Schiff Shifts To Telling Lies In Senate

  
By:  citizen-kane-473667  •  one month ago  •  133 comments

Schiff Shifts To Telling Lies In Senate
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said, "No Republican senator has been told that. What he has proven to all of us is, he is capable of falsehoods and will tell it to the country. And would tell it to us when we are sitting in the Senate chamber. When every one of us knows it is not true." Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who has also said he would be open to witnesses, told reporters it’s “completely, totally false.”

It was bad enough when Schiff lied in his personal witch hunt headquarters in the House Intelligence Committee  Chambers in the House of Representatives, in the press, and now in the Senate too, but here is the one that probably will be the most damning to his cause of all:

This iframe is not allowed

(Link)

The blowback was swift, and several awing Senators took particular umbrage to the rumor he is spreading. Take for instance the reaction from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine who said:

Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration," she told reporters.

She was not alone in her criticism either, and one of the people who put it most succinctly was Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. His reply was:

No Republican senator has been told that. What he has proven to all of us is, he is capable of falsehoods and will tell it to the country. And would tell it to us when we are sitting in the Senate chamber. When every one of us knows it is not true.

We even have a Democrat Senator, Sen. Joe Manchin, W.Va, got in a word on the rumor being spread by Schiff:

That could have been left out, that's for sure.

Yes Joe, unfounded rumors of hearsay being spread by Schiff should be left out, but without them, there would be no impeachment hearing in the first place. You see, in any trial, evidence must be based on provable facts, Currently, this entire schrade is based on rumors and innuendo. Until that changes, it will be really hard to convince anyone, Senator or otherwise, to vote "Guilty" for an impeachable offense. At this point, the more Schiff keeps running his mouth, the deeper he is digging the hole for his fellow Democrats.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1  author  Citizen Kane-473667    one month ago
“...it's completely, totally false.

That’s insulting and demeaning to everyone to say that we somehow live in fear and that the president has threatened all of us

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla
 
 
 
Dulay
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    one month ago

Schiff said that CBS news had reported that Senators had been warned: Vote against the President and your head will be on a pike.

Here is a link to that report:

https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1220491412854185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1220491412854185984&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.towleroad.com%2F2020%2F01%2Fwhite-house-warns-gop-senators-vote-against-the-president-and-your-head-will-be-on-a-pike-report%2F

So since the CBS report says EXACTLY what Schiff said is said, HOW did he lie? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago

Nothing like using "Twit"....to make a point. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

There's a reason that "Twitter" is named after "Bird" language. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

It all sounds like nothing more than "Tweet, Tweet, Tweet" to humans. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago
Schiff said that CBS news had reported that Senators had been warned:

So, yet one more time, Schiff is relying on HEARSAY information with no basis in fact.  Thanks!!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.3  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.2    one month ago

Holy fuck, If schitt repeats a lie it's not a lie?   How very Goebbels of the left.  Take a big lie and repeat it enough and the fucktard lemmings will believe it.

I give you Russian collusion as the perfect example of their ignorance. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  loki12 @1.1.3    one month ago
Holy fuck, If schitt repeats a lie it's not a lie?

Hell no.  He's the living evidence that 1984 actually is real, albeit a little late, it's there.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.5  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago

Numerous Republican's have refuted the claim and labeled it a lie.

Now did he or did he not say it?

Obviously he did since it is in the linked video.

Ergo, he lied! AGAIN!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.5    one month ago
Numerous Republican's have refuted the claim and labeled it a lie.

Well they SHOULD have said that the CBS report was a lie, NOT Schiff's statement. Mistaken statements by 'numerous Republicans' is proof or NOTHING other than faux outrage. 

Now did he or did he not say it?

I'm not refuting the fact that Schiff made the comment, I am refuting that it is a LIE. 

Obviously he did since it is in the linked video.

Yep seen it. Still not a lie. 

Ergo, he lied! AGAIN!

No he didn't and AGAIN, your dots don't connect. 

Now, unless hypocrisy is going on here, the actual lies Trump's lawyers stated in the well of the Senate should garner some outcry from you and those 'numerous Republicans' too. I'll wait for that outcry but won't hold my breath. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.7  PJ  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.8  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.2    one month ago
So, yet one more time, Schiff is relying on HEARSAY information with no basis in fact.  

How do you know that there is no basis in fact in the CBS report? 

Because Republicans are denying it? You know that's HEARSAY information right? 

Thanks!!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.3    one month ago
Holy fuck, If schitt repeats a lie it's not a lie? 

Who said that loki? 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.10  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    one month ago

[deleted]

other than for conviction, when are we going to se anything that requires 67 votes?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.10    one month ago
delete for context 
other than for conviction, when are we going to se anything that requires 67 votes?

Do you have a point? 

Oh wait...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.12  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    one month ago

LoL, you are indeed a peach. Bless your heart!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.13  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  PJ @1.1.7    one month ago
Every time I read an article posted by the trump fan club I feel like I've lost several brain cells.

No worries here then because I'm no fan of the man Donald J. Trump. but I am a fan of some of his policies, To wit:

  • Ending the War
  • Securing our borders
  • Cutting Taxes
  • Rebuilding our infrastructure
  • Renegotiating our trade deals
  • A strong military
  • Cleaning out the swamp in D.C.

