provided and qualifying them logically.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.5    one month ago
Demonstrating Biden's corruption shows Trump had a public purpose in asking for an investigation, which is of couse relevant to motive.

That's not how our justice system works in America. A prosecutor doesn't get to make accusations against people with zero evidence and then pray the investigation exonerates their claims of guilt. Here in America where one is innocent till proven guilty, you have to present the evidence you do have, like Democrats did during the impeachment hearings, and then ask the majority of the grand jury if the evidence presented warranted an indictment and trial.

Republicans want to skip this part of the process. They want to go straight to putting Biden on trial and force him to prove he's innocent even though no evidence has been presented that points to any actual crime having been committed. Corporate nepotism isn't actually illegal and so far that's the only thing Republicans have any even circumstantial evidence of. Their whole case against the Biden's is "Hunter Biden got paid a lot of money by a Oil and Gas exploration company". That's it. And on this supposed "evidence" they want to call Hunter and his father to testify before the Senate. It's ridiculous on the face of it and can only be seen as an attempt to deflect and distract from the actual indictments (aka articles of impeachment) that have been properly, legally and constitutionally sent to the senate for trial.

Imagine thinking you can accuse the President of abusing his power without allowing him to present exonerating evidence as to  motive.

You obviously don't understand how the process works. You see, the impeachment process was like a grand jury, and during the grand jury the prosecutor presented the case and the grand jury rules on whether there is reason to indict and send it to a trial. The President will have a chance to defend his abuse of power during the trial. If his defense was that he had evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and thus is completely justified in his attempt to dig up dirt on him then he can present what evidence he has that would justify such an action. They should of course have more evidence than just claiming the proof will be Biden's own testimony. The Democrats have a lot more evidence of wrongdoing without requiring dishonest Donald to testify. They'd love it if he did, but they're not holding their breath because a guilty sniveling bitch like Don the con is never going to willingly come testify and risk exposing themselves or open themselves up to possible perjury.

There is simply no good reason to go outside the normal lines of justice and the law to manufacture a case against a political rival. That's something despots and dictators do. There is no doubt Trump abused his power and has obstructed congress. Refusing to accept these facts is just more evidence of the rampant TDS (truly deranged sycophants) that surround this obviously corrupt disgusting pig of a President who has clearly abused the power of the Presidency for his own personal political gain. And claiming others have done it before so it doesn't matter is the attitude of traitors and worthless scum who don't care about the rule of law or the fact that they are metaphorically shitting on our constitution.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.21  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.19    one month ago
I'm simply using the words provided and qualifying them logically.

Less logic and more shoehorning to fit an agenda, personal and partisan.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.22  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.21    one month ago
Less logic and more shoehorning to fit a personal partisan agenda.

So, you want me to accept YOUR "shoehorning" and partisan agenda as opposed to the fact that the House Impeached President Trump on nothing more than hearsay, suppositions and personal feelings as the witnesses themselves testified to in the network news broadcast House Judiciary Impeachment hearings.  Got it.

Have a fun gun-totin' day to you and all your brethren in VA, 9mm...here's to sanity prevailing and no one misconstrues 'personal feelings' as a reason to pull the trigger.

That's entirely predicated on what those "personal feelings" are r.t...b..., If those personal feelings are a direct threat to the recipient the use of a firearm in defense to STOP THE THREAT are totally warranted.....   oh, but wait, the victim will be unarmed and at the mercy of the perpetrator thanks to Governor Blackface Northam.

I will forward your wishes for a good day to the people of Virginia fighting for their Constitutional Rights and thank you for them and myself.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.23  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.20    one month ago
Here in America where one is innocent till proven guilty, you have to present the evidence you do have, like Democrats did during the impeachment hearings, and then ask the majority of the grand jury if the evidence presented warranted an indictment and trial.

And the US Senate will view the EVIDENCE provided by the US House of Representatives. The majority of the Senate will very likely decide that the "evidence presented" does not warrant the indictment and less so a trial and vote to DISMISS with prejudice the charges presented.

So, you'll get your wish.  See how that works?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.24  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.22    one month ago
If those personal feelings are a direct threat to the recipient the use of a firearm in defense to STOP THE THREAT are totally warranted.....

That is simply terrifying in its' implication.

Are you actually saying if a protester today has 'personal feelings' that the laws Virginia has enacted are correct and in expressing those feelings, it may constitute a 'THREAT' and are thereby subject to retaliation...by lethal firearm no less...and it is somehow warranted?

Not in any Constitutional, 'patriotic' or rational context.

 
 
 
CB
2.2.25  CB   replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.12    one month ago

It's a damn COVER-UP! And I am surprised the 4th Estate is not using its considerable power and influence to write about this COVER-UP on a daily basis.

"EVERYBODY" seems to be so calm, cool, and collected, while a DYNAMO is running through the systems of government taking down chunks of it at a time!

There is nothing interesting about a den of liars, cheaters, and man-pleasers. The democratic House is doing its job to hold a president to account; "Everybody" needs to get onboard to demand our senate act as a impartial jury, even if it is against some of its members better wishes to do so!

It is time to get loud—NOW!

 
 
 
CB
2.2.26  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.14    one month ago

CONCLUSION

OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.

OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundments of FMF [Foreign Military Financing] funds. We will continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to the Congress after we have received the necessary information.

We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance. GAO’s role under the ICA—to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity—is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. All federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse. We trust that State and OMB will provide the information needed.

Thomas H. Armstrong

General Counsel

Source: GAO DECISION    January 16, 2020.


Yeah, Sean. What can I say? Nine hours or so ago it was midnight PST and I was overdue for sleep. My apologies for COMBINING two corresponding actions into one.

The GAO determined the activity by OMB was a VIOLATION. In furtherance, President Trump compounded the OMB's violation, with his own violation of Campaign Finance Law when asking a foreign government/national to investigate his political opponent. Moreover, asking a foreign leader in a time of war to appear in a "sketchy tv drama" to announce a fake investigation of a U.S. president's political opponent is against U.S. law.

There. All better.

Riddle me this: Shouldn't Barr "the enforcer" have known to inform Trump he was violating law/s? Barr "the enforcer" appears incompetent. Or, did Barr "the enforcer" warn Trump and he did it anyway?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.9    one month ago
No shit.

Then WHY did you call it a transcript Sean? Words matter and the government seemed to think that it was imperative to inform the public about that fact:

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear. 

So you're hanging your hat on a 'memorandum' that 'is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion' and which a witness testified SHOULD have contained wording that was intentionally omitted but 'for the most part' is accurate. 

Weell that's open and shut isn't it? /s

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Again, so what? The issue is Trump's intent and he asked for cooperation with the DOJ. Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant. He asked for an investigation in cooperation with the DOJ.  That wasn't my comment. And my point still stands, since motive is the actual issue at play regarding the relevance of the Bidens.

Speaking of 'secret undisclosed evidence in the phone call', the DOJ isn't mentioned.

Again, there is a Treaty process for requesting legal assistance from Ukraine.Per the Constitution, Treaties a are the law of the land. Here is a handy dandy policy document for your review:

The MLAT will define the obligation to provide assistance, the scope of assistance, and the contents of the request. It may also contain evidentiary provisions that vary from the Federal Rules of Evidence. MLATs are not, however, the only treaties that provide for legal assistance: some extradition treaties and many tax treaties contain such provisions. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-276-treaty-requests

So if Trump's all important motive was to have Ukraine institute an investigation, evidence of that would be that he followed that LAW and made a formal request per the MLAT with Ukraine. 

As it is, the only extemporaneous evidence that exists of Trump's motive is the  clandestine cabal lead by Giuliani documented in the Volker and Parnas text messages,  Trump's 'code word' classified [now released] 'memorandum' and the testimony of multiple TRUMP appointees stating that Trump's motive was to push his conspiracy theory to implicate Biden. 

What foreign company has hired either of those two since Trump was elected?

Why would they need to be hired by a foreign company when they could receive valuable patents and billions to bail out real estate investments from foreign NATIONS.  

But no, it's not generally illegal for family run companies to hire family members. 

The presidency isn't a 'family run company'.

It's perfectly appropriate to refer to a member of the board of directors as a director.  Again, the irrelevance is off the charts.

Yes Sean, Hunter Biden's irrelvance to the Articles of Impeachment IS off the charts. 

For starters, if its suspected the VP of the country is exploiting his position and influence in a foreign country to enrich his family.

Suspicion without a factual basis is just a fucking conspiracy theory. There is abundant evidence that Trump and his family is doing just that and you couldn't care less. 

So you think it's okay for american officials to exploit their position in foreign countries for personal gain.  I'm shocked anyone would claim that exposing such crimes is against American interests.

Save your strawman arguments for someone who will play your game. 

Biden's appointment itself id evidence of corruption.

No it is NOT Sean. 

As I pointed out, no one even bothers to justify that he was given this position (or really any he ever had) on merit  at the same time his father was overseeing Ukranian policy for the Obama administration. Hunter himself admitted his last name got him the job.

So fucking what. Stop pretending that proves anything. It does NOT

Combine that with the evidence discovered by John Soloman among others and it's simply false to claim there is no evidence.

You know that the State Dept. IG has already reviewed all of that 'evidence' and passed it along to the FBI right Sean?  That was back last fall. 

John Solomon's article was published in May of 2019. WHERE is Barr? Where is the Grand Jury? Where is the prosecution of Hunter or Joe Biden based on all of this alleged 'evidence' Sean? 

If Trump's motive was in the interest of the American people, WHY hasn't his DOJ done ANYTHING about it in all this time? Where are the criminal referrals. WHERE Sean? 

You may not believe it or find it compelling, but to claim no evidence exists is simply false.

What's MORE important is that Pompeo didn't believe it or find it compelling. It sure as hell looks like the FBI feels the same way. 

That's the point of a trial, for both sides to put their best evidence forward and let a judge or jury determine what evidence they give credence to.

The presiding Judge should compel RELEVANT testimony from FACT witnesses and subpoena documents [unredacted] that have been withheld. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.28  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.23    one month ago
And the US Senate will view the EVIDENCE provided by the US House of Representatives.

You do understand that the grand jury is not where the trial is held, right? We don't have trials that hear no witnesses or testimony and just review the case that was presented to the grand jury. We don't just have a judge review the grand jury's indictment and dismiss it without actually having a trial (especially not a known biased judge who has stated “I'm not an impartial juror,”) where the facts are presented and witnesses are called and the prosecution and defense gets to make their cases before a jury of the accused's peers.

This will not be dismissed, the trial will happen and there are at least 4 Republican senators who have explicitly said they want to hear from certain witnesses so we're likely going to get to hear from Bolton at a minimum. See how that works?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.29  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.16    one month ago

Vapors! Smoke and mirrors! Deception! Confusion! Cover-up! Distortions! Misdirection. Who will believe any of it? The Trump Republican Party.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.29    one month ago

Vapors! Hysteria! Hair-on-fire! The sky is falling! On no the end is near!

Who but Democrats act like that?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.31  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.20    one month ago

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a political scenario where a president would rise (or any citizens support such a one) who would forcefully or nonchalantly self-impeach as a means to inversely win a term as president.

Corporate nepotism did not take place here. Biden writes that he had nothing to do with his son's activities as a grown man is free to do what he pleases with his time. Fathers and sons are not joined at the hip. This is a republican talking point put forward as a toothpick to keeping picking at something. Again, Joe Biden says he did not direct or aid his son in getting on the board of any foreign company. So this is a farce republicans are deploying over and over again. You're right to suggest some republicans are a bunch of blatant liars and will lie on a street bum if it serves their purposes. No honor among them. Moreover, here we have some sad ass republicans for political sabotage attempting to use an innocent man and his son as 'weapons' against a fool-hardy self-impeacher.

I won't be entertaining Trump deflection team comments any longer this year. I am going to tell them what the lord loves, the facts, and let those two things stand-in for all the noise and wind-blown empty cans rolling down a street they make.

Note: Some of this the trick called: Rope a dope. Some writers play stupid and clueless in hopes of wearing down the message and the writers who are telling them the truth. My solution: Dismiss these evil "geniuses" wholesale.

As they open up to  'hardball' lies and deceit - shovel a firm and full pack of truth and honesty into their maws.

 
 
 
CB
2.2.32  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.30    one month ago

Moving on now:

Democrats! Independents! Below is the mindset of our fellow Trump republicans who have no intentions of putting down their stones. They intend to ride our republic into the ground if given a return chance. Letting them regain and maintain our government systems will be deliberately allowing corrupt Trump and his "merrymen" license to disregard the Constitution and the Rule of Law your children died to build and create to last for all time.

Read this from our resident author: Citizen Kane.

It is quite possible that due to the blatant abuse of power that we have seen from the House Democrat's that the backlash will be a sweeping of the House in November of those who aided and abetted an attempt to overturn a legal election. If that happens and the Republican's seize the House majority and maintain the Majority in the Senate, we could see an Expungement of the whole Impeachment process be introduced and passed. As a followup to the process, it is also quite possible that a separate bill could be introduced and passed that would strike the entire proceeding from the Federal Records. Before anyone goes off the deep end saying it is impossible, I suggest you actually examine whether or not there is precedent for at least Expungement because there is. It already has happened with a President who was Censured . So how about that striking from the Federal Record? Could this be done? Since it can be done in Court cases, and this is a Trial by Congress, it does leave the door open for no less than the attempt. Keep in mind the stain on the reputation that an Impeachment would leave on the Party whose Party Member is involved would almost beg the Republican's to at least attempt the move. Ultimately if they did, it would find its way to the Supreme Court I'm sure, as the Democrat's fight to keep the tarnish in place to fulfill Pelosi's proclamation that Trump would be forever impeached. Removing the Impeachment from Federal Records would be spitting in her eye, just like fist-bumping and laughing during a "very solemn occasion" was spitting in the eye of the Republican's in the House.

Censure is not in the constitution. Impeachment is in the constitution and permanent.

Vengeful spirits? We must rebuke this political group who stand for such a sorry understanding of the laws that bind us together. Also, about two weeks are so ago, there was an Trump republican Obama-obsessed statement made by House republicans that were they given power in 2020 they would turn-to to file "charges" to impeach former President Obama four years in arrears.

How much deceit do we have to bear from Trump republicans before the bow breaks?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.33  CB   replied to  CB @2.2.25    one month ago

One More Thing.

The 4th Estate has been taking it on the chin and on the "bottom" since 2015 - Trump's entry into the 2016 race. Will the 4th Estate take it AGAIN?!!!

My rally cry to the 4th Estate. Get Mad; Call Enough; Stop Straddling the Damn Fence!

Senator McSally, (R) just rubbed a hard-working reporters nose in her crap! And before it could harden on Reporter Manu Raju's face, she deliberately and pointed used him to make her some mo' money. Did the 4th Estate get 'pimped' AGAIN!!!

This is the year like 2016. Donald Trump is going to point you out in the back of the room. He is counting on FREE PUBLIC MEDIA following him around and making his 'case' for him.  All free!  All while he, the president, tells every last one of you what scum you are.

