The Democrats are winning the argument

  
Via:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  98 comments

The Democrats are winning the argument
Trump’s lawyers were far worse. They played a bad hand badly. Admittedly, they are handicapped by the inescapable reality that their client is guilty as sin.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Their only defense on the merits is to claim that the president wasn’t concerned with smearing a Democratic rival but with fighting corruption. But that’s an absurd argument to make given that Trump never mentioned fighting corruption in general during his two phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — and given that, as my Post colleague Catherine Rampell  notes , he is trying to legalize bribery by American companies.






The Democrats are winning the argument even though they’ll lose the Senate trial


JANUARY 22, 2020

The beginning of the impeachment trial of President Trump made clear that Democrats have not only the stronger arguments but also the stronger arguers. The House impeachment managers did a masterful job on Tuesday of marshaling the evidence to argue that the Senate needs to hold a real trial complete with witnesses — something that, as they pointed out, has occurred in every previous impeachment trial in history. But knowing they may be stymied by a Senate majority intent on holding a show trial, they made their substantive arguments from the start — and they did so in a way that is likely to convince most voters if not most senators.

The impeachment managers especially shined during impromptu rebuttals. Former assistant attorney general Walter Dellinger joined  a chorus of praise  for Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.): “Schiff is not just good. Today is one of the most impressive performances by a lawyer I have ever seen.” But dazzling as Schiff was, he may have been matched by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Responding to Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow’s question “Why are we here?”, Jeffries put on a master class in forensics. “We are here, sir, because President Trump corruptly abused his power and then he tried to cover it up,” he  said , concluding with a quote from The Notorious B.I.G.: “And if you don’t know, now you know.” The  only stumble  so far was Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) impolitic accusation that Republican senators were guilty of a “treacherous vote” and a “shameful coverup.” Even some Democratic senators said he had gone too far.

Trump’s lawyers were far worse. They played a bad hand badly. Admittedly, they are handicapped by the inescapable reality that their client is guilty as sin. They can’t seriously dispute that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden — the president  said as much  from the White House lawn. They can’t even dispute that Trump held up military aid to Ukraine to pressure its government into doing what he wanted. Their only defense on the merits is to claim that the president wasn’t concerned with smearing a Democratic rival but with fighting corruption. But that’s an absurd argument to make given that Trump never mentioned fighting corruption in general during his two phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — and given that, as my Post colleague Catherine Rampell  notes , he is trying to legalize bribery by American companies.

Still, Johnnie Cochran showed during the  O.J. Simpson trial  that it is possible to be effective even when the facts are not on your side. You don’t have to resort to outright lying as the president’s lawyers did.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone  claimed  on Tuesday that “Not even Mr. Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF” — referring to the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in which the House Intelligence Committee conducted depositions of witnesses. False. The 48 Republican members of the three committees involved in impeachment proceedings had access to the basement SCIF.

Cipollone also  repeated  the absurd claim that Schiff “manufactured a false version” of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. False. Schiff did not deceive anyone about a partial transcript that had already been made public. Schiff said at the time, “Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates.”

Making his own contribution to this blizzard of bunkum, Sekulow  claimed  that “the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … denied the right to access evidence … and denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. That’s a trifecta, a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States.” False. The president was offered a chance to have his lawyers participate in House proceedings and declined to take it.

Sekulow  also claimed  that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice. False. The report showed that the elements of obstruction were present.

But these are relatively inconsequential whoppers compared with the biggest lie of all. This is the oft-repeated claim that a president can only be impeached for breaking the law — not for abuse of office. Not even Jonathan Turley, the star Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing, is buying it. He  wrote  in Wednesday’s edition of The Post: “It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution. While Framers did not want terms such as ‘maladministration’ in the standard as dangerously too broad, they often spoke of impeachable conduct in noncriminal terms.” Many of the president’s defenders, including his lawyer  Alan Dershowitz  and  Attorney General William P. Barr , have made similar arguments in the past. They have only taken the contrary position today because it is more politically convenient to embrace a lie than to grapple with the terrible truth.