...and a few others. I also disagree with him on some things, but that list, at least for now is shorter.

Do you know what else I am a fan of?  The Law!  We have a system in place that protects us from being convicted of crimes that people think we committed, but can't prove.  Yes, there is such a thing as "circumstantial evidence" that can get people convicted and locked away for life. I'm not a big fan of it for good reason ! Having been on the receiving end of the so-called Justice system where the rule of Law is NOT followed, where an overzealous prosecutor bent the rules and refused exonerating evidence in front of a biased judge to make me pay a far larger penalty than I should have, I tend to get upset when I see the same thing taking place somewhere else.

Are you a fan of the Law? Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

I think you are. And I hope that you, like me, need a lot more than just a case built on one persons speculation of intent to prove guilt. Purpua laid it out pretty well yesterday. Fast forward to about 31 minutes into the video to see what I mean.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.14  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.13    one month ago
  • Ending the War
  • Securing our borders
  • Cutting Taxes
  • Rebuilding our infrastructure
  • Renegotiating our trade deals
  • A strong military
  • Cleaning out the swamp in D.C.

I haven't seen progress in any of these areas.  If you have proof of progress, please provide verifiable links so that I can make my own informed opinion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.14    one month ago

Exactly, and some are contradictory.  Cut taxes and rebuild infrastructure?  Where do folks think we get the money to rebuild infrastructure?

Placing unqualified family members and donors in government positions, including nominating them as Cabinet secretaries, is the very opposite of "draining the swamp".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.14    one month ago
Cleaning out the swamp in D.C.

Anyone who thinks Trump has cleaned out the swamp in DC is not a reliable commentator on current events. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.17  MUVA  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.14    one month ago

Trump has already signed two trade deals. I have enjoyed my tax cuts all 112,000 worth, infrasture will take some cuts in subsidies to pay for them.As for draining the swamp the democrats are fighting that tooth and nail some in there party will have to go back to bartending if they lose their swamp position.     

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    one month ago

Anyone who thinks Trump has cleaned out the swamp in DC is not a reliable commentator on current events. 

as whole

in parts, could/would B another nom,  no ?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.19  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @1.1.17    one month ago
Trump has already signed two trade deals.

Apparently I am behind in my reading.  What trade deals were those?

infrasture (sic) will take some cuts in subsidies to pay for them.

Will take?  Then we shouldn't be including them in the 'done' column, should we?

I have enjoyed my tax cuts all 112,000 worth

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.19    one month ago

tooFUnny

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.21  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.14    one month ago

There is no progress in any of those areas.

Notice the republicans are not out claiming any victory on the China trade deal as it was really no deal.

Saying ending the wars as he sends more troops over there...

Notice that all the conservative people that post here are very wealthy and had massive gains from the tax cuts...uh huh.

He may be draining the swamp yet he is now making it a toxic waste dump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @1.1.17    one month ago
Trump has already signed two trade deals.

Did you READ them? They are exactly what we already had. He gained nothing and cost thousands of people there jobs in the process, that's not, "WINNING!!". 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.23  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.22    one month ago

trump...create a crisis...resolve self made crisis (with basically what we had before)...claim victory.

republicans...see, this is why we love trump, he is working for us...

And then they wonder why some people call it the cult of trump.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.24  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.14    one month ago
I haven't seen progress in any of these areas.

Of course not. I bet you didn't even see when Pelosi tried to grab some of the credit for what you've missed.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.25  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.15    one month ago
Where do folks think we get the money to rebuild infrastructure?

By eliminating wasteful spending and by quitting trying to buy the love of the people who hate us for interfering uninvited in their countries.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.26  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    one month ago
Anyone who thinks Trump has cleaned out the swamp in DC is not a reliable commentator on current events.

I haven't claimed he has, after all, Pelosi is still there isn't she?  Just one of 536 examples.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.27  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @1.1.21    one month ago
There is no progress in any of those areas.

So no taxes have been cut ? No wall sections have been built ? No one has tried to hire more BP Agents ? Military spending hasn't increased ? NAFTA hasn't been replaced ?

Really?  Could have fooled me that attempts aren't being made/accomplished...despite the opposition faced!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.25    one month ago
By eliminating wasteful spending

I'm sure he discusses that en route to Mar-A-Lago.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.29  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.27    one month ago

Why everyone thinks tax cuts are a good thing is beyond me. I guess debt is no longer a consideration.

Having more corporations being able to zero out their taxes is just wonderful...

Stopping the building/upgrading of needed things in the military just to transfer the funds to a wall does not sound like supporting the military, but do say how it is a good thing...

Increased spending does not necessarily go when and where needed. Isn't it a conservative mantra that increased spending does not solve problems?

Now all the sudden the military is so much better just because of more of a cash flow...

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.30  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.28    one month ago

Funny how massive spending is only a concern when the other party is in charge.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.31  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @1.1.29    one month ago
Having more corporations being able to zero out their taxes is just wonderful...

Why in the fuck is it so hard to make people understand that Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES--WE DO! Every tax you put on them is passed on to the Consumer, so go ahead, KEEP BEGGING TO PAY MORE TAX!