4th Estate - fight back. Show some spine. Don't get pimped, used and abused. Don't get had out of desperation. Show some restraint and 'force' discipline.

Remember the saying: "If Donald Trump and Trump republicans can get the 'cow' (4th Estate) free; why pay for it?"

4th Estate - All the shine has tarnished on Donald Trump. You've seen his best rips. Isn't it time to get up, dust off, and give this foolish entertainer a political black eye?

Finally, 4th Estate if your 'estate' is on fire and in danger of being burned down similar to what's happening to our Constitution and Rule of Law:

Isn't it time to take sides? Choose damn it! Or, forever hold your peace!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.34  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @2.2.33    one month ago

Most of the “4th estate” are Marxist atheist enemies of liberty and our Constitutional Republic.

  • “We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. It is however, the prostituted companion of liberty… It corrupts, it deceives, it inflames. It strips virtue of her honors, and lends to faction its wildfire and its poisoned arms, and in the end is its own enemy and the usurper’s ally.” ~Fisher Ames(1807)
  • “Newspapers … serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke.” ~Thomas Jefferson(1802)
  • “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” ~Thomas Jefferson(1807)

Communism . . . has infiltrated . . . into journalism, the press . . . It seeks through covert manipulation . . . to pervert the truth, impair respect for moral values.” ~General Douglas MacArthur

 
 
 
CB
2.2.35  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.34    one month ago

After all that, ultimately, you get deliveries of national and world news how: Smoke signals? Courier? Pony Express? Stage coach? Western Union? Ship to shore?

And from whom do you get current national and world news? Party Headquarters? Local Branch? Musty old books and writers, deceased journalists?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.36  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @2.2.35    one month ago

Your question does nothing to refute what I said.   The American press are overwhelmingly leftists and atheist.  It takes work and a lot of diligent reading to get facts over their propaganda 

the American press and most television news have largely been shills for the Democrats for over 50 years

 
 
 
CB
2.2.37  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.36    one month ago

And your reply relates no new information. I, we, run with the 4th estate I, we, 'got.'

Now, in this crazy, groovy, psychedelic, world of mixed up 'kids,' - where do you get your news - what you got?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.2.1    one month ago
Now I have a question for you: Do you think it is possible that maybe Trump knew something you don't ?

Donald Trump is president of the United States and is known to believe in numerous conspiracy theories . Thats a travesty in itself  but made worse by the fact that he keeps adding on to them by his faith in right wing media. 

Biden made his comments concerning what he said in late 2015 , about the Ukrainian prosecutor he wanted fired,  in January of 2018, 18 months before Trump spoke to Zelensky and asked him to investigate Biden. At any point after Jan 2018, and perhaps even earlier considering Biden made the demand that the prosecutor be fired in Dec of 2015, the Republican controlled Congress could have investigated the matter. They didnt, and we can assume it is because there was no there there. Trump was president for the entire time between Bidens comments at the Council on Foreign Relations and July 25th of 2019.  Why wasnt he calling for an investigation of Biden for all or any of that time?  The answer is simple, for most of that time Biden wasnt an announced candidate for president . What is funny is watching Trump supporters pretend all this is complicated. What happened was that Trump wanted to "cheat" in terms of the 2020 election field by smearing Joe Biden, but he got caught. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.39  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.38    one month ago

This is a long article. I'm not going to post all of it here, but enough to understand the points being made.

050919_kiev-1557423905.jpg?auto=compress

Viral rumors that   Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to the New York Times, are “absolute nonsense,” according to Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Biden’s outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s   Anti-Corruption Action Center , expressed frustration that two recent front-page stories in the New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.

The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

Properly debunking this particular conspiracy theory is easier said than done, though, since it is set in Ukraine, a country with byzantine political intrigue at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The rivalries between political factions in Kyiv are so intense that even the country’s new anti-corruption agencies are at each other’s throats.

There is no question that Biden did, during a visit to Kyiv in late 2015,   threaten to withhold   $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was dismissed. But the vice president, who was leading the Obama administration’s effort to fight corruption in Ukraine, did the country a favor by hastening   Shokin’s departure , Kaleniuk said, since he had failed to properly investigate corrupt officials.

“Shokin was fired because he attacked the reformers within the prosecutor general’s office,” Kaleniuk said, “reformers who tried to investigate corrupt prosecutors.”

As   Andrew Kramer explained   in the New York Times when Shokin was finally dismissed in 2016, Biden had acted as the point man for a coordinated international effort:

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power. As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

To illustrate what he called “rot in the prosecutor’s office,” Kramer cited a notorious example, known in Ukraine as the case of the “diamond prosecutors,” in which “troves of diamonds, cash and other valuables were found in the homes of two of Mr. Shokin’s subordinates, suggesting that they had been taking bribes. But the case became bogged down, with no reasons given.”

Among the most prominent cases of official corruption Shokin had failed to pursue was against Yanukovych’s environment and natural resources minister, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had oversight of all Ukrainian energy firms, including the largest independent gas company, Burisma, which he secretly controlled through shell companies in Cyprus. After Zlochevsky was forced from office along with Yanukovych in 2014, his gas company appointed Hunter Biden to its board.

“Shokin was fired,” Kaleniuk observed, “because he failed to do investigations of corruption and economic crimes of President Yanukovych and his close associates, including Zlochevsky, and basically it was the big demand within society in Ukraine, including our organization and many other organizations, to get rid of this guy.”

By getting Shokin removed, Biden in fact made it more rather than less likely that the oligarch who employed his son would be subject to prosecution for corruption.

As the former Reuters correspondent Oliver Bullough explains in his book “ Moneyland ,” just weeks before Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in May 2014, ostensibly “to strengthen corporate governance,” Britain’s Serious Fraud Office had frozen $23 million of Zlochevsky’s assets in a money laundering investigation. (Zlochevsky and Burisma have denied all allegations of corruption.) At the time, Bullough writes, “The White House insisted that the position was private matter for Hunter Biden unrelated to his father’s job, but that is not how anyone I spoke to in Ukraine interpreted it. Hunter Biden is an undistinguished corporate lawyer with no previous Ukraine experience. Why then would a Ukrainian tycoon hire him?”

Indeed, hiring the vice president’s son might have seemed to Zlochevsky like a way to protect his business from scrutiny by international investigators. But the facts show that the Obama-Biden administration strenuously opposed the decision by Ukrainian prosecutors to let Zlochevsky off the hook.

Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor who resigned in 2016 and accused Shokin’s office of being a “hotbed of corruption,” told Bullough that he had tried and failed to get his colleagues in the prosecutor general’s office to offer proper assistance to the British inquiry in 2014. But the British investigation was eventually stymied because Ukrainian prosecutors failed to provide a court with evidence that the $23 million — the proceeds from the sale of an oil storage facility Zlochevsky owned via a shell company in the British Virgin Islands — were related to criminal abuse of office by the former natural resources minister.

New reporting from Bloomberg News this week   revealed   that the 2014 case against Zlochevsky “was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.”

In December 2014, U.S. officials threatened Ukrainian prosecutors that there would be consequences if they failed to assist the British investigation, according to the documents obtained by Bloomberg. Instead, the Ukrainian prosecutors provided a letter to Zlochevsky’s lawyer stating that they knew of no evidence that the former minister had been involved in embezzlement.

The British investigation collapsed soon after that and the funds were unfrozen and quickly moved to Cyprus.

Kasko, the former deputy prosecutor, told Bloomberg News that there was no truth to the accusation that Biden or anyone in the Obama administration had tried to block the investigation of Zlochevsky. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.2.40  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.39    one month ago

So your seeded content proves Quid Pro Quo and then goes on to admit there was no logical reason to hire Hunter Biden; the son of the guy who got the company owner fired from his corrupt political office.

And somehow you think there is nothing going on with Joe Biden and Burisma that would have Trump concerned???

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.36    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.42  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @2.2.26    one month ago
Shouldn't Barr "the enforcer" have known to inform Trump he was violating law/s?

As if Trump would listen to any voice except those in his demented pea brain.

 
 
 
CB
2.3  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2    one month ago

More than likely, what you will find is a delusion is shattered. Fox News is lying to y'all. Alternative reality's collapse when they come up against hard truth. You'll see. Let it play out.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @2.3    one month ago
More than likely, what you will find is a delusion is shattered.

Yes we know.  The Democrats will resort to kneeling and howling at the sky similar to when Clinton lost in 2016.  It will of course be a hollow victory as the damage to the country by the Democrats will take multiple generations to repair and recover from.   But the Republicans are up to the task of rebuilding America.  They have a good start on that already.

Fox News is lying to y'all. Alternative reality's collapse when they come up against hard truth. You'll see. Let it play out.

What are you spewing about "Fox News" for?  I personally watched the Jerry Nadler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) and the Democrats when they had their witnesses testify in the House Chamber during the impeachment hearings.   The witnesses presented, EVERY ONE of them, had no personal direct knowledge of anything President Trump was alleged to have said or done.  They provided 'hearsay' evidence, personal theories and beliefs, and theories.  No factual evidence.  Hell, even when directly asked if they had any direct knowledge of anything, they remained mute.  That's pretty telling.

Further, when Jerry Nadler himself lied to the Republicans and assured them they would have a day of rebuttal witnesses per house rules, which never occurred, it was simply additional validation that the Democrats were operating in a purely hyper-partisan vendetta against President Trump for having the temerity to challenge not only the Republican establishment, but the Democrat political machine and WIN!!

Yes, let it play out, and the Democrats will continue down the path of trying to impeach President Trump until he vacates the White House in 2025 as they have dreamed of doing since January 2017.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.2  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.1    one month ago

You keep with your delusion, Jim Jordan soundalike. Who knows? In a political environment such as this - delusion can overwhelm reality! I will not waste good quality time discussing foolishness with you or anybody else going forward. If you want to argue dishonest bluster and BS find somebody, anybody, else.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @2.3    one month ago
Let it play out.

I agree. And if it goes the way the 2016 election did, I fully expect  the same teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling I saw then. It will be AWESOME when it turn out that even the President doesn't have to prove his Innocence, but that his accusers have to prove his GUILT.  So far, the only thing offered is hearsay and personal impressions while the major players are saying there was nothing demanded in exchange for something of value.  Think we can get Zolensky to answer a subpoena???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.3    one month ago

Trump asked the head of a foreign government to investigate one of Trump's election rivals.  Not hearsay at all.  And, in corroboration with the testimony of other witnesses , is proof of Trump's guilt. 

You wanting him to be innocent doesnt make it so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    one month ago
You wanting him to be innocent doesnt make it so. 

And you wanting him removed won't make it happen, either.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.5    one month ago

This is virtually an open and shut case.  McConnell wants to hold part of the trial in the middle of the night because he knows it's too dangerous to let the public see what is going to go on. 

What are all those Republican senators going to do when it turns out , a month or two or three after they let Trump go,  there is new information that incriminates him completely?

They won't be able to keep all this hushed up until November. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.7  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    one month ago
Trump asked the head of a foreign government to investigate one of Trump's election rivals.

Exactly when did Biden declare he was going to run for President? Wasn't that in April? The phone call came in July didn't it? So how did Biden come up???

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son,. that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it . . It sounds horrible to me.

So Biden bragged that he got the prosecutor fired that was investigating a case in which his son was under suspicion, and Trump wants to know if it is true.

Now I'm not seeing where Trump is asking for Biden to be investigated personally, but whether or not there is any truth to his claims of getting the prosecutor fired.

Maybe you can show me where exactly he is asking for Biden to be investigated as a person. not his claim?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.6    one month ago
What are all those Republican senators going to do when it turns out , a month or two or three after they let Trump go,  there is new information that incriminates him completely?
They won't be able to keep all this hushed up until November. 

Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before.

THIS time you really, really, really got him, don'tcha?

Hushed up? What nonsense is THAT?? It is all over the news! 

Dude, get real.

We both know Trump ain't going anywhere unless you Democrats luck out and actually beat him at the polls--for which there is absolutely no evidence you can.

Remember what happened  to the GOP after it impeached Clinton? Remember all those seats they lost?

Enjoy, buddy!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.7    one month ago

So you are claiming that an investigation into Biden's "bragging" is not an investigation into Biden? 

Would that be like an investigation into Hillary's emails would not be an investigation of Hillary? 

What are you talking about? 

Immediately prior to Trump's phone call to Zelensky Trump was given briefing material by people on Bolton's staff . This briefing material encouraged Trump to bring up corruption in Ukraine with Zelensky , BUT, this material did not mention Biden.  So what does Trump do?  He ignores his briefing , never mentions corruption at all, but mentions Biden. 

This is not complicated at all.  Trump , emboldened by what had happened THE PREVIOUS DAY (Muller flopped in his Congressional testimony) decided he is invincible and went out to find someone else to help him cheat on his next election.  But, the whistleblower got wind of it, and Trump got caught. 

There is no doubt of his guilt, the doubt is whether the Republicans in Congress want to man up.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.10  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.9    one month ago
Would that be like an investigation into Hillary's emails would not be an investigation of Hillary?

Did Hillary send the email that revealed a deep dark secret, or did she just receive it???

Did Biden actually get the prosecutor fired, or did Obama like some claim?

There is no doubt of his guilt,

In the mind of those suffering from TDS, you are obviously correct. I'm betting that you JR, are actually a Man of Law that will allow Justice to be done, no matter even if it forces yu to swallow your own words.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.8    one month ago

You dont have enough of a grasp of the material being discussed to make it worthwhile engaging you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.9    one month ago
So you are claiming that an investigation into Biden's "bragging" is not an investigation into Biden? 

Could Hunter Biden's former employer not be investigated?

There is no doubt of his guilt, the doubt is whether the Republicans in Congress want to man up.

That is merely your oft-repeated opinion.

Not everyone, clearly, shares that opinion.

But no matter what, we both know Trump will finish his first term as President.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.10    one month ago
In the mind of those suffering from TDS,

There is no such thing as TDS, unless we want to apply it to those who defend someone who has lied to them 16,000 times.  That is kind of demented, come to think of it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.12    one month ago

You guys need to read news from something other than right wing sources. Your understanding of what happened is all messed up. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.11    one month ago
You dont have enough of a grasp of the material being discussed to make it worthwhile engaging you.

I accept your capitulation.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.16  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.13    one month ago
There is no such thing as TDS

Sure there is. It is in evidence on a daily basis. I see Trump doing the same things Obama did, and now suddenly it isn't okay--because Trump is doing it!  Need an example? Go check in on the kids at the border! Need another one? Take out a terrorist with a drone!  One more? Or two more? Or three more?  How many more policies that have been going on for decades that Trump is continuing do you need as examples to prove that for some people, just have Trump's name linked to it is enough to send them off the deep end!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.14    one month ago
You guys need to read news from something other than right wing sources. Your understanding of what happened is all messed up. 

Oh, JR, get over it already. You haven't got one freaking clue as to where I get my news from. 

You shouldn't assume facts not in evidence.