It should be no surprise that the lawyers representing a president who has made more than  16,241 false statements  since taking office should resort to their own lies — and it won’t matter for the president’s die-hard supporters. The  Fifth Avenue Republicans  will back Trump no matter what. But a recent  CNN poll  found that 51 percent of Americans think Trump should be convicted and 58 percent think he abused his power. The transparently false arguments by Trump lawyers will not convince those majorities that they are wrong. The Trump team will win an acquittal in the Senate no matter how badly they argue but, on the present trajectory, they won’t win in the court of public opinion.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

The facts arent good for Trump. 

Can his army of trumpsters hold up under the strain? 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Obviously not, take a look at Fox, they are presenting the defense instead of showing the hearing.  They don't want their stooges to hear the truth.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

even though they’ll lose the Senate trial  jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

We're resting easy JR. And we can thank the Dem dummies for assuring Trump's reelection  jrSmiley_49_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
The facts arent good for Trump.

HEARSAY is not FACT.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3    one month ago

True, but the democrats case isn't actually built on "hearsay". It's been built on facts, and though incomplete due to this President obstructing congress from speaking with the key witnesses, that doesn't mean they have nothing but hearsay. It's why the defense team is trying to claim that abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense because they know the facts are against them and they have no other excuses. They tried whiny bitching about process, that didn't work. They tried to pretend the House wouldn't ever send the impeachment to the senate so they could claim Trump wasn't actually impeached, but that didn't work. Dirty dishonest Donald will forever be an impeached President, that's already done and there's nothing Republicans can do about it. The Republicans in the senate will of course circle their wagons around their naked Emperor, trying to shield him from the public eye and from consequence, but the impeachment has already happened. They will continue to lie on his behalf telling everyone he's not really naked and those are really magnificently tailored suits of gold, but even the children in the crowd are pointing and laughing at the naked fat man.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    one month ago
but the democrats case isn't actually built on "hearsay".

All the "witnesses" presented in the House hearing was in point of fact HEARSAY.  NOTHING was presented as first hand knowledge other than their OPINIONS and FEELINGS.

Further, had the House actually wanted to hear first hand from witnesses they had the option of forcing the issue in court.  They chose not to.   THAT is on them. 

PERIOD END OF STORY.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3    one month ago
HEARSAY is not FACT.

It was enough to impeach Clinton. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.3.4  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.3    one month ago

No,Clinton got caught in a lie

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.5  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.3    one month ago
It was enough to impeach Clinton.

Clinton was impeached for his actions lying under oath.  He surrendered his law license in a plea deal to avoid a felony perjury charge.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.3.6  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    one month ago

Executive Privilege is not obstructing Congress. Shiff and Nader continue to spew that is does and their minions are continuing to buy it hook, line and sinker. 

4 more years is in the bag for Trump and if the Dems don't drain their own swamp of Pelosi, Shumer, Schiff, Nader etc it could easily be 4 or 8 more years of Repubs in the WH.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.3.7  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.3    one month ago

Perjury and obstruction (witness tampering) are real damn crimes. No matter how hard the left want to spin it.

Clinton was guilty as sin; but the Dems put party before country in the Senate.  Oh, and the Democrats were far from unbiased, they had determined they were going to acquit Clinton before the trial even began.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/chuck-schumer-impeachment-1999-kfile/index.html

But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN's KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was "not like a jury box." Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate was not like a jury box.
"We have a pre-opinion," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. "This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics."
"So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury box," King asked Schumer.
"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the judge."
Comparing the BS investigation the Democrats in the House conducted; to the investigation the Republican House conducted against Clinton is beyond a joke. All you need to know is that 31 Democrats voted to impeach Clinton in the House. Not one Republican voted to impeach Trump in the House. Guess the Democrats should have conducted a more open investigation in the House. Also, they should have completed it before sending it off to the Senate.
 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.8  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.5    one month ago
Clinton was impeached for his actions lying under oath.