Now all the sudden the military is so much better just because of more of a cash flow...

Do you read the news at all?  Do you watch anything, I mean besides Bill Maher? The money taken out for the wall was nothing compared to the actual increase in spending!

As to where the money goes--beyond buying more bombs and bullets, it goes to developing new technology to better protect our troops, whether it is developing new armor, enhancing the actual soldier with mecha technology, or building new warships. Yes! In this case more money is building a better military!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.32  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.28    one month ago
I'm sure he discusses that en route to Mar-A-Lago.

Just as much as Obama did on the way to Hawaii and France I'm sure...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.32    one month ago

Weekly, for months at a stretch?

Remind me, please.  Did Obama own properties in Hawaii or France at which he charged his necessary entourage to stay?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.34  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.31    one month ago

Who got the permanent reduced tax cut, Corporations, or People Too ?

Did they pass that on to consumers or their share holders who don't share what the tax breaks gave, in an overabundant disproportion, to those WHO ALREADY HAVE.

I've read up to 80% of hte tax cuts will be benefitting only the richest few, but thats all OK with You ?

.

There are barracks that won't be renovated due to some fools gold and dream of a shower to wash off all the shit stuck to his wall that MEXICO was to pay for while he locked up Clinton for being guilty of the innocence he can't buy, the truth that he must LIE, to subservant followers of a mental midget that pies up pipers with holes in the argument for flutes lost at band camp for their width is without, a doubt a cranny riddled cracked bell rung on the latter to traverse the amazing wall, so remote to fill with Crocks and snakes to shake at the world as his rattling of sabres shores up the damn dikes with Tigers Blood and Adonis skinny jeans he'll never fit in, as he is an outcast, who has only been able to last, due to the blind defenders that will see only what they can't past, and the reflection will be an image they refuse to imagine, as when allk of this is displayed by hers, or his story,

it   is   gonna    be       gory.

.

But defend the offensive without an equal, cause 4 you,

there won't be a sequel,

as History will show how little you think and know, as you don't

real eyes what you can't see     ya later   

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.35  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.31    one month ago

Why is it so hard to understand that giving corporations a free pass is not solving anything.

Next you are going to tell me that giving low level employees a raise would raise the price of all goods.

Basically you make it sound like corporations blackmailed the government and the people saying make us pay less or you all will pay more.

And the divide grows....

Funny that you admonished another poster for backhanded comments yet you are doing the same.

As far as the military, do you actually think things cannot be done with an over 700 billion price tag?

Hell China didn't even spend 200 billion and they seem to be outpacing us.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.36  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.31    one month ago
Every tax you put on them is passed on to the Consumer, so go ahead, KEEP BEGGING TO PAY MORE TAX!

I can guaranfuckintee that my tenants don't want me to pay anymore taxes that I get from them in the form of rent.   They pay every penny of tax "I'm" responsible for.

Yeah, as you indicate, some people simply don't get it.  Then again, to oh so many, ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a life style.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.37  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.36    one month ago

Yeah, as you indicate, some people simply don't get it.  Then again, to oh so many, ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a life style.

and for some,

it is the Rule.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.38  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.36    one month ago

Wow. Nice.

I can guarantee you that what a landlord pays in taxes is no where near even 1/3 of what they make.

Of course they pay what you pay in taxes and beyond.

So you are going to tell me that if your taxes went up by five to ten dollars a month you would raise rent.

Gas lighting is not only done by one around here...

Beyond that, just greed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.38    one month ago

Many commercial leases call for the tenant to pay all property taxes on the space they lease.

Sure, the landlord is billed in their name, but the tenant pays the taxes.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.40  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    one month ago

Like I said...and more.

Stop acting like they don't make a profit, or wouldn't just because of taxes.

People would pay more because of greed. If the rental property stayed empty then guess what. They would lower the rent or sell it to get out of it.

conservatives use to believe in a thing called supply and demand. Not demand and blame.

These kind of comments do nothing but perpetuate the problems faced. It is basically giving ever increasing greed a pass and putting the blame on the lower tier.

Until people get tired of status quo, it will remain.

It is almost like fear mongering... You pay taxes now and if I have to pay more, so will you....

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.40    one month ago
Stop acting like they don't make a profit, or wouldn't just because of taxes.

Whoa, there, cowboy! There isn't one thing in my post that would lead anyone to think I said anything or "pretended" anything at all about profit-making. Chill out dude.

People would pay more because of greed. If the rental property stayed empty then guess what. They would lower the rent or sell it to get out of it.

Pay more because of greed? WTF? No one is forcing anyone to rent anything. They are more than free to invest their own money on rental property if they so choose, and charge according to what the market will bear.

These kind of comments do nothing but perpetuate the problems faced. It is basically giving ever increasing greed a pass and putting the blame on the lower tier.

Here is what I wrote--exactly.

Many commercial leases call for the tenant to pay all property taxes on the space they lease.
Sure, the landlord is billed in their name, but the tenant pays the taxes.

I have no earthly idea what you think you read, but the bulk of your comment seems very disjointed in any way, shape or form from what I actually wrote.