And your condescending comment is duly noted and dismissed as the asinine comment it is.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.18  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.3    one month ago

What I think is Trump is on the wrong side of history, and Trump republicans are on the wrong side as well.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.19  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.7    one month ago
So Biden bragged that he got the prosecutor fired that was investigating a case in which his son was under suspicion, and Trump wants to know if it is true

Prove it and when you do can you get the long version of the video or text? Not that I buy that knowing the truth will set you free in any way, shape, or fashion on this topic.

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.20  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.11    one month ago
You dont have enough of a grasp of the material being discussed to make it worthwhile engaging you. 

Its what they do,  regurgitate lies and propaganda.  The whole Biden thing is bullshit,  they like to pretend Biden just went over and fired the guy prosecuting corruption and its the OPPOSITE.  The guy who was fired was corrupt and NOT prosecuting corruption.  Biden was doing US and our allies work, not his own.  Without gaslighting, they have nothing. 

Or, they are just too uninformed to understand it.

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.21  JBB  replied to  lib50 @2.3.20    one month ago

Yes, and it is particularly galling that these goppers here know they are being dishonest yet take a holier than thou attitude. I guess it doesn't matter to them that it shreds their credibility. Shamelessness is epidemic among republicans today it seems. No wonder the once Grand Old Party of Abe Lincoln is now known as "the damn gop". Such lying and cheating are not and never will be The American Way. I guess the damn gop somehow failed to notice that Congressional republicans lost the 2018 Congressional popular vote by the largest margin IN US HISTORY. Winni ng? You'd think they did not know...

https://amp-axios-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.axios.com/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-won-house-biggest-margin-a56a1049-8823-4667-8d81-2c67ef3f36f4.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15795966058886&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2F2018-midterm-elections-democrats-won-house-biggest-margin-a56a1049-8823-4667-8d81-2c67ef3f36f4.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.22  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.21    one month ago

Still focusing on unimportant stuff, I see.

When if ever will you learn that overall total votes for Congress is meaningless, and what counts are seats won or lost?

Tell me this---do Democrats run to win overall votes or seats?

SMMFH!!!!!

LMMFAO!!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.23  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @2.3.19    one month ago
Prove it and when you do can you get the long version of the video or text?

Here is your hour to waste:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4&feature=emb_logo

And here is the pertinent part I mentioned of the video:

And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Hoisted by his own petard...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.24  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @2.3.18    one month ago

That remains to be seen I suppose...

We will have to wait another couple of Presidential terms to see how it really goes down in the history books of Public Opinion.  Look at Carter and Reagan as examples.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.25  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.23    one month ago

I have watched the video over a month ago (researched for another thread).  On Ukraine: Listen from 52 minutes to the end of the tape. If you can find reasonable fault (bragging in context) against Vice-President Biden who at that time was in service of his president at the time. Please submit it to me for review. If you can not, I ask you to cease and desist.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.3.25    one month ago

Cease and desist from posting what you asked him to post?

Hilarious!

 
 
 
CB
2.3.27  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.26    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.28  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.23    one month ago
And here is the pertinent part I mentioned of the video

Yet you don't seem to recognize that Biben states: 

They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. 

Which means to anyone with a brain that Biden's authority came from the POTUS. 

Secondly, you're desperate to ignore the fact that Shokin was NOT investigating Biden's son. Never did. That's a lie which Trump is using to gaslight his sycophants. 

Hoisted by his own petard...

Trump stated on LIVE TV that he wanted Ukraine AND China to investigate the Bidens and you do not care. 

 
 
 
CB
2.3.29  CB   replied to  CB @2.3.27    one month ago

Well, I did write, "Excuse me."  That's all.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.3.30  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.3.28    one month ago

So Obama was demanding Quid Pro Quo! Okay, that makes it better. /s

Considering the handling of our current DoJ's minions in any investigation related to the Clintons,  I can understand why having a third party outside of our own corrupt government  do the investigation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.31  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.30    one month ago
So Obama was demanding Quid Pro Quo! Okay, that makes it better. /s

Nope. Neither Biden or Obama got any benefit from the firing of a corrupt Ukrainian General Prosecutor. ALL of the benefits went to Ukraine.  

Considering the handling of our current DoJ's minions in any investigation related to the Clintons,  I can understand why having a third party outside of our own corrupt government  do the investigation.

So is it just investigations related to Clinton that your distrust the DOJ to do or do you distrust them doing the ongoing investigation by Barr and Durham too? 

Secondly, I have already posted the LAWFUL process for requesting legal assistance from Ukraine. I have pointed that out for WEEKS now and not one conservative has even attempted to explain WHY Trump failed to follow our Treaty obligations. I'm pretty sure that is because it's obvious that Trump wanted to do this clandestinely and has NO empirical evidence that he can document in a formal request.

Spewing unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations without any obligation to put up or shut up is Trump's MO and it works with his uninformed and obtuse sycophantic base. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.3.32  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.6    one month ago

As far as the public is concerned has Mitch ever heard of recording a program on tv to be viewed later?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.33  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.3.7    one month ago
Exactly when did Biden declare he was going to run for President? Wasn't that in April? The phone call came in July didn't it? So how did Biden come up???

Shouldn't Trump and his lawyers be the ones answering that question? Trump stated on live TV that an investigation into the Bidens is what he wanted from Ukraine, oh and then he added China into the mix. 

So Biden bragged that he got the prosecutor fired that was investigating a case in which his son was under suspicion, and Trump wants to know if it is true.

Trump's advisors have been telling him that it isn't true all along. Trump cannot be moved from the BULLSHIT he WANTS to be true. 

BTFW, as stated here enumerable times, Biden's son was NOT under suspicion and was NOT being investigated and wasn't working for Burisma when they were under investigation. 

Now I'm not seeing where Trump is asking for Biden to be investigated personally, but whether or not there is any truth to his claims of getting the prosecutor fired. Maybe you can show me where exactly he is asking for Biden to be investigated as a person. not his claim?

Here, let me help:

Do you see it now? 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.34  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.3.33    one month ago
Biden's son was NOT under suspicion and was NOT being investigated and wasn't working for Burisma when they were under investigation. 

Once again you are wrong, 

  • In April 2014, Biden's son Hunter joined the board of Burisma Holdings. Hunter served on the board until early 2019.

So Biden was there from 2014 until 2019

  • After Shokin was appointed as Ukraine's prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited the investigations into Zlochevsky. He also ultimately launched another probe into the profitable gas licenses that were awarded to Zlochevsky's companies as he served as a top minister in Yanukovych's government.

You do realize 2015 comes AFTER  2014 right, So Biden was there!!!! 

  • For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn't make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired. 

So Biden threatened to withhold aid if the Prosecutor wasn't fired who was investigating his son, 

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.35  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.3.34    one month ago

From YOUR link:

Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have suggested, without evidence, that Biden improperly pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who had at one point been investigating Burisma Holdings.

Though some ethics watchdogs have criticized Hunter's decision to work for Burisma in light of who his father is, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on his part or the former vice president's.

And there's nothing concrete to support the suggestion Biden pressured Ukraine to take actions to the benefit of his son.

But by March 2016, Shokin was ousted. Hundreds of Ukrainians had demonstrated in front of the president's office calling for Shokin to be booted and the Ukrainian parliament voted to accept his resignation.

For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn't make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired. 

So, it's true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine's top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.

According to the Times, Ukrainian and American officials have also debated whether Shokin was using the threat of prosecution against Burisma in order to solicit a bribe.   

Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post, "Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma. Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."

Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former prosecutor general who left the post at the end of August, told Bloomberg in an interview in May that neither Biden nor Hunter are the subject of investigations: "I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections. Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its board."

Lutsenko added: "At the end of the day, Shokin submitted his own resignation."

Additionally, Lutsenko on September 26 told The Washington Post: "From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, [Hunter Biden] did not violate anything."

Lutsenko in an interview with the Los Angeles Times on September 29 echoed his previous comments and said that he'd not seen any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.

On October 4, it was reported Ukraine's new prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, is reviewing past investigations into the owner of Burisma. This raised the possibility of inquiries being restarted, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Ryaboshapka on October 4 also told Reuters he's not aware of any evidence of wrongdoing on Hunter's part and that he'd not been in touch with any foreign lawyers regarding the case. 

Multiple witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have said there's no evidence of illegal activity on the part of the Bidens in relation to Burisma.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Wait, one more...

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.36  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.3.35    4 weeks ago

So the fuck what, Biden was there during the investigation from both prosecutors and you were wrong again, the rest is just you trying to deflect from that fact.  

I will post it again, your worlds,

and wasn't working for Burisma when they were under investigation. 

This is a bold face lie, the rest of your post is just you failing to man up again,

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.37  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.3.36    4 weeks ago
So the fuck what, Biden was there during the investigation from both prosecutors and you were wrong again, the rest is just you trying to deflect from that fact.  

Nope. Shokin's Burisma investigation was for actions taken by the owner BEFORE Hunter Biden joined the company.

Secondly, the VAST majority of the 'investigations' were NOT into Burisma Holdings, they were into the finances of the OWNER and it's parent company. 

Now I'm sure that you still think that Hunter Biden should be held accountable for actions taken before he joined the company, or allegations against the owner of the company. I don't. 

Yet ultimately, it comes down to a US President asking a foreign country to investigate an American citizen without any empirical evidence of wrongdoing. 

Posting facts isn't deflection loki. 

So, it's true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine's top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.

According to the Times, Ukrainian and American officials have also debated whether Shokin was using the threat of prosecution against Burisma in order to solicit a bribe.   

Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post, "Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma. Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."

Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former prosecutor general who left the post at the end of August, told Bloomberg in an interview in May that neither Biden nor Hunter are the subject of investigations: "I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections. Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its board."

Those are facts garnered from YOUR link. Insisting what YOU posted from that link is relevant yet insist that what I posted is deflection is hypocritical loki. Bad form...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @2.3.37    4 weeks ago

Trump is completely guilty. The only possible innocent explanation would be if he was drunk when he made the call to Zelensky, and thus didnt have control of his faculties. But alas, Trump doesnt drink. 

It doesnt matter if Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did something amiss in Ukraine ( although there is no evidence they did). Trump cannot hold back the aid on the basis that he wants a political opponent investigated by the president of a foreign country.  Cant do it. 

But you know what? If there was any real place to go in investigating Joe Biden, Barr would have done it, and the Republican congress would have done it. 

Why is our jack ass in chief investigating his political opponents in such a rogue way, using Giuliani and Parnas, the inspector closeaus of our time? 

Because he knew it was improper to do it in a legitimate way. 

Throw the bum out. 

There are dozens of Republicans in Congress who would like to be president. Nominate one of them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.39  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.38    4 weeks ago
But you know what? If there was any real place to go in investigating Joe Biden, Barr would have done it, and the Republican congress would have done it. 

Add to that the fact that IF it was kosher, IF there was a shred of evidence, Bolton would have been MORE than happy about investigating Biden and wouldn't have been calling it a 'drug deal'. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2    one month ago
I'm hoping they do get the Biden's to testify.

Why? They literally have nothing to do with trump demanding political favors from the Ukraine. Other than deflection, having them testify is pointless. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @2.4    one month ago
They literally have nothing to do with trump demanding political favors from the Ukraine

Actually, if it turns out there is fire to go with the smoke, it will go a long way towards exonerating Trump in peoples minds making it that much harder for Pelosi's ploy to succeed!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.1    4 weeks ago
Actually, if it turns out there is fire to go with the smoke,

There IS no smoke CK. It's steam coming off of the bullshit Trump is spewing. 

it will go a long way towards exonerating Trump in peoples minds making it that much harder for Pelosi's ploy to succeed!

What would go a long way towards exonerating Trump would be for Mulveney, Bolton, Pompeo and/or Duffy testifying that Trump ACTUALLY instituted an 'interagency review'. To date, there isn't any evidence that any such 'review' was requested or conducted. In fact, the emails release so far prove that NO interagency review ever happened. All they did was forward documentation that they had ALREADY accumulated to reiterate what they had reported to Congress to support their ruling that the funding should be released. Trump could not be swayed. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.2    4 weeks ago
There IS no smoke CK.

Suuuure there isn't. Hunter Biden is such a GREAT attorney that even he admits he has no idea why he got the job...other than his name. Or did you forget that interview he gave???

Puhleeze!

The only BS here is coming from those who refuse to embrace what both Biden's have already admitted!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.4  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.3    4 weeks ago
Suuuure there isn't. Hunter Biden is such a GREAT attorney that even he admits he has no idea why he got the job...other than his name. Or did you forget that interview he gave??? Puhleeze!

HOW is any of that relevant CK? Innuendo doesn't cut it. SO WHAT. Biden's kid got a windfall gig. If that's 'smoke' I could name a couple dozen kids of politicians, INCLUDING McConnell's, that are smoking their asses off. 

The only BS here is coming from those who refuse to embrace what both Biden's have already admitted!

Yet you insist on misrepresenting what they said, especially what Joe Biden said. Why not try debating the FACTS on the merits instead of making up bullshit? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.5  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.4    4 weeks ago

Laughing my fucking ass off! Releance? Oh my fucking God! It can't POSS8BLY  be more relevant than being the key to this ENTIRE mess! How is that for relevance?

That 8s what I'm loving about this whole deal--Trump can't go down without taking four top Democrats with him, and apparently the entire Party base 8s clueless to it!

Maybe you should step back and look at the ENTIRE picture, and when you do, think real hard on who knows what and who appears dirty, and who exactly will benefit from the shit show. Maybe, just maybe, when you take your attention 9ff the Left Hand, you might, just might, catch a glimpse of what the Right Hand has been doing behind your back this entire time!

Of course that will require be8ng honest with yourself and putting aside preconceived notions of who all is guilty, and who is innocent in this theatrical farce.

Good luck!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.6  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.5    4 weeks ago
How is that for relevance?

How is WHAT CK? 

Proclamations aren't facts. Do you HAVE any? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.7  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.6    4 weeks ago

The same ones you have, but assembled differently for consideration.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.8  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.6    4 weeks ago

The same ones you have, but assembled differently for consideration.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.9  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.7    4 weeks ago

No CK. Your posts are proclamations and innuendo, NOT facts. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.10  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.9    4 weeks ago
No CK. Your posts are proclamations and innuendo, NOT facts.

Pot, meet Kettle!

I've laid out the facts in pretty clear and concise language multiple times up and down throughout this thread. I know you've seen it because you've been commenting on my comments, so there is that...

Now if you have anything to refute those actual facts that I have laid out, the time has almost past for you to post them. It is already looking like the only thing left here is more sour grapes being posted, and it is getting pretty tiresome stomping on them just to get more whine!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.11  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.10    4 weeks ago
Pot, meet Kettle!

Oh the 'I know what you are what am I' comment.

Pffft. 

I've laid out the facts in pretty clear and concise language multiple times up and down throughout this thread. I know you've seen it because you've been commenting on my comments, so there is that...