True. But that's not what I was replying to. Hearsay. Who caught Bill clinton getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office? No one, that means it was hearsay. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.9  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.7    one month ago
All you need to know is that 31 Democrats voted to impeach Clinton in the House. Not one Republican voted to impeach Trump in the House

Exactly. It tells me that not one Republican is willing to put their party over Trump, or to fulfill their oaths, but at least SOME of the Democrats in the Clinton administration were willing to do their actual jobs and fulfill their oaths.

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.10  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.7    one month ago
they should have completed it before sending it off to the Senate.

Kind of hard to do when the Trump administration refused to let some of the major players even testify.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.8    one month ago
. Who caught Bill clinton getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office? No one, that means it was hearsay.

You understand Monica Lewinsky was involved ? Or don't you understand the meaning of the word hearsay?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.12  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3    one month ago
HEARSAY is not FACT.

Actually, hearsay, when admissible, is fact. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.3.12    one month ago

Hearsay can be evidence. It’s not necessarily a fact.

this should be common sense, but  Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.14  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.13    one month ago

You're ignoring the 'when admissible' in my comment. I meant that to indicate that it would be admitted into a court record and when it is, it IS a fact for the jury to consider.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.3.14    one month ago

No,  admissible hearsay is simply evidence for the jury to consider.  Facts and evidence are not the same thing. A jury is free to decide that a hearsay statement admitted into evidence is completely bogus and disregard it altogether.  

 That's why a jury is the "fact finder." It's role is to  determine the facts from all the evidence ( which is often diametrically opposed)  the judge deems legally admissible.. A jury doesn't simply accept admissible evidence as a proven fact.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.15    one month ago
A jury is free to decide that a hearsay statement admitted into evidence is completely bogus and disregard it altogether.

Whether the evidence is hearsay or not is irrelevant. ALL documents and testimony can be disregarded. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.3.16    one month ago

 ALL documents and testimony can be disregarded. 

Yes of course. The discussion is about whether evidence is the same as facts. 

Remember, you claimed admissible hearsay evidence is fact, which is wrong. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Only in your dreams!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2  livefreeordie    one month ago

laughable.  What the facts demonstrate is that the president's defense team should move for dismissal immediately following opening arguments.  the Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are enemies of this Republic.

Not one Republican Senator including lefty Romney will vote for the impeachment.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1  lib50  replied to  livefreeordie @2    one month ago

Fox must think its pretty bad for them if they don't have the balls to SHOW THE HEARING!

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.1  WallyW  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one month ago

CNN & MSNBC have it covered. No sane person would waste time watching this left wing idiocy

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one month ago
Fox must think its pretty bad for them if they don't have the balls to SHOW THE HEARING!

Why listen to the blathering of the left when they have NO FACTUAL BASIS for the sham they're perpetrating on the American people.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.2    one month ago

Why listen to the blathering of the left when they have NO FACTUAL BASIS for the sham they're perpetrating on the American people.

no factual basis....pfft

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one month ago

What are they showing?  I dont have Fox News Channel anymore. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.5  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    one month ago

Bret Baier is showing the hearing.   'The five' show showed endless commercials and their defense of Trump and why dems are so unfair.  Not a bit of the hearing except the picture box in the corner.  Whining about the hearings. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.6  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.2    one month ago

Keep 'em ignorant.  Gop motto.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.3    one month ago
no factual basis....pfft

So it was YOU that passed gas.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.6    one month ago
Keep 'em ignorant.  Gop motto.

Keep them down and dependent.  Democrat motto

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one month ago

Why tie up multiple stations with the same stuff?

Their is other news the mainsteam is missing during the DC clown show.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    one month ago

Sure you don't and yet you keep referencing them. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.11  lib50  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.9    one month ago

I guess this is proof Fox isn't a news station (as if we needed that).  Only one reason they don't show it, and that is because they don't want their idiot viewers to hear anything but their propaganda and Trump defense.   Because they don't want to hear the facts.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @2.1.11    one month ago
I guess this is proof Fox isn't a news station (as if we needed that).  Only one reason they don't show it, and that is because they don't want their idiot viewers to hear anything but their propaganda and Trump defense. 

In a nut shell, 8-10 hours of blabbering bullshit isn't worth their time. All the other outlets are covering it with bated breath hoping the way that you do for the outcome. Someone has to go beyond the madness that is............