Do you have any relevant comment to my actual post? Do you dispute it in any way?

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.42  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.41    one month ago

Playing coy is not your forte.

One of two things going on here.

One has read the thread and knows what is going on but had no real response so just uses a fall back position

or

One just jumps into conversations without knowing any context.

So....

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
1.1.43  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.27    one month ago

Good points.  You are correct here.  

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
1.1.44  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.32    one month ago

Or Martha’s Vineyard...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.45  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @1.1.35    one month ago

Yes, raises are passed along to the consumer as well via increased pricing. ALL business expenses are passed along to the Consumer. So raise taxes, raise wages, force them to provide insurance, whatever you want...to pay for!

The ONLY way to get a piece of the pie from Corporations without affecting price is by taxing the income of those receiving the profits.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.46  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @1.1.38    one month ago
I can guarantee you that what a landlord pays in taxes is no where near even 1/3 of what they make.

Congratulations.  Is there a point you're trying to make?  And don't make guarantees you can't support.  The margin or profit one makes is predicated on many factors.  And there are places where taxes are in fact more than half of the margin the property owner receives.

Of course they pay what you pay in taxes and beyond.

Then why do you and others like you insist "corporations" pay more in taxes.  You just admitted that what they pay is paid for by the consumer.  Do YOU want to pay more in taxes?

So you are going to tell me that if your taxes went up by five to ten dollars a month you would raise rent.

My leases are structured such that come renewal, there is "x" percentage that it increases PLUS any and all taxes imposed.  So in short.  YES.

Gas lighting is not only done by one around here...

Then blow the light out and acknowledge that you've already acknowledged that corporations don't pay taxes, consumer do.  Period.  End of story.

Beyond that, just greed.

It's hardly greed.   It's simple business procedures and processes.  I use the income produced to pay the people that work for me and any contractors I use.  I carry reserves for any DAMAGES a tenant might cause or for any deadbeat that doesn't pay (Fortunately, I don't worry about that as almost all I rent to are military and/or first responder type people, and they're great and appreciative tenants.)  I also of course need personal income, and then I use some more to grow my business by purchasing more rental properties.   And the wheel goes round and round.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm smaller than small potatoes.  However, whether it is me, or Microsoft, the concept is the same.  Taxes paid are factored into the price for the product and/or service provided.   The CONSUMER is paying any and all corporate taxes.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.47  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.45    one month ago
The ONLY way to get a piece of the pie from Corporations without affecting price is by taxing the income of those receiving the profits.

Unfortunately, some are simply too blind to see that.  Or they have a real desire to have a communist country where everyone is phucked over by the government and living in a style the bureaucrats would never consider lowering themselves to.  You know, 'everyone is equal, some are just more equal than others'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.42    one month ago

Or, one pretends someone states something and then argues that instead of what is written.

Very lazy and dishonest.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.49  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.1    one month ago
'Nothing like using "Twit"....to make a point. There's a reason that "Twitter" is named after "Bird" language. It all sounds like nothing more than "Tweet, Tweet, Tweet" to humans.'

So why does the 'president' use Twitter ALL THE TIME?

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.50  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.45    one month ago

My point is, it doesn't have to. Corporate tax revenue fell 30%. 

CEO pay continues to outpace the pay of working people. In the past 10 years, CEO pay at S&P 500 companies increased more than $500,000 a year to an average of $14.5 million in 2018. Meanwhile, the average production and nonsupervisory worker saw a wage increase of $785 a year, earning on average just $39,888 in 2018.

Link

Though business profits remain healthy and the economy is strong, total corporate taxes are at the lowest levels seen in more than 50 years.

Link

Corporations are raking in millions upon millions of dollars.

The Moline, Illinois-based Deere, which was started in 1837 by blacksmith John Deere, who made farming plows, reported earning $2.15 billion in U.S. income before taxes. It owed no U.S. taxes in 2018 and reported that it was owed $268 million from the government, after taking into consideration various deductions and credits, according to its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company reported global profits of $2.37 billion.

Asked about the rebate, Brian Moens, one longtime Deere employee, was contemplative. “Everyone should pay their fair share whether it is an individual or a corporation,” he said. “If just the small individuals are paying it without large corporations doing their part, I don’t see that being fair.”

Link

You can't tell me that when a CEO is making (and some do) 50 mil a year, that a small raise in taxes would automatically have to be passed on to the consumer. The way our system is set up some corporations are making billions in profit while effectively getting a refund.

Corps still have trillions in off shore accounts.

They can afford the cost, they just don't want to and don't have to.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.51  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.46    one month ago

And you are making enough of a profit that you can continue the cycle and buy more property.

I don't know how we devolved from federal taxes to property taxes but the fact remains. Paying taxes did not bust your business and you have the means and made enough profit to continue to purchase and make more money.

Getting a smaller tax bill would only decrease revenue to services needed.

Meanwhile I don't see when a company gets a lower tax base, that prices fall.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.52  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.48    one month ago

Sealion someone else.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.53  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @1.1.51    one month ago
I don't know how we devolved from federal taxes

Do you not think that I've factored into my rental pricing what I might be liable for in federal income taxes?