I asked you a SPECIFIC question about your claim about Hunter Biden in this thread and all you had was BS about some ethereal 'smoke' and the 'key to this whole mess' and the 'ENTIRE picture', without an iota of evidence. 

Now if you have anything to refute those actual facts that I have laid out, the time has almost past for you to post them.

You haven't answered my question with any actual facts CK. NONE.

How is the fact that Biden's kid got a windfall gig RELEVANT to the Articles of Impeachment against Trump? 

It is already looking like the only thing left here is more sour grapes being posted, and it is getting pretty tiresome stomping on them just to get more whine!

Then just continue to laugh your ass off for no reason in particular. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.12  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.11    4 weeks ago
You haven't answered my question with any actual facts CK. NONE.

Like this one?

How is the fact that Biden's kid got a windfall gig RELEVANT to the Articles of Impeachment against Trump?

And around and around and around we go!

Of course you would have to admit that Hunter getting the job with a company at the center of a Political Corruption investigation would have influence with his Dad, and thus it was improper. You would also have to admit Nepotism was at the center of the hiring in the first place. Then you would have to admit it is all equally suspicious enough to warrant investigating.

Do you admit these facts?

Because if you do, then you would have to admit that asking for an investigation of probable  corruption involving a former Vice President who now wants to become President, is justifiable! If you admit that, then you would have to admit that whether or not Trump benefits from said investigation, it was a justifiable act and therefore the Impeachment has no leg to stand on!

None of which you will admit...

So I'll just keep laughing!

Meanwhile, Biden's candidacy will get it's temporary boost while his opponents are locked in the Senate hearing testimony of hearsay is all we've got for three LONG days, and then further down the road, a certain candidate will get a YUGE bump in the polls when it turns out that Biden either quits running under a cloud of suspicion, or he actually gets charged with something (although there is always a possibility of a health issue forcing him to drop out). Face it, if Wall Street doesn't want him in, he won't get in!

I guess we will have to wait and see if my prognosticating comes to fruition, won't we???

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.13  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.12    4 weeks ago
Do you admit these facts?

No, I do not accept the premise of your question. 

Improper? So what? 

Influence? So what? 

As posted above: Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former prosecutor general who left the post at the end of August, told Bloomberg in an interview in May that neither Biden nor Hunter are the subject of investigations: "I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections. Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its board."

That's Trump's and Giuliani's 'star witness' in May 2019. 

Trump had over a year from Biden's 'bragging' to get Lutsenko to investigate the Biden's. Yet NO ONE, not Lutsenko, not Solomon and NOT TRUMP have said a fucking word about such a 'request' ever being made, not even through back channels.

Things that make me go Hmmmm.  

Nepotism? As I said, if nepotism is a reason for investigations, there is a long list of investigations that need to be pursued right HERE in the US. 

Let's start with:

Ivanka Trump 

Jared Kushner

Elaine Chao 

Ronna Romney McDaniel

Eugene Scalia 

Michael Powell

Then you would have to admit it is all equally suspicious enough to warrant investigating.

Suspicious? No MORE suspicious than the above 'improper, influenced, nepotism' I listed above. Oh and BTFW, ALL of the above are or were employed using taxpayer funds. 

So unless there's hypocrisy going on here, all of those listed above 'warrant investigating'.  

Because if you do, then you would have to admit that asking for an investigation of probable  corruption involving a former Vice President who now wants to become President, is justifiable!

So there you go making a YUGE leap from making allegations against Hunter Biden to  trying to pretend that somehow proves that Joe Biden did something corrupt. 

That's just innuendo made up from whole cloth.

So again, unless there is hypocrisy going on here, all of the Fathers of those listed above, and many more, should be investigated for 'probable corruption' right CK?  

Ya, now I'm the one laughing. 

If you admit that, then you would have to admit that whether or not Trump benefits from said investigation, it was a justifiable act and therefore the Impeachment has no leg to stand on!

Nope. If Trump had a 'justifiable' reason to ask Ukraine for help to investigate the Bidens, he wouldn't have used back channels and the Three Amigos. 

If Trump's desired investigation was 'justifiable', why did Bolton call it a 'drug deal'? 

Again, the DOJ has NOT opened ANY investigation of ANY kind involving Ukraine OR the Bidens. Why not? 

None of which you will admit...
So I'll just keep laughing!

You be you. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.4.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @2.4.13    4 weeks ago

You be you. 

sounds like a COC...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.15  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.13    4 weeks ago
So again, unless there is hypocrisy going on here, all of the Fathers of those listed above, and many more, should be investigated for 'probable corruption' right CK?

Yep!  And so should ANY elected official using their Public Office to get their kids a job..or their wife...or their Dad, their Mom, their grandparents, their In-Laws or any other family member!

See, we do agree on something!

And since we do agree, then we agree an investigation is warranted! Why?

Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.16  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.15    4 weeks ago
Yep!  And so should ANY elected official using their Public Office to get their kids a job..or their wife...or their Dad, their Mom, their grandparents, their In-Laws or any other family member! See, we do agree on something!

So WHERE are the DOJ investigations CK? Where are your posts demanding that Trump be investigated because his daughter flew on Air Force One with him to China and after a dinner at the 'Winter WH' received 7 new patents? 

Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. 

So you seem to be inferring that Trump's 'star witness' stated that Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws and 'we do not see any wrongdoing' without his office investigating it. So either that makes Trump's 'star witness' is a liar or incompetent. Either way, it doesn't bode well for his credibility. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.17  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.16    4 weeks ago

The.post saying it should be investigated is the one you jusr replied to. And it is only one of many times I have said it over the years!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.18  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.17    4 weeks ago
The.post saying it should be investigated is the one you jusr replied to. And it is only one of many times I have said it over the years!

Oh I'd love to read your comment demanding an investigation into Trump's nepotism posted prior to today. Link? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.4.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @2.4.18    4 weeks ago

Trumpp said nepotism only began with Biden

.
guessin it ended with him as well

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.20  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.18    4 weeks ago

Google is your friend.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.21  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.20    4 weeks ago

You're posts here make google? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.22  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.21    4 weeks ago

They do if you know how to use it properly.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.23  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.22    4 weeks ago

So does your profile page but it seems that you know that no such comment exists so it would be a waste of your time to look. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.24  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.23    4 weeks ago

Pretty sure it does considering how often I complain about corruption in government and how often Nepotism is involved.  Try reading my comments...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.25  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.24    4 weeks ago
Pretty sure it does considering how often I complain about corruption in government and how often Nepotism is involved.  Try reading my comments...

Punt...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.4.26  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @2.4.25    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.27  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.4.26    4 weeks ago
Removed for context - s

Kay-unt or Pun-Kay?

Are either of those two even a word???

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.28  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.25    4 weeks ago
Punt...

Blocked...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.4.29  Texan1211  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.24    4 weeks ago
Pretty sure it does considering how often I complain about corruption in government and how often Nepotism is involved.  Try reading my comments...

Reading alone is insufficient. One must also be able to understand what one reads.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.4.30  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.27    4 weeks ago
Removed for context - s

i stated i SPELL it like PUNTA K anna, know ? which witch does cast too deep to spell a soft special K from on that had a hard days knight to censor what senseless people would change for less than a dollar makes sense to PuntKanna in the Pot called Kettle if made of ferrous to wrinkle out till oxidised oxen dragging iron blades to cultivate the culture studied in a paltry petri dish

washed  like a brain flake spelled bran, with a hard i to see ware n tear eyes from sockets for currently being a lead with neutral parked in space 

reserved for a paved ground due to some ass's phault for knot tieing his dog to the curved curb that increased the deceased and desist orders taken by a dumb waiter elevated by an anonymous, yet just s shocking jolt from an electric collar conducting the orchestrated heist  without a conductor

to enable the cable that spans attention disorders that don't add up to A D D, but sometimes before B C

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.31  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.28    4 weeks ago

Yet it was still a punt. Just like Trump is still impeached. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
2.4.32  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Dulay @2.4.31    4 weeks ago

Trump will be acquitted and then when the GOP wins back the House this year it will be expunged within a year from now. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.4.33  Texan1211  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @2.4.32    4 weeks ago

Isn't it funny how impeachment means so much to them?

SO what? Let them have their fun with it--just like Abuela's popular vote "win". Means absolutely nothing. 

It isn't like we think "impeachment" every time someone mentions Clinton right?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.34  Dulay  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @2.4.32    4 weeks ago

Thanks for posting another cookie cutter proclamation.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    one month ago
So how about that striking from the Federal Record?

An interesting concept.  I'll make a guess that it can't be struck, but can possibly be amended with annotations that due to "X factor(s)" the Impeachment has been reversed with prejudice and any references to it are for historical purposes only to avoid a similar debacle in the future.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  XDm9mm @3    one month ago
the Impeachment has been reversed with prejudice and any references to it are for historical purposes only to avoid a similar debacle in the future

Even if it were truck from official records, it would still go down in the History Books.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1    one month ago
it would still go down in the History Books.

Unfortunately, history books would not be considered from a legal perspective.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    one month ago

true, and yet sometimes history is used to base to decide legal cases and after this partisan debacle, it may prove to be a deciding factor should we ever see ourselves dragged down into this type of mud again even if it does get stricken from the Federal Records.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.2    one month ago

The courts, civil and criminal, look at the existing law and the precedence of that law.  However, the process we're going through now is neither - civil nor criminal.  It is purely a political ploy to vacate a legally decided election in accordance with the U.S. Constitution - "the Supreme law of the land".

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1    one month ago
Even if it were truck from official records, it would still go down in the History Books.

Just like vacating a World Series title in the wake of the current scandal or Reggie Bush having the Heisman rescinded after the fact. Maybe historians will correctly call this the Asterisk Age. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.5  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.3    one month ago
It is purely a political ploy to vacate a legally decided election in accordance with the U.S. Constitution - "the Supreme law of the land".

Agreed; and this has been in evidence since before Trump ever took office.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.3    one month ago
It is purely a political ploy to vacate a legally decided election in accordance with the U.S. Constitution

I'm starting to believe it's not even about getting Trump out of office, that would just be the icing on the cake.

The Democrats are desperate to "divide and conquer" in 2020.  I think their actual hope is to create such division that any Senator voting against impeachment will be tarred and feathered in the November vote and lose his/her seat and the same for the members of the House.

I think they're overplaying their hand and the results will actually backfire as I think it will invigorate the Republicans, Independents and rational Democrats to vote for anyone EXCEPT a Democrat.

The American people, while often partisan are generally fair.  And any rational person can't help but see that what the Democrats are perpetrating against a sitting President is more than questionable when they're basing their entire argument on hear-say, innuendo and emotions.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.7  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.4    one month ago
Maybe historians will correctly call this the Asterisk Age.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.8  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.3    one month ago
The courts, civil and criminal, look at the existing law and the precedence of that law.  However, the process we're going through now is neither - civil nor criminal.  It is purely a political ploy to vacate a legally decided election in accordance with the U.S. Constitution - "the Supreme law of the land".

The 'U.S. Constitution - "the Supreme law of the land" INTENTIONALLY includes this clause:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment

And this one:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

And this one:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I hope that you recognized that last clause explicitly codify the legality of removing the POTUS or VPOTUS and understand that our founders realized that those officials would have been 'duly elected' prior to impeachment.

This whining about the HORROR of removing a duly elected POTUS is mere hyperbolic bullshit.

Our founders made impeachment the 'Supreme law of the land".  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.4    one month ago
Maybe historians will correctly call this the Asterisk Age. 

that asterisk by trumps name will only remind people how full of shit today's left was.

today's left will be remembered as emotionally butthurt lunatics. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.1.9    one month ago
today's left will be remembered as emotionally butthurt lunatics.

Only by emotionally butthurt lunatics. Progress marches on with or without you, and there's nothing the right can do about it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.7    one month ago

That might make an interesting book - The Asterisk Age.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.3    one month ago
a political ploy to vacate a legally decided election

A legally decided election cannot be overturned. It was a stupid talking point to start with, now it's just a laughable excuse to imply that the impeachment was all political, which it clearly isn't. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.2  Snuffy  replied to  XDm9mm @3    one month ago

Yep. However if I had my choice I would hope that it could be expunged from the record. I would hate the next time we have a President who is unliked by the opposing political party who also happens to have the majority in the House to use this impeachment as precedent for running another partisian impeachment process.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @3.2    one month ago
Yep. However if I had my choice I would hope that it could be expunged from the record.

The problem with that is that it would not be seen as 'removed with prejudice'.  Too many 'elected' representatives are entirely ignorant of history and/or historical precedent.  If it remained on the 'official record', they could refer to it and know that the proponents of the impeachment acted with malice and no basis in fact.  That might make representatives in the future think twice about trying to impeach the President because their feelings were hurt or someone somewhere heard someone three times removed from a conversation tell someone else a story and try to proclaim it as fact.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.1    one month ago

I can only hope the lesson is learned from this fiasco, but IMO the average intelligence of Congress is just below that of the average dachshund.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.2    one month ago
but IMO the average intelligence of Congress is just below that of the average dachshund.

Why do you find it necessary to insult dachshunds?  Now, if you noted the average amoeba, that would still be insulting to amoeba, but less so.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.2.4  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.3    one month ago

Yes the current house majority is pretty darned low on both intelligence and ethics.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.3  Sparty On  replied to  XDm9mm @3    one month ago

Honestly I really don’t think it matters.    Every honestly unbiased person realizes Trumps impeachment is just partisan nonsense much like Clinton’s was.    

Nothing more than an abuse of majority congressional power.     Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

If trump wins re-election and the republicans take the house, I can certainly see  trump pushing for it.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago
I can certainly see  trump pushing for it

So could I, but whether or not it gets anywhere will remain to be seen.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

being impeached by today's anti-USA left is an honor.

  it will only remind people just how off the rails today's left has gone.

 
 
 
WallyW
6  WallyW    one month ago
gv011820dAPR20200117064507.jpg
 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @6    one month ago

You are aware that literally every order trump signs, he hands out pens, right? Er, sharpies. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

Possibly, but they probably aren't 14 kt gold plated ones like Pelosi handed out.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

As have all Presidents in the past.

Your point?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

Big deal. So does every other president, and they do that for landmark deals, legislation, etc. Each of Pelosi's special order gold-plated "impeachment" pens allegedly cost taxpayers over $2,000.00. She thinks that she's as important as a POTUS.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago
You are aware that literally every order trump signs, he hands out pens, right? Er, sharpies. 

Not the same....not even close. A proper analogy would be signing somebody's death warrant and then handing out souvenir pens. How can anyone miss the mean spirited act for what it was?

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.1    one month ago
Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, told us that the pens Pelosi used to sign the articles of impeachment cost just under $15 apiece, and that they were the same type of pen used to sign other pieces of legislation. At $15 a piece, that means the total cost for these pens was about $450, well under the $15,000 (or $450,000) amount claimed in those baseless social media posts. 

Does Trump use a $2 Sharpie to sign legislation? 