384

Some people have better things to do with their time than sit in front of a TV watching a bunch of pompous assed elitist fools crying over an election. And the thing I find hilarious, other than Chuck's performance this morning and Schiff all the way through with his little buddy Nadler, when the smoke all clears, the "trial" (snicker) is done is the fact that he will still be referred to, after his second term and into a well deserved retirement, as Former President Donald Trump. Just like all the rest. Including Former President  Richard Millhouse Nixon.

hahaHAHA HAHAHA

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  lib50 @2.1.11    one month ago

Are you taking your talking points from JR which has accomplished zip. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.14  lib50  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.13    one month ago

No, you are projecting again.   These are my talking points. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.15  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @2.1.14    one month ago

I would say they are more like pointless points .

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.1.15    one month ago

That would be your comments MUVA

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.17  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.16    one month ago

Mine are  poignant points.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.18  lib50  replied to  MUVA @2.1.17    one month ago

Well, muv, interesting that Fox is now showing the defense side of the hearings!  They didn't have the balls to allow their sheeple to hear the dems presentation, but they are making sure they put the defense on.  (Rather pathetic defense so far).  Fox must really think their viewers are morons.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.18    one month ago
Well, muv, interesting that Fox is now showing the defense side of the hearings! 

Fox had the Democrats on for TWO FUCKING DAYS regurgitating the same talking points every hour.  The ONLY difference was which Democrat was reading the play book at that particular hour.

But have no fear.  Once the Democrats bullshit show is eviscerated, the Republicans will wrap things up and not torture the people as the Democrats did.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @2.1.18    one month ago
Well, muv, interesting that Fox is now showing the defense side of the hearings!  They didn't have the balls to allow their sheeple to hear the dems presentation

WTF are you talking about ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Fox Showed ALL the Dem managers Rantings !

I had to tune to FOX, because the "Lefty" shows kept interrupting with "Self" indulgent "Opinions" of what they heard.

I wanted to hear everything discussed from start to finish, with no interruption. 

I'm WIERD THAT WAY ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Thus...."FOX" was the place to be. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.21  XDm9mm  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.20    one month ago
Fox Showed ALL the Dem managers Rantings !

Actually, on day three.... even FOX had enough and put the proceedings in a corner box.   They recognized that hearing the same story over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...  (well you get the idea)  was accomplishing nothing and there was other news happening.  So, if anything NEW happened, they would go back, which I don't believe actually happened!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.22  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.21    one month ago
Actually, on day three.... even FOX had enough and put the proceedings in a corner box.

True. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Still MUCH BETTER than the other shows, where the left had a need to feed in "Opinion", to further the Dem managers Prosecution. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

I had a hard time staying awake those days of "Innuendo and Conjecture" from the Dem managers ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.23  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.20    4 weeks ago

SENATE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.  Can't deny they stopped their sheeple from seeing the dems present their case.  Guess what they are currently showing without interruption?  Baaaaa

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.23    4 weeks ago
SENATE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.  Can't deny they stopped their sheeple from seeing the dems present their case.  Guess what they are currently showing without interruption?  Baaaaa

Much like FOX did for the FIRST TWO DAYS of the Democrats droning on and regurgitating the same lines over and over again as if repeating them a thousand times would miraculously make the fantasy reality.

Come back after another twelve or so hours if you want.   

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.23    4 weeks ago
Guess what they are currently showing without interruption

UPDATE JUST FOR YOU LIB....

FOX has the Senate proceedings in a corner box and are discussing Bryant at the moment...   So much for your erroneous contention.  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.26  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.19    4 weeks ago

Funny Pam Bondi not mentioning she was making twice as much per month as Hunter from Qatar for no apparent reason.