I know you're smarter than that Ender.  At least I believe so.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.54  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @1.1.50    one month ago
Corporations are raking in millions upon millions of dollars.

Which translates to increased market valuation, which translates to improved balance sheets for things like public and private pension funds holding those stocks and individual IRA's and 401k's.

Are you saying THOSE investors should not reap any reward for investing their dollars and taking the chance that the company will prosper?  Do you remember the losses people endured when operations like Enron, MCI and Bear Sterns collapsed?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.52    one month ago

Stuff it!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.56  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.55    one month ago

Stuff it!

like a Turkey ?

That;s fowl Tex

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.57  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.54    one month ago

I look at stocks as a gamble. I am not a fan of people's retirement funds being hinged on playing the market. During the last recession, some people lost almost everything.

Although,

A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans.

“For the vast majority of Americans, fluctuations in the stock market have relatively little effect on their wealth, or well-being, for that matter,” said Edward N. Wolff, an economist at New York University who recently  published new research  on the topic.

.

Roughly half of all households don’t have a cent invested in stocks, whether through a 401(k) account or shares in General Electric. That leaves half the population with some exposure to financial market whims, but as Mr. Boshara said, “some exposure can be 100 bucks.”

“If you look at where the money is really held, it’s among the top 10 percent,” he said. “And if you break it down by age, race and education and parental education, you’ll see the disparities are even larger.” Parents who lack a four-year degree and, later on, their children are much less likely to have a direct stake in the stock market than college graduates; blacks and Hispanics are much less likely than whites.

.

Most households had less than $5,000 in total   holdings in 2016 , the most recent year analyzed by Mr. Wolff. Despite the slow recovery in housing prices, the wealth of middle-class Americans is still concentrated in their homes, which remain their single most valuable asset.

For 9 out of 10 households, even a shift in value of 10 percent — enough to qualify as a “market correction” — would “at most, have a 1 or 2 percent impact on their wealth holdings,” Mr. Wolff said.

If anything, foreign multinational and other investors would feel more of a pinch, since they   own 35 percent of all United States corporate stock , up from 10 percent in 1982.

Link
 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.58  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @1.1.57    one month ago
I look at stocks as a gamble.

As do I.  But one should not gamble with funds one cannot afford to lose.

I am not a fan of people's retirement funds being hinged on playing the market.

So instead they should invest in what exactly?  

During the last recession, some people lost almost everything.

Actually, some people did lose everything.  But remember, if one has all his eggs in one basket, that's a distinct possibility.  The obvious solution to that problem is diversification.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.59  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @1.1.50    one month ago
You can't tell me that when a CEO is making (and some do) 50 mil a year, that a small raise in taxes would automatically have to be passed on to the consumer.

No corporation paying a CEO that amount of money pays what we call "small amounts" when it comes to tax increases. You have to realize that they pay accounts to AVOID paying taxes whenever possible so a "small tax increase" of several hundreds of thousands of dollars (small by their standards) would be enough to hire MORE accounts to find ways to dodge paying those taxes AND save money in the process. 

They can afford the cost, they just don't want to and don't have to.

NOW you are starting to get the picture!

Go after the 50 million that CEO made, and he'll just get a raise, that is a business expense, which will get passed along to consumers.

Go after the DIVIDENDS paid to the Stock holders, and now you have something that Corporations can do nothing about! TAX THE DIVIDENDS! Doesn't affect the operating costs or the profitability of the corporations, it only affects those who are doing nothing but gambling...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.60  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.58    one month ago
So instead they should invest in what exactly? 

Government bonds if they want security. Best thing to do is have a balanced portfolio that will weather ups and downs in the Market and make money to cover losses in a Bear Market while making money in a Bull Market.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.61  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.60    one month ago
Government bonds if they want security.

True.   But security comes with a price.  Little income.

Best thing to do is have a balanced portfolio that will weather ups and downs in the Market and make money to cover losses in a Bear Market while making money in a Bull Market.

We both know that.   But some think that the stock market is gambling, which to a point it is.   Of course, there are also precious metals and gems to round things out a little and if done right, that can make the wife a happy camper at the same time!!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.62  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.59    one month ago
NOW you are starting to get the picture!

It takes a bit for some to come to the realization.

Essentially anything and everything a corporation pays out is an expense and not taxable.  Some just can't grasp that concept.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.63  Ender  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.59    one month ago

Some corps don't actually make anything that would have to be passed down to consumers.

Even if they do, take Deere for instance. Like I posted above they made billions in profit.

They could well afford to pay taxes instead of getting a refund without adding to their final cost of product.

And if they keep adding to the cost of said product, the consumer could/would stop buying.

We are letting them dictate how things will be.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.64  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @1.1.63    one month ago
Some corps don't actually make anything that would have to be passed down to consumers.

Non profit charitable corporations are the only ones I can think of that would fit that description.

Even if they do, take Deere for instance. Like I posted above they made billions in profit. They could well afford to pay taxes instead of getting a refund without adding to their final cost of product.

Whether they can afford additional taxes or not is not the question.   Whatever taxes they would be responsible for would in fact be passed on to the consumer of the product or service.

And if they keep adding to the cost of said product, the consumer could/would stop buying.