In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 “Century II” pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama’s administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impeachment-pens-15k-dollars/
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.1    one month ago

Of course not,  Trump keeps those for being to good for mortal man.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
6.1.7  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.3    one month ago

Maybe she still thinks she’s going to be POTUS for a couple of months after they take out Mike Pence as well. She’s still dreaming 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    one month ago
A proper analogy would be signing somebody's death warrant and then handing out souvenir pens. 

For that to be a 'proper analogy', Trump would have to be subjected to at lease some kind of physical harm because of Pelosi's signing the Resolution. Even should Trump be found guilty by the Senate, there is NO evidence that any physical harm will come to him as a result. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.2    one month ago
Your point?

My point is that it's pretty hypocritical to complain that Pelosi handed out pens once when trump does the same thing every time he signs something. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @6.1.7    one month ago

Maybe she still thinks she’s going to be POTUS for a couple of months after they take out Mike Pence as well. She’s still dreaming 

She said that when? Proof, please. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    one month ago

The article is pro Trump nonsense. If the Republicans retake both branches of Congress , I suppose they can make a proclamation saying Trump cured cancer and won the Nobel Peace Prize three years in a row and was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine.  Such announcements would have as much tether to reality as an attempt to claim Trump is innocent and his impeachment by the House was invalid. 

I got news for you, writer of the article - someone who lies thousands of times while in office is not going to be treated kindly by history. 

I do appreciate you making your pro Trump "feelings" more visible though.  And yes, only someone irrationally pro Trump could conclude that his personal behavior as president will be given favorable light by the future. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
The article is pro Trump nonsense.

As opposed to the daily barrage of anti-Trump vitriolic hatred disguised as news JR?

It's a breath of fresh air.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    one month ago
It's a breath of fresh air.

If you like right wing/libertarian partisan gibberish. 

The Republicans want to call Hunter Biden and the whistleblower. They know they have no case on the actual facts, and want to create distractions.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    one month ago
They know they have no case on the actual facts, and want to create distractions.

Why not?  they're simply following the game plans as established by the House of Representative Democrats.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    one month ago
and the whistleblower

The person Democrats call a "whistleblower" is merely an informant whose name is known to Schiff, his staff, the media, and anyone who has been paying attention. Very telling that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are still trying to "protect" his identity.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1.3    one month ago
are still trying to "protect" his identity.

ciaramella, a CIA stooge, a fool, swamp rat, and a traitor.

the senate should make him testify under oath.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    one month ago

A breath of fresh air?  LOL!!!!!!

I'm sure it smells as fresh as tRump farts which must be some really shitty stinky affairs what with his fast food diet.  

Y'all must be quite familiar with the smell seeing how far your heads are up his . . . . . . . . . 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    one month ago

Why don't you learn how to discuss the topic of the thread instead of attempting to throw "zingers"?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.6    one month ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
7.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

Yes John, I know in your mind that if I say something defending Trump, that makes me Pro-Trump.

Now if you are finished attacking me, in clear violation of the last sentence of the posted article, try staying on topic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @7.2    one month ago
It's a breath of fresh air.

I am commenting on the article. It's one of the silliest things I've seen here in a while, and that covers a lot of ground. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
7.2.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    one month ago
I am commenting on the article.

Really; only the article? Not me at all? Then wtf is this:

I do appreciate you making your pro Trump "feelings" more visible though.  And yes, only someone irrationally pro Trump

Now stay on topic so we won't have to suffer any more "walkbacks" of your comments.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
The article is pro Trump nonsense.

Is that why only two progressives dared to show up here?


 If the Republicans retake both branches of Congress , I suppose they can make a proclamation saying Trump cured cancer and won the Nobel Peace Prize three years in a row and was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine. 

You mean like when Barak Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being the first black president


Such announcements would have as much tether to reality as an attempt to claim Trump is innocent and his impeachment by the House was invalid. 

He is obviously innocent, just as we was with that humongus lie about "Russia."


I got news for you, writer of the article - someone who lies thousands of times while in office is not going to be treated kindly by history. 

I've got a little bulletin for you too - history will have no mercy for the haters who have hurt so many for the past 3 years!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.3    one month ago

History will have no mercy for a POTUS who lies, cheats, steals, lusts after his own daughter, and dodges the draft.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.3.1    one month ago
History will have no mercy for a POTUS who lies, cheats, steals, lusts after his own daughter, and dodges the draft.

History has been very kind to Bill Clinton.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.3.3  WallyW  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    one month ago

History has been very kind to Bill Clinton.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.3.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.3.1    one month ago
History will have no mercy

history is written by the winners.

spoiler alert = the left loses.

cheers :)

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.3.5  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    one month ago

History has been very kind to Bill Clinton.

He didn't dodge the draft, didn't lust after his own daughter or tell over 16,000 lies in just over three years. 

Trump is much better at those things than Bill Clinton, ya really got me there. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
7.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
The article is pro Trump nonsense. 

As opposed to all the anti Trump nonsense you plaster all over NT?

I got news for you, writer of the article - someone who lies thousands of times while in office is not going to be treated kindly by history. 

Still hung up on that one (out of HUNDREDS) lying politician I see.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.4    one month ago
As opposed to all the anti Trump nonsense you plaster all over NT?

There is basically no such thing as anti-Trump nonsense, although I suppose it's possible in theory. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    one month ago
It is quite possible that due to the blatant abuse of power that we have seen from the House Democrat's that the backlash will be a sweeping of the House in November of those who aided and abetted an attempt to overturn a legal election.

More nonsense. Overturning the election would involve going back in time and erasing all of Trump's appointments to the federal courts, all of his executive orders, and all the legislation that was passed on Trump's initiative.  And the only way the election could be overturned is if someone other than Pence was made the next president on Trump's removal. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
8.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago

Not true. Overturning the election can be as simple as removing the Current sitting President with someone else...regardless of who they are.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago
And the only way the election could be overturned is if someone other than Pence was made the next president on Trump's removal. 

True, and I have seen blurbs in the media (wishful thinking?) that Pence is considering resigning , and 3rd in line for the presidency is who in that case? Speaker of the House.

I have a very sneaky feeling that at least one of the Articles of impeachment  will be dismissed. simply because , not all the I's were dotted and the T's crossed, to put it plainly what needed to happen to make the charge and thus make it impeachable wasn't followed through with and to make it stick.

 I am of course talking about obstruction of congress, the actual deciding entity when a dis agreement between the legislative and the executive branches , is the judicial branch, not the legislative branch itself.

but that is simply my opinion and observation, and we know whats said about those things for everyone.

with something of the magnitude of impeachment , all those I's need to be dotted , all those t's need to be crossed, If they are not , then the importance of the action is diminished, relegating it to a circus to be manipulated for the court of public opinion. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
8.2.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.2    one month ago
with something of the magnitude of impeachment , all those I's need to be dotted , all those t's need to be crossed, If they are not , then the importance of the action is diminished, relegating it to a circus to be manipulated for the court of public opinion.

Which is why the House should have done a thorough investigation in the first place so they had all of the evidence to submit to the Senate to begin with.  Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the Senate supposed to judge the evidence submitted by the House instead of doing the investigating part? 

Face it; this is exactly what you labeled it:

a circus to be manipulated for the court of public opinion
 
 
 
lady in black
9  lady in black    one month ago

Expunge away, but he will forever be impeached.  That's the republican way, rewrite history to fit their narrative

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago

So what?

Clinton was impeached, too.

Is the first thing you think of when you think of Clinton is that he was impeached?

Strange.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    one month ago
Clinton was impeached, too.

I bet Trump is thrilled that he will have his name mentioned throughout history, right next to Bill Clinton. I would wager that it fills trumps heart with glee. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.2  Split Personality  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago
Shades of the USSR, China and Egypt...
Expunging is a terrible concept, especially for the Constitution and American History.
 
 
 
lady in black
9.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Split Personality @9.2    one month ago

It's just their way, they wipe their asses with the constitution

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
9.2.2  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  lady in black @9.2.1    one month ago

Obama did that to the constitution all eight years he was in office...

 
 
 
lady in black
9.2.3  lady in black  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @9.2.2    one month ago

But Obama card

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @9.2.2    one month ago

Obama did that to the constitution all eight years he was in office...

Well, no he didn't but I am sure you can dive into some right wing rag that will spin it to look like he did. 

 
 
 
JBB
9.2.5  JBB  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @9.2.2    one month ago

Then how come three full years into Trump's Justice Department and FBI investigating everything Obama exactly zero no zip nada ranking Obama campaign or administration officials have ever even been indicted for any act of official malfeasance? Not One. That is hard to explain considering all the hundreds nay thousands of crimes you are constantly falsely accusing Obama and Mrs. Clinton of committing. How can you explain that? I am waiting.

BTW, Hillary Clinton has not held public office for seven years. SEVEN YEARS. She has been investigated to death by successive gop Congresses, The CIA, The FBI, Trump's own Justice Department, Interpol and the Monroe Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. Again, NADA ZIP ZERO NOTHING...

Explain That! 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.2.6  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  lady in black @9.2.3    one month ago
But Obama card

Well played actually. Most of what the Democrat's are ranting about Trump doing, Obama did the same in his tenure...right down to killing a terrorist (and their kid)!

 
 
 
JBB
9.2.7  JBB  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.2.6    one month ago

If that were true involving criminality or impeachable offences then someone in Trump's own FBI and Justice Department should have proven something by now. 

They have Not. Why? Could it be they are innocent?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.2.8  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JBB @9.2.7    one month ago
If that were true involving criminality or impeachable offences then someone in Trump's own FBI and Justice Department should have proven something by now.

Are you denying Obama ordered those drone strikes without asking the permission of Congress?

 
 
 
lib50
9.2.9  lib50  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.2.8    one month ago

Why didn't Trump and the gop do something about it? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @9.2.5    one month ago

They just closed yet another investigation into Hillary with yet again no wrongdoing found, but according to someone here, well not officially closed, but blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.2.11  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  lib50 @9.2.9    one month ago
Why didn't Trump and the gop do something about it?

Probably because they felt as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he had that Right under the Declaration of War On Terrorism.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.2.11    one month ago

Wow a cogent argument. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.2.13  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.2.11    one month ago

Maybe they felt it, but was it legal to so do under the DOWOT?  I am not being snarky, I just want to know.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.14  MrFrost  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.2.8    one month ago

Are you denying Obama ordered those drone strikes without asking the permission of Congress?

He didn't have to. Trump claims he can do whatever he wants and the right wing is totally fine with that, so how can anyone complain that Obama killed terrorists with drones, but didn't ask congress? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.2.15  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.14    one month ago
how can anyone complain that Obama killed terrorists with drones, but didn't ask congress?

They can't because just like what Trump did, it was fully legal and warranted!

Thank you!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.2.16  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.2.13    one month ago
Maybe they felt it, but was it legal to so do under the DOWOT?

And there is where the water gets murky, In any declared War, taking out a top Commander regardless of their position in Government has always been a "victory".

Now it seems it is something Hollyweird and some Congressional members feel the need to apologize for it????

 
 
 
Jasper2529
9.3  Jasper2529  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago
Expunge away, but he will forever be impeached.

Much to the Left's, especially Prayerful Pelosi's dismay, President Donald J. Trump will be forever acquitted by the US Senate. 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/acquit

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/acquit

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.3.1  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @9.3    one month ago

Same as Johnson & Clinton.  Get over it already.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
9.3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Split Personality @9.3.1    one month ago
9.3.1     Split Personality     replied to    Jasper2529   @ 9.3       22 minutes ago
Same as Johnson & Clinton.  Get over it already.

That's a very hostile and combative comment, SP. I never indicated in comment 9.3 that I haven't gotten over Clinton's acquittal. Further, I wasn't alive in 1868 and during my lifetime, I have never posted a comment about Andrew Johnson's impeachment/acquittal. Anything else?

 
 
 
lady in black
9.3.3  lady in black  replied to  Jasper2529 @9.3    one month ago

He will still be impeached

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
9.3.4  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  lady in black @9.3.3    one month ago
He will still be impeached

And he will still be President after it is over with from the looks of it.

 
 
 
JBB
9.3.5  JBB  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @9.3.4    one month ago

Trump's trial in the Senate may be a farse and a forgone conclusion butt 2020 is an election year. Money talks and losers go to Elba this time...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/the-2020-democratic-field-is-outraising-trump-by-a-huge-margin-%e2%80%94-that-didnt-happen-to-obama-or-bush/ar-BBZ7cA3?li=BBnbcA1

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.3.6  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @9.3.3    one month ago
He will still be impeached

And he will STILL be President.....  until 2025.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.3.5    one month ago

Yes the Democratic FIELD is outraising Trump.

Not a single one of them is close to Trump's numbers.

And the donors will dry up as the field narrows down and clowns drop out.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.3.8  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.3.5    one month ago
Money talks and losers go to Elba this time...

One must surmise you missed this in your own post link.

The figures reflect sustained Democratic voter energy in 2020 — though Trump still has a big fundraising edge over his individual opponents. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.4  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago
but he will forever be impeached.

He will forever be exonerated

 
 
 
lady in black
9.4.1  lady in black  replied to  Greg Jones @9.4    one month ago

And he will still be impeached

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @9.4.1    one month ago
And he will still be impeached

Which will have the same importance as Clinton's "popular vote victory".

None at all.

Except to some delusional Democrats.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.4.3  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @9.4.2    one month ago
Which will have the same importance as Clinton's "popular vote victory".

Interesting that you keep bringing up Clinton....that was over 20 years ago and you're still bringing him up...20 years from now I am sure you'll still be bringing up trump. /s

 
 
 
squiggy
10  squiggy    one month ago

Get used to 'exonerated' - you'll be hearing it a lot - 'totally exonerated and re-elected'.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @10    one month ago

He'll still be impeached. That's not going to change. If the Senate wants to have a sham trial, go for it, the American people will see it for what it is. If there are no witnesses and there is no evidence presented in the trial the optics for the GOP will be horrific. 

Remember, trump blocked 12 people from testifying during the impeachment hearings and offered not even one piece of evidence to defend himself. He was also invited to come to the hearings, twice, and he refused both times, (after screaming that his due process was being violated, (which it wasn't)). 

12 people blocked from testifying, all of them said that trump had done nothing wrong and was completely innocent. 

Remember that...

512

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    one month ago
Remember, trump blocked 12 people from testifying during the impeachment hearings and offered not even one piece of evidence to defend himself.

The House could have pursued them if they wanted.  In the ONE instance where they did, and the judge ruled in their favor, they never called the witness.  So they can cry all they want, but they never followed through with what they got, so fuck em.

Oh and in the event you're unaware, no one is required to prove innocence.   They other side has to prove guilt.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
10.1.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    one month ago
If there are no witnesses and there is no evidence presented in the trial the optics for the GOP will be horrific. 

Not their job. Their job is to judge the evidence presented by the House.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.1    one month ago
The House could have pursued them if they wanted.

They were subpoenaed? I mean, what's next? Tranquilizer darts? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @10.1.2    one month ago

Not their job. Their job is to judge the evidence presented by the House.