"Bondi registered in July under FARA — Foreign Agents Registration Act — as a part-time, $115,000-per-month lobbyist for Qatar." https://palmbeachpost.com/news/20191111/cerabino-keeping-america-and-qatar-great-floridarsquos-bondi-is-slave-to-task

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.27  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.26    4 weeks ago

What are the chances Bondi got this "job" from Qatar because she is a friend of Trump? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.28  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.26    4 weeks ago
Funny Pam Bondi not mentioning she was making twice as much per month as Hunter from Qatar for no apparent reason. "Bondi registered in July under FARA — Foreign Agents Registration Act — as a part-time, $115,000-per-month lobbyist for Qatar." https:// palmbeachpost.com/news/20191111/ cerabino-keeping-america-and-qatar-great-floridarsquos-bondi-is-slave-to-task

If you don't understand that lawyers doing lobbying work are not cheap is not my problem.  It's yours.   At least Bondi has knowledge and expertise in the field of work she was hired on retainer to accomplish.

What expertise did Hunter Biden possess other than being one of the sperm of Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.29  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.27    4 weeks ago
What are the chances Bondi got this "job" from Qatar because she is a friend of Trump? 

What are the chances she got the position as a qualified attorney?

I'll submit much greater.

Oh, is Pam Bondi a relative of President Trump?  No you say?  Case closed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.28    4 weeks ago
What are the chances Bondi got this "job" from Qatar because she is a friend of Trump? 

What are the chances Bondi got this "job" from Qatar because she is a friend of Trump?  95% or 100% ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    4 weeks ago

Is Bondi Pence's kid?

If you have problems with this, you must be really upset about the incredibly unqualified Roger Clinton, I mean Hunter Biden, taking the job from Burisma.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.32  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    4 weeks ago
What are the chances Bondi got this "job" from Qatar because she is a friend of Trump?  95% or 100% ?

One would think you would believe that.  Hell, you've sucked down all the pabulum the Democrats in the House have spoon fed you, so why change now?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.33  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.29    4 weeks ago

Huh? 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.34  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.25    4 weeks ago

Yea, just saw that,  for about a hot minute.  Compare the coverage from last week, I dare you.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.35  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.33    4 weeks ago
Huh? 

In other words JR...   of course you believe she got the job because of Trump.   But isn't that sexist and misogynist of you not believing she did it because she's a talented lawyer?

No need to answer.  It's a rhetorical question.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.36  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.34    4 weeks ago
Yea, just saw that,  for about a hot minute.  Compare the coverage from last week, I dare you.

Last week FOX had the proceedings on for the first two days NON STOP.   The only breaks were when new programs were to start and that only took a few seconds each.

After about 20+ hours of watching the democrats regurgitate the same talking points covering innuendo, supposition, conjecture, speculation and hurt feelings non-stop, they opted to put the proceedings in a corner box and have regular shows unless something new happened.

Yeah, Lib...   I saw it all.  That's 20+ hours of my life totally wasted and will never be recovered.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.37  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.36    4 weeks ago

Fox did NOT have the full hearings on last week.  Didn't even show closing statement.  I don't know what you were watching.  The 5?  Hannity?  Tucker?  Even when I thought they started showing hearings full on Bret Baier's show they weren't. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  livefreeordie @2    one month ago

I am betting that some of his own are turning knowing that their careers are on the line and that Trump is not worth loosing their paychecks over.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.2    one month ago

They will lose their paychecks anyways. If they turn on Trump they will be either have strong primary opponents; or not have the voter support to win in the general elections. Even Mitt Romney is starting to see the light.

Funny how the left can support Bill Clinton, who was guilty as sin and deserved to be removed from office; but expect Trump to be impeached based on second and third hand information. When not one of the damn "witnesses" stated he broke any laws.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    one month ago
When not one of the damn "witnesses" stated he broke any laws.

So you're drinking the Dershowitz koolaid. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
I'm sorry if the Trump spawn weren't born with the name Trump, Eric would be parking cars, Junior would be selling watches in Times Square and Ivanka would be working the Clinique counter at the Macys in Paramus. https://twitter.com/digby56/status/1221920947646550017?s=20
 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    4 weeks ago
I'm sorry if the Trump spawn weren't born with the name Trump, Eric would be parking cars, Junior would be selling watches in Times Square and Ivanka would be working the Clinique counter at the Macys in Paramus. https://twitter.com/digby56/status/1221920947646550017?s=20

What's wrong JR.  No original thoughts?   You've been relegated to regurgitating the hate of others now?