Ergo, they would go out of business, their stockholders would lose their investments and their employees would lose their jobs.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1.65  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Ender @1.1.63    one month ago
They could well afford to pay taxes instead of getting a refund without adding to their final cost of product.

They could, but they won't. As a matter of fact, when they feel charitable, instead of paying more in taxes, they donate to charities. Why? Because they get a free boost in PR, and a tax deduction in the process!

And if they keep adding to the cost of said product, the consumer could/would stop buying.

Nope!  Their competitors are doing the exact same thing when taxes go up, so there is no real change in pricing by either one. It isn't like just ONE business will face a tax increase, all of them will. In march the accounts who will plug the new numbers into their profit-margin algorithm, and up go the prices across the board. Now it is true that it won't all happen at the same exact time, but it will happen pretty quickly. For the space of a few days or a few months max, that widget might be cheaper at Costco than at Sam's, but sooner or later, Costco will raise its price too.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.66  XDm9mm  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1.65    one month ago
As a matter of fact, when they feel charitable, instead of paying more in taxes, they donate to charities.

So very true.  As I'm primarily in residential real estate, I don't enjoy the benefits of R&D deductions or other large corporation deductions.  Mine are pretty run of the mill small operation.  Salaries, benefits, direct expenses and such.

And while I make a nice income, I'm also quite generous, as I personally believe I should be.   But those donations go to charities that use the money and don't suck out their own overhead and expenses.   Some of my favorites are St. Judes, The Salvation Army, Wounded Warriors (they've cleaned house and gotten their act together), and a few others including my local Food Bank.  (Costco loves me for that when I shop!  A case of this, a couple of that, some boxes here and a few there!!)

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

hilarious results always ensue when republicans break out their lie detectors

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.2.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago
hilarious results always ensue when republicans break out their lie detectors

I bet! Especially when they are running inside the halls of Congress. I bet no matter which Party is speaking, the entire graph paper is black.  I'm convinced that only liars are considered for political office to begin with.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    one month ago

384

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

Not sure why the YouTube video of Schiffs remarks did not embed properly. I guess I'll have to talk to IT about that, lol! Anyway, I provided the link to the CSPAN video on YouTube so you can hear and see him spreading the rumor.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    one month ago
You see, in any trial, evidence must be based on provable facts, Currently, this entire schrade is based on rumors and innuendo.

Does this comment really belong in an article purporting to be excoriating lying? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
Does this comment really belong in an article purporting to be excoriating lying? 

Context JR.....   try to take everything in the context of the entire comment.   It will be quite obvious.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1    one month ago

The comment in the article says the case against Trump is based on rumor and innuendo. That is not true. Therefore , it seems out of place in an article criticizing lying. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago
The comment in the article says the case against Trump is based on rumor and innuendo. That is not true.

Actually JR....  the VIDEOS being presented in the Senate chamber at this time are telling quite a different story.  VIDEO of the Democrat witnesses acknowledging that they 1- have NO first hand knowledge of anything (rumor) and 2- are speaking only of things they heard (innuendo).  

So JR, yes, it is and always has been based on RUMOR and INNUENDO.

Period.  End of story.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.3  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    one month ago

They aren't telling a different story, and they are trying to pretend the July 25 call was a transcript and not a Trump summary of what they want out.  And so far their defense is a big fat yawn.  They complained about witnesses not called after Trump blocked all witnesses. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    one month ago

The crank dissembler Jay Sekulow is beginning to talk. This shlould be interesting. Fact checkers ...... on your mark, get set, go. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago
The comment in the article says the case against Trump is based on rumor and innuendo. That is not true.

Mike Purpura just shot that statement of yours, into outer space. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.6  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago

The democrats are already done and the defense just started well there is always the Russia hoax.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @4.1.3    one month ago
They aren't telling a different story,

Are you claiming that the VIDEO of the Democrat witnesses in the chamber of the US House of Representatives indicating that they have NO FIRST HAND knowledge of President Trump saying what was claimed and that they presumed and heard others claim that is not true?  Is the US HoR video then false?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @4.1.3    one month ago

No one has disputed that the summary captures the substance of the conversation. Vindman characterized it as very accurate.

Relying on surprise evidence is Mueller all over. You'd think you'd have learned your lesson.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago
The crank dissembler Jay Sekulow is beginning to talk. This shlould be interesting. Fact checkers ...... on your mark, get set, go.

Actually JR, it was quite interesting.  And the "fact checkers" you demand turned around and went back to the locker-room when they discovered that the Presidents legal team was in fact using the very same videos the Democrats used as evidence.  Of course using the parts that the Democrats DID NOT present as that would have eliminated the possibility of any rational person voting to impeach.  Yes, I know, the House Democrats are not rational as they had a deadline to meet, right or wrong, they were going to meet that deadline.   Oop's. 

 
 
 
PJ
4.1.10  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago

You're wasting your time......they don't care about truth or reality.  They still think Donald's show was real and not staged.  hahahahahaha

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    one month ago
1- have NO first hand knowledge of anything (rumor) and 2- are speaking only of things they heard (innuendo).  