If they refuse to allow any evidence or testimony, that's on the Senate, not the house. It absolutely is their job. 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.5  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.1    one month ago
The House could have pursued them if they wanted.  In the ONE instance where they did, and the judge ruled in their favor, they never called the witness. 

Who was that XD? 

So they can cry all they want, but they never followed through with what they got, so fuck em.

False. They deposed every witness they got. 

Oh and in the event you're unaware, no one is required to prove innocence. They other side has to prove guilt.

Yet on one can claim there is no evidence when the withhold ALL documents and the testimony of key witnesses. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @10.1.5    one month ago
The House could have pursued them if they wanted.  In the ONE instance where they did, and the judge ruled in their favor, they never called the witness. 
Who was that XD? 

Here ya go.  Read it and fucking weep.

Former White House lawyer must testify in impeachment probe, judge rules

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, a federal judge ruled on Monday, rejecting the administration’s assertion of immunity for officials by declaring that “no one is above the law.”

SOURCE:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-mcgahn/former-white-house-lawyer-must-testify-in-impeachment-probe-judge-rules-idUSKBN1XZ2KC

So they can cry all they want, but they never followed through with what they got, so fuck em.

False. They deposed every witness they got. 

Your famous word games.  They "deposed" their chosen witnesses but NEVER followed through with McGahn.  So, yeah, FUCK EM.

Oh and in the event you're unaware, no one is required to prove innocence. They other side has to prove guilt.
Yet on one can claim there is no evidence when the withhold ALL documents and the testimony of key witnesses. 

If they didn't have any documentation to prove guilt, then why did they impeach?  Thanks for the admission that the Democrats are on a hunt for something, but they don't have any fucking idea what the target is.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.3    one month ago
They were subpoenaed? I mean, what's next? Tranquilizer darts?

Nope.  A Judges ruling.  As they got in the case of McGahn and then they never followed through with calling him.  

Fuck em.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    one month ago

The impeachment thing seems so important to some.

Is the very first thing you think of when you think of Clinton is that he got impeached? Really?

But I am sure impeachment will become the new "Popular vote winner" of 2020.

Bunch of crap because they couldn't beat him at the ballot box, and realize that their position isn't that strong-looking for 2020.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.9  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.6    one month ago
Here ya go.  Read it and fucking weep.

The only reason I might shed a tear about that is that your comment proves how utterly uninformed you are. 

The Department of Justice appealed on Monday a federal court ruling requiring former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
The appeal is the latest twist in several attempts by Democrats to compel McGahn’s testimony before Congress.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-appeals-ruling-mandating-mcgahn-testimony/

So you see XD, that subpoena and ruling are STILL under litigation. 

In short, McGahn isn't yet available for deposing or testifying. 

Your famous word games.  They "deposed" their chosen witnesses but NEVER followed through with McGahn.  So, yeah, FUCK EM.

They ARE following through with McGahn XD. 

Oh and perhaps you should recognize that McGahn resigned in Oct. 2018, long before Trump's alleged epiphany about Ukraine and Biden. So McGahn's testimony wouldn't be about the EXISTING Articles of Impeachment, it would give evidence for ADDING an Article on Obstruction of Justice. 

If they didn't have any documentation to prove guilt, then why did they impeach?  

My comment was directed at Trump's and his sycophant's claim that there is no evidence. READ MORE CAREFULLY.

Thanks for the admission that the Democrats are on a hunt for something, but they don't have any fucking idea what the target is.

I made no such admission XD.

Since there are multiple outstanding subpoenas the name specific people and specific documents, that statement is ridicluous. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @10.1.9    one month ago
Here ya go.  Read it and fucking weep.

The only reason I might shed a tear about that is that your comment proves how utterly uninformed you are. 

The Department of Justice appealed on Monday a federal court ruling requiring former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Trump. The appeal is the latest twist in several attempts by Democrats to compel McGahn’s testimony before Congress.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-appeals-ruling-mandating-mcgahn-testimony/

So you see XD, that subpoena and ruling are STILL under litigation. 

In short, McGahn isn't yet available for deposing or testifying. 

Well hot shit bat man  Dulay is correct for once.  I must thank you for the information.  I never heard that the DOJ was appealing the ruling.

Your famous word games.  They "deposed" their chosen witnesses but NEVER followed through with McGahn.  So, yeah, FUCK EM.

They ARE following through with McGahn XD. 

Oh and perhaps you should recognize that McGahn resigned in Oct. 2018, long before Trump's alleged epiphany about Ukraine and Biden. So McGahn's testimony wouldn't be about the EXISTING Articles of Impeachment, it would give evidence for ADDING an Article on Obstruction of Justice. 

I don't give a shit when he resigned.   They can force him to appear, but he still has that dandy old "executive privilege" to fall back on, or the ever so famous Clinton lines:  "I don't recall." and "I don't remember."

If they didn't have any documentation to prove guilt, then why did they impeach?  
My comment was directed at Trump's and his sycophant's claim that there is no evidence. READ MORE CAREFULLY.

So, you're deflecting.  They have no substantiated EVIDENCE to impeach....  only hearsay, suppositions and personal feelings.

Thanks for the admission that the Democrats are on a hunt for something, but they don't have any fucking idea what the target is.
I made no such admission XD.

Well if they knew what they wanted, they could develop actual facts and laws that were violated.  As it stands, their articles of impeachment should read 'We impeach President Trump for hurting our feelings and beating Clinton.'

Since there are multiple outstanding subpoenas the name specific people and specific documents, that statement is ridicluous. 

Then if they're still fighting for witnesses, what's the fucking rush?   Or is that another admission that it's a purely political hatchet job being perpetrated by morons hoping against hope that they'll find something, anything that will bring down Trump as all other efforts have failed?

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.10    one month ago

You would think that the Democrats would have a much stronger case after working on impeachment for what--2 1/2 YEARS???

And all they came up with was THAT?
LMMFAO!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    one month ago
If there are no witnesses and there is no evidence presented in the trial the optics for the GOP will be horrific. 
The optics of the House Democrats behavior were horrific and shows to what depths they will sink to for the sake of political gain.
The Dems had months and months to call all the witnesses they wanted. How many bites at the prosecutorial apple do they get?
 
 
 
CB
10.1.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.11    one month ago

Facts matter:

  1. President Donald Trump withheld documents and witnesses from his impeachment hearing before the House.
  2. President Donald Trump already has a permanent impeachment record attached to him.
  3. Donald Trump impeached President Donald Trump. Democrats were used by this president to make the impeachment official.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.14  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.10    one month ago
Well hot shit bat man  Dulay is correct for once.  I must thank you for the information.  I never heard that the DOJ was appealing the ruling.

If your READ MORE CAREFULLY, you would find that my being correct isn't rare at all.

I don't give a shit when he resigned.   They can force him to appear, but he still has that dandy old "executive privilege" to fall back on, or the ever so famous Clinton lines:  "I don't recall." and "I don't remember."

As long as the House Judiciary Committee stays within the transcript of the interviews that McGahn gave to the FBI, there is no Executive Privilege as it's been waived. Opps. 

As for not recalling and not remembering, all they need do is 'refresh' McGahn's recollection by allowing him to read his own words from those same transcripts. The Mueller report supplied a handy dandy page by page reference for the 'relevant' testimony. 

So, you're deflecting.  

Nope, just pointing your yours. 

They have no substantiated EVIDENCE to impeach....  only hearsay, suppositions and personal feelings.

It may behoove you and your fellow travelers to review the dozens of 'exceptions' for hearsay admissibility. One of them is quite pertinent:  Unavailable declarant required: grounds of unavailability: death or illness, absence from jurisdiction, privilege not to testify, stubborn refusal to testify, and lack of memory.

As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. 

Well if they knew what they wanted, they could develop actual facts and laws that were violated.  As it stands, their articles of impeachment should read 'We impeach President Trump for hurting our feelings and beating Clinton.'

I find it interesting every time I read such an uninformed comment. 

First of all, the text messages that prove that Trump violated the Impoundment Act [FYI, that's a law] were subpoenaed by the House. The OMB refused to comply but a FOIA request forced them to cough them up though HIGHLY redacted. Just Security got copies of some of the UNREDACTED texts which prove that Trump ordered the hold and that they KNEW it was a violation of law. 

Secondly, what makes you think that the Judiciary committee can't write and pass ANOTHER Article of Impeachment or two or three? Where in the Constitution does it limit the amount of times the House can impeach a particular POTUS? 

Then if they're still fighting for witnesses, what's the fucking rush?  

Because Trump got caught trying to get a foreign nation to act to effect the 2020 election in his 'favor'. 

Or is that another admission that it's a purely political hatchet job being perpetrated by morons hoping against hope that they'll find something, anything that will bring down Trump as all other efforts have failed?

Since I have made no such admission in the first place, it can hardly be another XD. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.1.13    one month ago

You hold out hope that impeachment will result in what Dems want.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Impeachment won't mean squat.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
10.1.16  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.4    one month ago
If they refuse to allow any evidence or testimony, that's on the Senate, not the house.

Who said they would refuse any evidence presented by the House??? But they are under no obligation to search for any more than what they are given either by the House as grounds for the Impeachment, now are they???

Kind of like when you get hauled into Court for speeding and now the Prosecutor wants the Judge to search your background for something worse that they might have missed. 

Are you good with that?

 
 
 
JBB
10.1.17  JBB  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @10.1.16    one month ago

If during the course of a normal trial new evidence becomes available it is generally admitted as long as it is pertinent. So, no the Senate is not limited to the case as it was considered in the House. Although, that is plenty to prove obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. He is guilty as hell of that...

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.1.17    one month ago

Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

The Senate may not be limited to the case as considered by the House, but it IS what he is being impeached for, so I suspect it would have to be directly related to those articles.

The Senate is also not under any obligation to consider such arguments.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
10.1.19  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JBB @10.1.17    one month ago
Although, that is plenty to prove obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

Not without a SCOTUS ruling nullifying his claims of Executive Privilege.  BTW, I'm not sure the SCOTUS would invalidate his claim because in so doing, they are in effect blocking Presidents from getting unchecked counsel from their Advisors on matters they must be honest about their actual impressions of. It would be tantamount to invalidating Client/Lawyer privilege.

 
 
 
CB
10.1.20  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.15    one month ago

How about that Alan Dershowitz from the 90's and the Alan Dershowitz of today? Total flip-flopper! I will say this for President Trump; he is a consistent 'jerk' every day spanning years—not much of a flip-flopper that one!

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.21  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.11    one month ago
working on impeachment for what--2 1/2 YEARS???

Democrats didn't work on impeachment until last year.  When they got the power in the house.  After Trump extorted and bribed Ukraine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @10.1.21    one month ago
Democrats didn't work on impeachment until last year.  When they got the power in the house.  After Trump extorted and bribed Ukraine

Not what vaunted House leader Pelosi says.

Is she a liar now, too?

Look, I get you won't believe me, but now you won't believe the woman in charge?

Why would she lie about such a thing?

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @10.1.16    one month ago
Who said they would refuse any evidence presented by the House???

McConnell put it in the rules resolution. 

But they are under no obligation to search for any more than what they are given either by the House as grounds for the Impeachment, now are they???

That may be true since it's quite clear that they have no intention of honoring their oath to do 'impartial justice'. 

Kind of like when you get hauled into Court for speeding and now the Prosecutor wants the Judge to search your background for something worse that they might have missed.  Are you good with that?

Nope, it's nothing like that at all. 

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.24  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.22    one month ago

Pelosi was not for impeachment until Trump blatantly extorted Ukraine.  Unless you have some information you'd like to share, please do.

 
 
 
CB
10.1.25  CB   replied to  Dulay @10.1.23    one month ago

McConnell is being forced to walk back opening arguments from two to now  three days total. And, "Riggy" McConnell will allow House evidence in without a vote to enter in. Albeit it, still not upfront but in trial arrears! Some of his republicans forced him to do it, once the arguments began.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.26  Dulay  replied to  CB @10.1.25    one month ago

Maybe he got the memo that his caucus KNOWS that Trump's lawyers LIED, MULTIPLE times. I have to wonder if it's illegal to lie to the Congress in an Impeachment trial. I'm pretty sure that misrepresenting the facts is an ethical issue for their law licenses. 

 
 
 
CB
10.1.27  CB   replied to  Dulay @10.1.26    one month ago

Having listened to the opening from Trump lawyers, I am surprised at their brevity and at their sound-bite character. Either these men have taken White House talking points as instructive, or they are members of the group who steered Trump into this breach of law in the first place!

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.28  Ender  replied to  CB @10.1.27    one month ago

Amazing to me that the trump lawyers have not once talked about what trump is accused of. It is all about process, the House, Democrats etc.

Then they outright lied. I thought that was illegal. Saying that trump was not allowed to be part of the process and that republicans were not allowed in certain proceedings.

If/when they let trump get away with this, he will only become more emboldened.

What I want to happen is for trump to narrowly lose the election. I guarantee he will not leave office uncontested. Then it would prove what some Democrats had been saying all along.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
10.1.29  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @10.1.23    one month ago
McConnell put it in the rules resolution.

Source?

they have no intention of honoring their oath to do 'impartial justice'. 

GASP!  Not the Senate too! Not after what the House did! That would be unthinkable...

Nope, it's nothing like that at all.

It is EXACTLY like that.

 
 
 
CB
10.1.30  CB   replied to  Ender @10.1.28    one month ago

And can you believe it: The Trump Administration is stonewalling the trial in the Senate by voting down amendments to the rules! Take note as democracy fails under republican control.

We are 0 for 2 amendments so far.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @10.1.29    one month ago
Source?

McConnell's Resolution. 

GASP!  Not the Senate too! Not after what the House did! That would be unthinkable...

The House does NOT take a separate oath to do 'impartial justice'. 

FAIL!

It is EXACTLY like that.

Nope. The Prosecutor in this case only wants the Judge to subpoena the SAME fucking RELAVANT people and documents that the House tried to get and Trump denied. 

Another FAIL!

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.32  Dulay  replied to  CB @10.1.27    one month ago

They are just doing what sycophants do. Sadly, the WH Counsel is participating in the charade. He is NOT the lawyer for the POTUS, he is the lawyer for the Presidency and is supposed to protect it for dicks like Trump. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.33  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.31    one month ago
Nope. The Prosecutor in this case only wants the Judge to subpoena the SAME fucking RELAVANT people and documents that the House tried to get and Trump denied. 

Too bad the Judge is constrained to follow the rules of the SENATE, and can be over ruled by 51 votes on any issue, that's why the judge has an advisor to advice him of senate rule procedure and presedent.

Even if they did , the president can still claim executive privilege and it will still have to be settled by the judicial branch on a case by case basis, something the House should have done BEFORE drafting articles and moving forward with impeachment .

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.34  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.7    one month ago

Because they don't want to feed into trumps strategy of tying things up in court for years on end. Failing to show up for a subpoena is 22 months in prison. But I digress... why wouldn't they show up if their testimony would clear trump?