Oh, here's a clue JR.  There is nothing wrong with any of those jobs.   Maybe you should think about all the people you just denigrated...  kind of like Hillary and her "deplorables" comment.   Oop's.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.4    4 weeks ago

The question isnt if they are worthy jobs, it is if the Trump spawn would think so. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.6  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.4    4 weeks ago
There is nothing wrong with any of those jobs.   Maybe you should think about all the people you just denigrated

Maybe Trumpers should think about that when they are lying about the Bidens.  Want to talk about political spawn and their jobs?  Bring it on.  Just stop with the freaking hypocrisy and lies.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    4 weeks ago
The question isnt if they are worthy jobs, it is if the Trump spawn would think so. 

Your post wasn't a question.  It was regurgitating the hate of another Trump hater.  You denigrated millions of people by reposting such vitriol, even if you're incapable of recognizing it as such.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.2.6    4 weeks ago
Maybe Trumpers should think about that when they are lying about the Bidens.

What lies about the Bidens?   Hunter did work for a corrupt Ukraine oligarch being investigated by numerous entities including the British, and Joe got the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired.  Thems the facts.  Period.  End of story.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.9  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.8    4 weeks ago
Joe got the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired

And THAT IS A LIE.  We are all so sick and tired of hearing that LIE.  Biden didn't 'get him fired'.  He was tasked by the US government and our allies to have Ukraine remove the corrupt prosecutor who had stopped investigating corruption, including into Burisma, which was NOT being investigated at the time.   And Hunter Biden was a political spawn getting a high paying job due to his birth.  Just like fucking Trump spawn, Paul spawn, Kennedy spawn.......He isn't accused of anything except taking that job.  If you don't know its a lie, not surprised since gopers are repeating it ad nauseam.  But it is.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.10  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.2.9    4 weeks ago
And THAT IS A LIE.  We are all so sick and tired of hearing that LIE.  Biden didn't 'get him fired'. 

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.11  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.8    4 weeks ago
What lies about the Bidens?   Hunter did work for a corrupt Ukraine oligarch being investigated by numerous entities including the British

The British were NOT investigating Zlochevskyi, they were petitioned to freeze his funds by the Ukrainians. They did so pending a hearing and after Shorkin FAILED to submit ANY evidence for their allegation, the British released the funds. 

In short, Shorkin's incompetence and/or corruption cost the Ukrainians 20+ millions if the allegations against Zlochevskyi are true. 

THOSE are the fucking facts.

But ya, Trump's opinion that Shorkin was a 'very fine prosecutor' should void all of that right? 

and Joe got the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired. 
Thems the facts.  Period.  End of story.

If Sorkin was investigating Burisma, WHY didn't he provide the UK with EVIDENCE to retain the hold on the funds they froze?

Come on XD, you've got the facts right? Let's hear them.

The UK SFO was begging for some EVIDENCE, Sorkin had MONTHS to provide that EVIDENCE, the SFO got NONE. That's in contrast to VOLUMES of evidence provided by Zlochevskyi documenting where his business permits came from, where his income came from and the taxes that he paid on that income. 

Oh you knew this was all about an allegation that Zlochevskyi failed to pay taxes on his income right? 

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    one month ago

It takes a lot of gall for Trump's no good lousy lawyers to lie through their crooked teeth right in front of the American People, the whole US Senate and the frigging Chief Justice of the United States. Don't they realize everyone who is watching knows? They are Shameless! Absolutely Shameless...

History will be unkind to the damn gop for all of this!

After all is said and done truth will always come out...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
After all is said and done truth will always come out...

Yes it will.  The Democrats have lost their minds in their vitriolic hatred of the man that beat Hillary Clinton and will not rest until they have brought down not President Trump, but the remnants of the Democrat Party.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    one month ago

only thing being brought down, is the gop

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.1    one month ago
only thing being brought down, is the gop

Only in your dreams.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2  WallyW  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
After all is said and done Trump will stay, and be reelected..
 