Gee XD, the VIDEO I saw of Williams and Vindman and Morrison and Holmes and Sondland and Volker ALL show that they HEARD Trump's words from Trump's mouth in REAL time. That's first hand knowledge and NOT innuendo.

In short, FACTS. 

Period.  End of story.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.12  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    one month ago
ALL show that they HEARD Trump's words from Trump's mouth in REAL time.

not even close to fact.

start at @26:20

sondland: "I did not hear from president trump that the aid would be held up."

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.13  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    one month ago
Gee XD, the VIDEO I saw of Williams and Vindman and Morrison and Holmes and Sondland and Volker ALL show that they HEARD Trump's words from Trump's mouth in REAL time. That's first hand knowledge and NOT innuendo

Please provide a link to the video you saw.

I watched all of Schiff's inquiry, and none of the people you named had first hand information. What they did have were assumptions, presumptions, guesses based upon the assumptions and presumptions of others who also had not directly spoken with Trump. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.14  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.1.12    one month ago
WATCH: Sondland stresses Trump didn't tell him directly that investigations, Ukraine aid linked

READ MORE CAREFULLY.

I didn't say he did. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.15  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @4.1.14    one month ago
READ MORE CAREFULLY. I didn't say he did. 

In comment 4.1.11 you did:

Gee XD, the VIDEO I saw of Williams and Vindman and Morrison and Holmes and Sondland and Volker ALL show that they HEARD Trump's words from Trump's mouth in REAL time. That's first hand knowledge and NOT innuendo.

In short, FACTS. 

Period.  End of story.

By the way, in comment 4.1.13 I asked you to provide a link to the video where you saw this. Maybe you didn't see my comment?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.13    one month ago

You KNOW that Williams, Morrison and Vindman were listening to the Zelensky call right?

That means they HEARD what Trump said to Zelensky FIRST HAND in real time.

If you have any evidence that is false, post it. 

Sondland and Volker BOTH testified about the meeting they had with Trump after coming back from Zelensky's inauguration. The BOTH testified that Trump told them, IN PERSON, that Perry, Sondland and Volker should work with Giuliani on Ukraine. That is FIRST HAND in real time. 

If you have any evidence that is false, post it.

I await YOUR evidence that supports YOUR claim that none of the people that I named had first hand information. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.15    one month ago

Where in my comment, that you have copied and passed TWICE, did I say a fucking thing about 'investigations' OR 'Ukraine'? 

Hint: NOWHERE.

Just STOP jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.18  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @4.1.14    one month ago
I didn't say he did. 

[Deleted]

Gee XD, the VIDEO I saw of Williams and Vindman and Morrison and Holmes and Sondland and Volker ALL show that they HEARD Trump's words from Trump's mouth in REAL time. That's first hand knowledge and NOT innuendo.

simple facts 

end of story.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
Does this comment really belong in an article purporting to be excoriating lying?

ROFLMFAO! After watching just 2 hours of the shredding of Schifty Schiftt, this is going to be the biggest destruction of the Democratic Party Leaders EVER!

Even CNN in it's after broadcast commentary is agreeing that the only way to lose this case is his lawyers make a huge misstep. Keep praying John; I don't see it happening!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2    one month ago
After watching just 2 hours of the shredding of Schifty Schiftt, this is going to be the biggest destruction of the Democratic Party Leaders EVER!

It was a sight to behold! All 3 lawyers presented factual evidence, which the Schiff/Nadler mob weren't able to do.

After the session, I watched Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) give an interview. He said that what TV viewers couldn't see were the facial expressions and body language of the House Managers. He said that they were frowning and squirming as Cippollone, Sekulow, and Philbin laid out the facts that House Dems and their "witnesses" conveniently omitted.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.1    one month ago
laid out the facts that House Dems and their "witnesses" conveniently omitted.

Yet failed to address the facts already in the record. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    one month ago
Yet failed to address the facts already in the record. 

Don't worry, Dulay; Trump's lawyers still have 22 hours to break down the Dems' fiction by using documented facts. Tune in on Monday, 1PM. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.3    one month ago
Don't worry, Dulay; Trump's lawyers still have 22 hours to break down the Dems' fiction by using documented facts. Tune in on Monday, 1PM. 

I wouldn't miss it for the world. I've been putting off a window project to listen or watch all week. I've actually got some shit done at my own house and planted seeds in the mean time.

They had me laughing out loud today. I'm glad I wasn't playing a drinking game: drink when they lie, cuz I would have been loaded way before noon. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @4.2.4    one month ago
They had me laughing out loud today.

I've lived through 3 impeachment processes but have never known anyone to laugh about them. I'm glad you were happy today and think it's a funny matter.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.5    one month ago
I've lived through 3 impeachment processes but have never known anyone to laugh about them.

This is my third too Jasper. 

I wasn't laughing about the impeachment processes. Why make assumptions? 

I'm glad you were happy today and think it's a funny matter.

Never said I was happy or that ANYTHING was funny, I said I laughed out loud.

The REASON that I laughed is because I heard Trump's lawyers telling bald faced lies and I KNEW they would. I also KNEW that Trump's sycophants would spill up the pablum they were spewing and judging from the posts here on NT, I was right about that. 