If Obama was the one on trial, would you be supporting the dems when they blocked all testimony and all evidence? 

Yes? Or no.. 

 
 
 
CB
10.1.35  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.33    one month ago

Mark, my understanding is the Chief Justice has the standard-issue senate advisor on senate rules and parliamentary processes. Tell me if I am wrong, please.

The House has explained that there is a national emergency ahead, a national election, which makes this presidential impeachment time-sensitive. Of course, Trump could just send all relevant documents and all relevant witness over to the Senate, where as he swore out-loud, he will get treated fairly.

There is no reason for Trump to be hiding behind Majority Leader McConnell. (He is all the same, though.)

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.36  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.35    one month ago

I read something on my feed about his role , and if what I read was correct , he gets an advisor , now standard issue or not is a matter of opinion , the article which I cant find now also states that the advisor has knowledge of not only the rules but history and the chambers presedents , so maybe super advisor might be appropriate here, either way he still has to follow senate rules and he can ask his advisor things as well.

 I think that during the Clinton impeachment the chief justice wasn't questioned mainly because he basically wrote the book for study on the only other impeachment up to that time one on Andrew Johnsons Impeachment.

I am fully aware of the houses claim of a supposed national emergency, as well as their claims of what affects it would have on the up coming national election as well as their claims of "time sensitivity".

 that does NOT preclude that any president can at any time claim executive privilege  at which point the proper course of action is for the courts to decide on a case by case , document by document basis whether or not  each and every single issue is privileged or not , That is NOT for the house to decide or make charges about UNTIL a court order has been violated . and even then the entire appeals process must also be executed.

Frankly , I do not think it is the senates job to do ANY investigations , any and all investigations SHOULD have been concluded prior to the articles being drawn up and voted on with ALL evidence and testimony already having taken place in the houses investigation and documented  ready for the managers to be ready to present the case with out having to call any other witnesses, In plain speak , if the house could not prove guilt with what they already had that prompted them to vote in favor for the articles of impeachment , they had no business to vote on the articles at all ,

what they voted on to impeach with what they had at the time , should also be what the senate judges  the charges on.

In my opinion , they closed their investigation prematurely  while cutting corners and skipping needed steps to bolster the articles they did pass, unfortunately , not dotting thoise I's , and crossing all thoseT's , skipping very important steps and cutting corners , could very well end up in a major fail for them simply because they didn't do their due diligence  to do the job properly .

and THAT is simply my opinion.

 
 
 
CB
10.1.37  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.36    one month ago
Frankly , I do not think it is the senates job to do ANY investigations , any and all investigations SHOULD have been concluded prior to the articles being drawn up and voted on with ALL evidence and testimony already having taken place in the houses investigation and documented  ready for the managers to be ready to present the case with out having to call any other witnesses, In plain speak , if the house could not prove guilt with what they already had that prompted them to vote in favor for the articles of impeachment , they had no business to vote on the articles at all ,

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Opinions do have value. Now then, out comes the sword:

  1. President Donald Trump does not operate his presidency like a traditional president. There is a lot of attitude on display in his administration top to bottom as he offers nothing in his own defense and dismisses the system of impeachment wholesale, and the lies, obfuscations, and seeking of improper advantages are non-ceasing with Trump.
  2. There is no blueprint for a Senate Trial. There is barely precedent to follow.  Basically, the senate can majorily vote to do what it wants with its intent being focused on the good of the trial, nation,and outcome. They are not re-sworn in to simply continue as usual with political one-upsmanship.
  3. Mitch McConnell currently is stunning the trial development as I write, by denying clear evidential documents and statements coming from those who would put their witness on the line and speak to the House Impeachment Hearing. If the Senate was curious about any of this, it is well within their purview to ask for more of everything. Republicans are asking for little to nothing. What is limiting the Senate is the Senate majority members.
  4. The House has proved guilt already to a point. And questions linger. House Republicans chose to be negative, not positive, and reject the testimonies of witnesses, even going so far as to discount seasoned professionals, demean and malign the same, and now Senate republicans follow suit by not wishing to hear from any of those professional at all.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.38  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.37    one month ago

AHH I will disagree , the house (managers actually)THINKS that by voting for the articles alone constitutes guilt . that is not the case, guilt will be decided during the proceedings currently going on in the senate .

As long as the Senate follows its own rules , as you said The senate can do as it wishes to a degree, because of already set precedence . as an after thought , maybe it was a harbinger that both Johnsons and Clintons impeachments actually were Bi-partisan  and trumps was not.

I actually have been watching the proceeding since it started this afternoon  and they haven't even finished  the business of the trial rules, yet what I notice is every single time the managers have risen to discuss the rules , they seem to get to the bones of their case using those as reasons why the rules should be a certain way , in other words ,they are using this time to repetitively present their case, which they will have 24 hrs to do so later , if what they have been saying is all they have,  I will tend to think that warm fuzzy they were feeling when the articles were passed in the house , is now slowly sliding down their legs.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.39  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.38    one month ago

I went and made myself a boilermaker , I never thought I would be saying this , but I actually feel sorry for those bastards in the senate chambers right now having to put up with this crap, and sit there quietly, that has got to be killing a lot of senators .

 
 
 
CB
10.1.40  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.39    one month ago

Don't feel sorry for them. They 'live' for meetings. It's par for the course—when it happens.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.41  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.40    one month ago

LOL , have you ever seen a senator that could sit quietly for any amount of time , that's like asking a toddler not to sing the barney or sesame st song when the show comes on....and they have been at it for almost 14 hrs by their count.

all that hot air , just hope they don't all ventilate at the same time ...

 
 
 
CB
10.1.42  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.38    one month ago

I wrote: :The House has proved guilt already to a point. And questions linger."

The Senate is a bunch of 'old heads' literally. Just look at them. These people have been through some issues in life and yet they lack integrity to their own words and past deeds. It is disgusting to watch these elder statesmen 'bent the knee' to a newcomer who went straight to the highest echelon and called everybody beneath his 'post' contemptible names if and when they disagree with him! Donald Trump is being propped up by men and women who should and do know better!

Mark, no one is mistreating Donald Trump. And truth be told, you would not like or possibly even let him treat you the way he treats those he perceives as opponents. But, that it is the luxury of it isn't it? You are not an opposer of his. You accept the man, his lies, his character assassinations, his poorly run operations, all for a promise of things that won't last once he is gone from all. All rigged things do come to an end! Remember that.

The House managers are not attempting to persuade a Trump republican overmuch. However, John Q. Public needs information and lots of it! So there it is for the taking.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.43  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.42    one month ago

Well that's something I think we can agree with , the problem isn't who is sitting in the WH for 4 years , the problem lies with those that have camped out in congress for 20-30-40 years and actually got not a thing accomplished , congress was never suppose to have a retirement package.

John Q wont be deciding guilt or innocence , the court of public opinion counts for squat, the decision now lies with 100 senators , like it or not , and 67 of them have to vote to convict, I don't see it happening .

I will agree the information given to John Q , will definitely affect an election outcome , be it from local to national. how much remains to be seen, im just glad no one yet has asked me my views on the current candidates running , I would be ostrisized so bad because im an independent that doesn't belong to either party., last presidential election I voted for gary (whats ALLEPPO) Johnson, JUST so I could say I voted with my JOHNSON.i figured a pot head that didn't know where alleppo was or what it was couldn't get us into conflict, because I personally couldn't stand either of the lamestream parties candidates. this time it will be a little different around , and I will leave people guessing .

 
 
 
CB
10.1.44  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.43    one month ago
John Q wont be deciding guilt or innocence , the court of public opinion counts for squat, the decision now lies with 100 senators , like it or not , and 67 of them have to vote to convict, I don't see it happening .

Those senators each work for John Q. Public. And if JOHN is agitated about something it pays big to listen up!

 
 
 
CB
10.1.45  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.43    one month ago

Well, you're welcome to vote your conscience. I do! And, my conscience hates liars with a passion. I have suffered aplenty in life, because I walked the walk and talked the talk, subsequently I have no use for unrelenting liars, cheats, and deceivers. Show me that is "in" somebody unrepentingly, and I will view that person with sadness and disgust.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @10.1.24    one month ago
Pelosi was not for impeachment until Trump blatantly extorted Ukraine.  Unless you have some information you'd like to share, please do.

I don't give a damn what Nancy is for, or when.

She was the one who said that they have worked on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, not me. Is she lying to you, and you refuse to believe her, or are you trying to imply she never said it?????

She said it, period. 

Anyone keeping up with the news should have already known that by now.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.47  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @10.1.45    one month ago
Well, you're welcome to vote your conscience. I do! And, my conscience hates liars with a passion. I have suffered aplenty in life, because I walked the walk and talked the talk, subsequently I have no use for unrelenting liars, cheats, and deceivers. Show me that is "in" somebody unrepentingly, and I will view that person with sadness and disgust.

Why then do you support the Democrats with such vigor?

 
 
 
CB
10.1.48  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.47    one month ago

I can't write what I wish to respond. So I will just ignore our glib question. Have a nice day!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.49  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @10.1.48    one month ago
I can't write what I wish to respond. So I will just ignore our glib question.

Great.  A polite way of saying that you intend to use vitriolic diatribes to attempt a defense of supporting your position.

Have a nice day!

You also CB.   

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.50  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.44    one month ago
Those senators each work for John Q. Public. And if JOHN is agitated about something it pays big to listen up!

I will agree with one part of that yet disagree with another part .

 I agree that if the public is agitated that those elected by them should listen up at their own peril, that is common sense.

 what I disagree with is about whom they actually work for , meaning what is their actual job and whom do they represent. senators are not the publics representatives in congress though many think because they are elected by the public they represent the public, the publics interests is actually represented in the lower house of congress in the HoR, The senate was and is set up to represent the best interests of the STATES, The founders realized  that there would be times that some things would at some times would be good for the public yet be a detriment to the state  and vise versa of good for the state but bad for the public, the state governments is actually who the senate represents, to put it mildly.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.33    one month ago
Too bad the Judge is constrained to follow the rules of the SENATE, and can be over ruled by 51 votes on any issue, that's why the judge has an advisor to advice him of senate rule procedure and presedent.

Roberts will rule and CAN file subpoenas and then 51 GOP Senators will have to vote to overrule a decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Even if they did , the president can still claim executive privilege and it will still have to be settled by the judicial branch on a case by case basis, something the House should have done BEFORE drafting articles and moving forward with impeachment .

That's all Trump does, threatens to 'claim executive privilege' while NEVER actually formally invoking it. 

Secondly, Trump and his DOJ have already stated in court that the judicial branch SHOULD NOT settle subpoena denials on a case by case basis on the 'merits'. It warned the court:

On Jan. 3, a Justice Department attorney fighting the House’s impeachment inquiry said “unelected” judges should not be “refereeing” such disputes. DOJ attorney Hashim Mooppan argued that the court should steer clear of “a purely political dispute.”

“It risks politicizing the court and undermining public confidence in the court,” Mooppan said. “If this court rules on the merits, one way or the other, you can be assured that the opinion that this court issues will be waved on the floor of the Senate by one side or the other as evidence that either the president is guilty or the president is innocent.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-impeachment-team-embraces-defense-that-his-doj-rejected/ar-BBZceOA?ocid=spartandhp

So it looks to me like the DOJ is going to have a hell of a time making THAT argument after his WH counsel and lawyer just insisted that the House SHOULD ask the Judicial Branch to 'settle' the question. 

BTW, so far, the DOJ is loosing their argument to keep Don McGahn from testifying. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.52  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.51    one month ago

Well the DOJ is in the same position as the house is at the moment , they have absolutely no power to dictate  to the courts what or how they should do things as the house has in telling the senate what and how they should be doing things, and as long as the mcgahn issue is still in appeal all the way up to the USSC, we sit and wait. and if it makes it that far, then the final decision will be made .

 
 
 
CB
10.1.53  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.49    one month ago

Sorry, I can not be easily goaded. Moreover, don not permit your imagination license on my account. Some words and expressions needful to state are simply off-putting here and disallowed by the rules. Let's just say this. I had a long night of impeachment hearing viewing, and I woke up to a glib question from you. I ain't feeling that  right now. Enjoy today, while it exist! (Smile.)

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.52    one month ago
Well the DOJ is in the same position as the house is at the moment

That's a deflective comment Mark.

I note that you failed to address the HYPOCRICY of the two contradictory arguments. 

Sad.

 
 
 
CB
10.1.55  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.50    one month ago

I do understand our senate is designed to be a weightier assembled body, thus they have six year terms. I won't disagree on your assessment though. Sounds reasonable. And yet, every six years "John" gets his say about each one of the members of the Senate.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.36    one month ago
I read something on my feed about his role, and if what I read was correct , he gets an advisor

The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Chief Justice AND the Senate as a whole. Just like the Chief Justice on legal questions, the Parliamentarian can make rulings on the how the rules have been instituted in the Senate over time.  Any Senator can request a ruling by the Parliamentarian. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.57  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.54    one month ago

deflective , maybe , but not intended to be , it is simply an observation of fact actually, both those entities appear to me to be in the same boat on trying to tell another entity how to do things .

 As for Roberts having the authority to issue any thing to call witnesses or documents , yes he can , but only AFTER a vote that allows him to do so , at least that is how I understand the rules that are being operated on in this "trial", that too is also a simple fact of the matter , one everyone is entitled to have their own opinions on and they can like it or not .

 
 
 
CB
10.1.58  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.52    one month ago

One thing that comes from having Donald Trump has president is we are finding all the ways and perforated holes in the use of courtesy and civility to run government systems. Sadly, it seems that everything will have to be formalized or a scoundrel, on either side, can show up and exploit us, the people, who really deserve better from the top and in-betweens.

President Donald Trump is one litigious 'jerk.' He fights even unwinnable battles. Our system is worse off for that, in my opinion. Because, we really do have a reasonable amount of rules and laws on the 'books.' As the saying goes, "Damn all the lawyers!" If you know what it means.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.59  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  CB @10.1.55    one month ago
"John" gets his say about each one of the members of the Senate.

Actually its staggered every 2 years , 1/3 rd of the senate comes up for election every 2 years for 6 year terms.

what I try to remember is that before 1913 , senators were appointed either by state legislatures and or a states governor, that changed in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th amendment  when it changed to the populus of the state would elect senators , what didn't change was a senators actual role and whom they represent in congress. And the 17th in a round about way came about because of the Tea pot dome scandal here in Wyoming. or at least that scandal played a part in the push for the 17th.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.60  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.57    one month ago
deflective , maybe , but not intended to be , it is simply an observation of fact actually, both those entities appear to me to be in the same boat on trying to tell another entity how to do things .

Perhaps it would help if you recognized that there is a difference between arguing a position and 'telling another entity how to do things'. What I posted was an argument and what you saw yesterday was an argument. NONE of it was 'telling' anybody what to do. 