 
 
JBB
3.2.1  JBB  replied to  WallyW @3.2    one month ago

In Trump's, the gop's and Vlad Putin's dreams.

In America, the US of A, the gop is goin down!

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.3  dennis smith  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago

The truth is out and the Dems refuse to accept it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Per the morning consult poll, support for impeachment has dropped 5% since the partisan House vote.

Keep winning like that  and you will ensure 4 more years of Trump

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

This impeachment proceeding is a chance, probably the last chance,  for the Republicans and conservatives of this country to come to their senses. 

Dump Trump and pick another candidate at your summer convention. 

We can give the Trump voters from 2016 a mulligan and let them correct their mistake. 

If they actually try to put this incredibly guilty and worthless man back into power in this country, it is hard to see anything but outright national disaster ahead. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

We are quickly becoming a pariah to our once allies and I don't blame them for turning their backs on us.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.2  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

No mulligan needed for Repubs. Based on the Dums candidates in 2020, they need a mulligan right now.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

The sky is falling, part 2 coming in November.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2  dennis smith  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

Sean, don't you know that the dums only believe polls that show in their favor (2016 election etc)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
The Democrats Are Winning The Argument

heard that one before also...

when trump is re-elected democrats will be screaming at the sky again.

 
 
 
JBB
5.1  JBB  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    one month ago

Hopefully when Trump gets a historic whooping this Fall Trump and Trumpism will pass peacefully into being an unfortunate footnote in American history. A cautionary tale future generations will look back on like slavery, the Civil War and Mccarthyism in utter disbelief that such travesties and rank corruption could ever be allowed to infect the American body politic. Something we survived together and are thus dedicated to never let happen ever again. NEVER AGAIN!

Hopefully it will end peaceably within the next year...

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @5.1    one month ago
Hopefully when Trump gets a historic whooping this Fall

keep dreaming.. LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.1.1    one month ago

You're so WHACK!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    one month ago

"The beginning of the impeachment trial of President Trump made clear that Democrats have not only the stronger arguments but also the stronger arguers. The House impeachment managers did a masterful job on Tuesday of marshaling the evidence to argue that the Senate needs to hold a real trial complete with witnesses"

Give it time. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

The "Defense" has 24 hrs of "Talk Time" too. The first 24 hrs., will be "Forgotten" after that ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  It Is ME @6    one month ago

Same BS different day.

Dems contending the fact that the Defense team is quiet for the House's opening arguments proves they know Trump is guilty.

The only thing they have laid out is the same bad arguments they used to impeach. Witnesses with second and third hand information in closed door testimony, with the Dems leaking only things they found damaging to influence public opinion. They need to be reminded a thousand times it seems that it was the House's job to investigate. The fact they rushed impeachment w/o "key" witnesses testifying proves they are full of it. If they were really concerned about justice, and the truth, they would have gone through the courts and waited for the decisions to be reached on allowing those they wanted to testify.

They didn't have shit, so took the easy way out; and now expect the Republican Senate to bail their dumb asses out.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    one month ago
The only thing they have laid out is the same bad arguments they used to impeach.

In a more "Emotional" Form than before ! jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

Fit's with their "I have a FEELING" witness's they brought forth, touting their testimonies as..... fact ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Now they're on TV, "Crying" how the Senate....."MUST FIX THIER FUCKUP".....before the next presidential election ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gifIMG_8494.JPG

jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gifDSC_0009.JPG

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    one month ago

Fox News' top legal analyst Judge Napolitano: "What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted."

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8  Mark in Wyoming    one month ago

sorry but im streaming the proceedings on CBSN, and they have not been interrupting with commentary during the proceedings.

and way I see it we are in day 3, 2 days of the managers presenting their case, and still have to hear from the other side .

 who will be winning or losing will be told when it comes time for that roll call vote.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1  MUVA  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    one month ago

I'm using the proceedings as a sleep aid.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Per ABC, Trump just his highest approval rating of his Presidency.  Americans are now happier with the country that at any point since 2005.

Keep "winning" Democrats

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


CB


25 visitors