As for Roberts having the authority to issue any thing to call witnesses or documents , yes he can , but only AFTER a vote that allows him to do so , at least that is how I understand the rules that are being operated on in this "trial", that too is also a simple fact of the matter , one everyone is entitled to have their own opinions on and they can like it or not .

Nothing in the Senate impeachment rules preclude the Chief Justice from filing a subpoena of his own volition. The FACT that he is required to take the same oath to 'do impartial Justice' one would be hard pressed to argue that Roberts has to sit there like a potted plant if he thinks that the facts demand the appearance of a witness. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.61  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.60    one month ago

I am currently watching Shiffs opening statement and he pretty much  JUST addressed the issue of what Roberts and anyone else can do as far as witnesses in a round about way , it will only happen if it is allowed, meaning it is actually out of his or anyones hands until a vote that allows them to do something.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.61    one month ago

The House Managers don't have the authority under the rules to call their own witnesses. The rules do NOT preclude Roberts from doing so. I'm not saying he will, I am saying that he CAN. Of course the Senate can overrule the subpoena but IMHO that would NOT look good for the GOP. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.63  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.7    one month ago
Nope.  A Judges ruling. 

Ah, put it in front of trumps activist judges? How long would that tie up the courts? Years? You're trying to justify people ignoring a legal subpoena, that's on the people that refused them, not the dems. It just adds even more proof that this administration is completely lawless. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.64  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.8    one month ago
The impeachment thing seems so important to some. Is the very first thing you think of when you think of Clinton is that he got impeached? Really?

And 20 years later, you are still bringing up the Clinton impeachment. So yea, I guess it is important to, "some". 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.65  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.62    one month ago
The House Managers don't have the authority under the rules to call their own witnesses.

That's right , their authority to do so ended in the house during its investigation , and if witnesses refused they had the obligation and the authority to use the courts to determine if they could be called and compelled to testify, as you pointed out McGahns testimony is still tied up in the courts in appeals ,where it should be  have to dot those I's and cross all those T's.

I am not even going to second guess what Roberts will or will not do , or even what he can or cannot do  in his time on the court he has proven to be something of a wild card , a very studious wild card that looks at all the angles of any situation , end result there is no predicting him really.

as for the senate caring about the opinion of how things look , I don't think they care about that , what they do seem to care about is that things follow the rules of the senate as laid out already.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.65    one month ago
That's right , their authority to do so ended in the house during its investigation , and if witnesses refused they had the obligation and the authority to use the courts to determine if they could be called and compelled to testify, as you pointed out McGahns testimony is still tied up in the courts in appeals ,where it should be  have to dot those I's and cross all those T's.

We are talking about the SENATE rules. Why deflect? 

McGahn was subpoenaed in APRIL! I hope that even you can admit that if the House chose to litigate the subpoenas that Trump would whine about it coming up against the election. Hell, he's already doing that NOW. Imagine what the whining would sound like if the House didn't bring the Articles of impeachment until JULY or AUGUST. 

as for the senate caring about the opinion of how things look , I don't think they care about that , what they do seem to care about is that things follow the rules of the senate as laid out already.

I could agree with that if McConnell hadn't changed his Resolution before the vote. He didn't do that because of Schumer or any Democrat, he did it because his caucus forced him to do so, possibly because of how bad it looked. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1.67  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.63    one month ago
It just adds even more proof that this administration is completely lawless. 

So, using LEGAL remedies is now lawless.  Only in your world Frosty, only in your world.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.68  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.66    one month ago
We are talking about the SENATE rules. Why deflect? 

so whats the deflection? I don't see it . If the senate decides to call a witness and the witness refuses because the president has decided not to let that person testify , it still has to go to the courts  doesn't matter if its in the house or senate . 

actually I see the house is where everything to be used at trial was where it was suppose to come to light , not as I have seen it called , "a rolling investigation" the senate is where the house presents what they have at hand to make their case and to try and get a verdict.

Funny thing I do see, is this trial does NOT preclude the house from attempting to get further testimony or witnesses, but I don't see that getting done.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.69  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.68    4 weeks ago
so whats the deflection? I don't see it .

It's obvious that your comment doesn't address the Senate trial rules. 

If the senate decides to call a witness and the witness refuses because the president has decided not to let that person testify , it still has to go to the courts  doesn't matter if its in the house or senate . 

Yet the EXCUSE for why Trump refuses to comply with that subpoena would HAVE to change. Why are the GOP are so desperate NOT to subpoena witnesses or documents if they are so sure that Trump will refuse to comply just like he did the House subpoenas?

Perhaps they realize that a subpoena signed by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS would be more difficult to ignore and a hell of a lot harder to argue it's Constitutionality. 

actually I see the house is where everything to be used at trial was where it was suppose to come to light , not as I have seen it called , "a rolling investigation" the senate is where the house presents what they have at hand to make their case and to try and get a verdict.

So by that standard, the House would not have been able to enter 'the smoking gun' tape into the Nixon Impeachment trial. 

The fact is, the Senate Impeachment trial rules specifically document the process for subpoenaing witnesses and documents. The Senate would NOT have included that it the expectation was that ONLY the evidence accumulated by the House Inquiry is admissible. 

Funny thing I do see, is this trial does NOT preclude the house from attempting to get further testimony or witnesses, but I don't see that getting done.

The House Intel Committee just released all of the subpoenaed Parnas documents they received just last week. The House is still litigating the subpoenas for Don McGahn [from April] and the Grand Jury transcripts [from July].  They have requested that those cases be 'expedited' so that gives a time table for litigation of a House subpoena ruling, at least 9 months.

BTW, multiple House committees are seeking documents too. Ways and Means still have an outstanding formal request to the IRS. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.70  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.69    4 weeks ago

Well you are likely not going to like what I am about to say.

I am perfectly content  to let the process work its way to a conclusion and a verdict, and that the end verdict is in the hands of the 100 sitting in the chamber.

Everything we have discussed so far has to do with the process that is still currently at work.

Now , being admittedly registered neither republican , nor democrat , one of my reasons for watching these proceedings is to see the case and what evidence will be presented during the process, from there I will make my own decision on what I think.

Another reason for my watching is to watch  the 2 senators sitting in trial from where I live , one is not running for re election due to retirement , how I feel about the others performance both inside and outside the chambers  could reflect on his re election efforts in the future as far as I am concerned .

There are also sitting senators , that are running for the nomination  of their party for the office of president , and though I unless I register cannot vote for or against them in the primaries or caucuses, if they attain the nomination, I do have a vote in the general election, so I will be doing the same for them as I will for the senator that represents my state. watching them both inside and outside the chamber.

To reiterate what I said in the beginning , I am content to let the process work its way to a conclusion, knowing full well that one side or the other will be left unsatisfied .

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.71  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.70    4 weeks ago

Well you're probably going to be surprised by what I am about to say. 

HERE HERE! 

IMHO, the only way to be an informed citizen and an informed voter is to PAY ATTENTION to what's going on and after gathering all of the information and facts that we can, make up our own minds. 

Oh and I agree that the best way to make your mark is to hold our state and local representative accountable. Neither of my Senators are up for election next year but they ARE getting an ear full. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.72  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.69    4 weeks ago
So by that standard, the House would not have been able to enter 'the smoking gun' tape into the Nixon Impeachment trial. 

I love history  especially if I was witness to it , and I was 11-12 years old at the time of the Watergate hearings in the house. and I watched it all on TV at my grandmothers house on the cape.

That smoking gun tape was introduced in the house investigation ,, not the trial, there never WAS a senate trial over Watergate, matter of fact what articles of impeachment the house was working on drafting got dropped, the moment Nixon resigned in disgrace. he was never impeached , and he was never tried. and after ford pardoned him , he couldn't be tried either , and he still got his presidential retirement.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.73  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.72    4 weeks ago

I was in High school during Watergate. 

That smoking gun tape was introduced in the house investigation 

Actually it came out AFTER the Judiciary committee had already voted on the Articles of Impeachment. The House got the doctored transcripts, not the tapes. It was a subpoena by Jaworski, the special counsel that got the actual tapes after the 8-0 ruling in the SCOTUS. That's when the Republicans that voted against impeachment in the Judiciary Committee relented and Goldwater made the long walk...

It sure as hell makes a good argument for ALL of the evidence coming out...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.74  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.73    4 weeks ago

sorry about that , I went back last night and looked it up to see if I was misremembering things, and decided to go to bed and correct myself today , 

It was the senate hearings I was watching the summer of 74, the house judicial were working on the impeachment articles during the same time .  The tape existance came out during the senate hearings and that's when the SC voted they had to be turned over.

Nixon resigned a couple weeks later after the judicial committee in the house had drawn up the articles , but the house had not yet voted on them.

So I did mis remember a couple details , like which hearing I was watching then , the house or the senate, but I did still remember correctly the over all outcome and how it came about . for that lapse of memory , Mea Culpa .

Only excuse I have is I was trying to recall something from when I was 12 and its been 46 years since I witnessed it. even then that is still no excuse.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.75  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.74    4 weeks ago

No worries. I forget why I went into the kitchen...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.1.76  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @10.1.75    4 weeks ago

LOL.. well hopefully neither of us forget why we have gone into the bathroom.... could end up being a messy situation if we ever do....

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1.77  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @10.1.75    4 weeks ago

Man, i hate it when that happens!

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.78  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1.67    4 weeks ago
So, using LEGAL remedies is now lawless. 

Since when is refusing a subpoena LEGAL? 

That's some next level spin you have going there. 

 
 
 
bugsy
10.1.79  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.78    4 weeks ago
Since when is refusing a subpoena LEGAL? 

So you agree, then, that Obama probably should have been impeached......based on your "logic".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.1.80  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.78    4 weeks ago

Since when is refusing a subpoena LEGA

if It’s an illegal subpoena.  It only becomes illegal when a court orders compliance. 

What court order has trump refused to comply with?

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.81  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.1.79    4 weeks ago
So you agree, then, that Obama probably should have been impeached......based on your "logic".

Obama NEVER refuse a subpoena outright. 

 
 
 
bugsy
10.1.82  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @10.1.81    4 weeks ago

Dulay, we know you are smarter than that s/

MrFrost never said OUTRIGHT. He said Trump never refused a subpoena.

Here is a sample of why YOU are wrong....yet again

Not all were subpoenaed, but most were refused by the Obama admin. You may act like you never heard of number one...

Now, try and be honest here.

Take a look at all of the refusals, and tell us the difference between what Obama did and Trump did when it comes to requested documents by Congress, and why you think, by Frost's and your logic, Obama did not deserve to be impeached.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.83  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.80    4 weeks ago

What court order has trump refused to comply with?

do u realize HOW FCKN LOW U HAVE SET A BAR...?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.84  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @10.1.82    4 weeks ago
Take a look at all of the refusals, and tell us the difference between what Obama did and Trump did when it comes to requested documents by Congress, and why you think, by Frost's and your logic, Obama did not deserve to be impeached.

imho, Obama WAS WRONG in shielding these people from divulging the truth, but, what is truth to feverent Right that made up so much BULLSHIT and TWISTED N E N EVERY damn thing the man did. still, it was wrong of him

C HOW THAT IS how it is  DONE TRUMPP HUMPERS!

.

Now,

F UMight, please do explain N E from your trivial little list that compares to say Bush's pardoning of Cheney etc from WAR CRIMES, or 

TRUMP from , on the fckn damn day after Mueller relunctantly testified, Trumpp did go exactly back to his LYING CHEATING VIOLATING WAYS, of extorting and leveraging HIS OWN AGENDA over OURS, by leveraging the President of Ukraine .

This Fck up has been a non stop violation of accepted and unaccepted norms,

and WOULD BE IN JAIL IF NOT THE POS potUS he is, as he continues to HIDE BEHIND the office he is beneath.

Our founders NEVER ENVISIONED us(YOU) ENABLING AN AMERICA SO STUPID, s to allow the election of this mental dissection, that had Abbey operatING on his lame brain, 

as defenders of the aPUSSY GRBBERIN CHIEF Have lowered the office so as under beneath,

and when this ABORTION of a PRESIDENT IS THROUGH, AND ALL COMES OUT, I WANT you, AND ALL OF HIS deniers and defenders

to

OWN TRUMP !

CAUSE YOU ALL WILL AND DO

denial, and or wanting to see the left upset or melting, as if it rationalizes the cutting down of our once respected country, is just so WRONG  AND CAN never be made right

u have all bought into a lie you can no longer separate yourselves from.

Disgraceful in my eyes, but because so many just don't want to face reality,

you have conjured your Own artificial intelligence, that says

SO DFAMN MUCH     about Trumpperz

and it will be shamed and explained for years to come, congratulations deaf a netley blinded and dumbfound it while lost,

in the space between ears of corn, in A soiled realitry

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.85  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.1.82    4 weeks ago

What I mean by OUTRIGHT is WITHOUT notification, WITHOUT negotiation or while denying EVERY document. Obama submitted legal refusals to Congress, which FORMALLY invoked Executive privilege. 

BTFW, fighting a subpoena is NOT refusing a subpoena. 

I won't play the game of comparing apples and artichokes. 

 
 
 
bugsy
10.1.86  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.1.84    3 weeks ago

Sorry, I couldn't understand a single thing in that in coherency. Try again.

 
 
 
bugsy
10.1.87  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @10.1.85    3 weeks ago

The problem with your "logic" is, well, the logic.

The White House knew the dumbocrats were going to try and get certain people to testify. Trump outwitted them (not really hard to do), and refused them out of the gate.

If they REALLY wanted to hear from those people, they would have submitted the subpoenas and let the courts decide....you know....the correct thing to do.

NO...no     liberals said Trump was such a danger to the country he had to be outed RIGHT NOW....er, maybe until 33 days after the articles were voted on, because, well, he's such a danger.

Liberalism is the true danger to this country.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.88  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.1.87    3 weeks ago
The problem with your "logic" is, well, the logic.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    one month ago
So how about that striking from the Federal Record? Could this be done?

What for? Is he worried about getting a license to carry a firearm or something?

we could see an Expungement of the whole Impeachment process

No, you couldn't. Convictions are expunged. Impeachment is not a conviction. The closest analogy (and it's only an analogy) to impeachment would be to an indictment or arraignment. The House has simply conducted an investigation and presented charges to the Senate for trial. If Trump is acquitted in the Senate, there is nothing to expunge.

If he is convicted, he will be removed from office and prohibited from holding office again. To expunge that, I believe would require a constitutional amendment.

Having said that, there are cases where an arrest or indictment can be stricken from the record. It generally requires complete exoneration, i.e. a finding of factual innocence. That is very hard to pull off (and rarely worth the trouble). There are other ways to get to it, but they aren't worth going into here.

Even so, obviously we aren't going to just make America forget that the president was impeached. Virtually the only thing that most Americans know about Andrew Johnson (those who even know the name) is that he was impeached.

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @11    one month ago

Nicely said..

512

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
11.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tacos! @11    one month ago
The closest analogy (and it's only an analogy) to impeachment would be to an indictment or arraignment.

An arrest can also be  expunged , and in this case, I would say an arrest is of closer resemblance...