 
 
 
loki12
5  loki12    one month ago

One thing you will find missing from the democrats presentation of fiction, but will non-stop with the presidents defense, The leftest Goebbels ministers of propaganda looking for anything they can call a untruth, You saw zero reports from the leftest fucktards at WaPo and the DNC publishing arm, (NY Times) about the multiple lies that Schitt has told, but the minute one of trumps lawyer say.....Good morning Senators the low functioning will all scream.....It's 12:01 trumps team lies about the time of day!!!!!!!!

The sad thing is, there are still some who are so fucking stupid that they can't think or do research for themselves and will be waiting anxiously for those daily counts. Pathetic losers.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  loki12 @5    one month ago
one of trumps lawyer say.....Good morning Senators the low functioning will all scream.....It's 12:01 trumps team lies about the time of day!!!!!!!!

LOL. That is the damned truth!

 
 
 
squiggy
6  squiggy    one month ago

83467951_2658665377521859_10290019571314

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.1  Kathleen  replied to  squiggy @6    one month ago

Very creative. 

 
 
 
squiggy
7  squiggy    one month ago

82438097_2808687669190873_13607802694176

 
 
 
WallyW
8  WallyW    one month ago
afb012520dAPR20200123114507.jpg
 
 
 
sixpick
9  sixpick    one month ago

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Democrats aren’t even trying to win.  They just let Schiff and Nadler make asses of themselves pissing   off the jury and play to their donors who’ve been demanding impeachment for any reason since November 2016.

shame they abused the impeachment process to placate the far  left wing whack jobs who control the party.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    one month ago

This whole fiasco was put in place some of the feeble minded haters.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @10.1    one month ago

This whole fiasco was put in place some of the feeble minded haters.  

definitely have to agree

wish the feeble minded haters could get through 

to

the feeble minded.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.1.1    one month ago

the feeble minded need to be exposed for being exposed to the feeble minded enablers,

yet,

no dark room needed to show the Sunshine how to act

 
 
 
PJ
11  PJ    one month ago

Republicans aren't even trying to put country first.  They just let trump and mcconnell lie and steal power from the American people.  

Shame they have taken advantage of the old and feeble minded to trample over the Constitution.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12  Sean Treacy    one month ago

I saw CNN's legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, a reliable Trump hater, just admit Trump's lawyers were winning by basing their defense of Trump on the actual conversation.  Being CNN, he criticized the attorneys for being too white.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @12    one month ago

Well, you are pretty far off the mark but we get it, "Orange man tells 16,000 lies, attacks CNN for calling Orange man out, people believe Orange man anyway..."

Tell me Sean, if you were accused of a serious crime and there was someone that could exonerate you, would you tell them to not testify? 

512

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.1  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @12.1    one month ago

Yep. Who claims innocence then hides any and all information/testimony that could prove said innocence...

Then they try their damnedest to make it about something other than it was.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @12.1    one month ago

I’m not cnn’s left wing legal analyst. Complain to him.

but i don’t think you understand what’s happening.  Trumps lawyers are  arguing  there is no evidence a serious crime occurred.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @12.1.1    one month ago

any and all information/testimony that could prove said innocence...

you guys really don’t understand our legal system or what’s being argued before the senate. First, no one “proves innocence” Nor does our legal system find people innocent.  That’s basic stuff. The Impeachment managers are the only ones who have to prove anything, and they obviously can’t.  Which is why Democrat’s can’t win with the evidence they impeached trump with. 

It’s not trumps fault the Democrats are incompetent.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.4  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.3    one month ago
That’s basic stuff

Yeah, for the wealthy.

So when the next Dem president is accused of wrong doing, he/she will be able to hide all information and refuse any testimony.

Nice precedent setting there.

Funny how some think the testimony we have had is nothing.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.3    one month ago
you guys really don’t understand our legal system or what’s being argued before the senate. First, no one “proves innocence” Nor does our legal system find people innocent.  That’s basic stuff.

All 'basic stuff' that are irrelevant to an Impeachment.

The Impeachment managers are the only ones who have to prove anything, and they obviously can’t.  

They sure as hell DID. 

Which is why Democrat’s can’t win with the evidence they impeached trump with. 

They can't 'win' because Republican Senators are sycophants. 

It’s not trumps fault the Democrats are incompetent.

No but it's Trump's fault that HE is incompetent. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13  Tacos!    one month ago
just admit Trump's lawyers were winning by basing their defense of Trump on the actual conversation

Yeah, imagine that. They went right at the prosecutor's case on the central, relevant facts. The CNN people were actually freaked out and caught off guard by that. There really is another, factual side to the story that - if people will hear it - demonstrate how absurd this partisan lynching has been.

he criticized the attorneys for being too white

Wow, he really did, too. Just when I thought he might get through a segment without being totally insane.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
14  Thrawn 31    one month ago

American democracy is over. The GOP has just ushered in a truly imperial president. The Congress is just a rubber stamp, and the courts are to be ignored. As soon as fat fuck is off the hook that is the green light for all future presidents to do whatever they want. The president is now above the law.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
14.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Thrawn 31 @14    one month ago
The president is now above the law.

About the same height above it that all the politicians are who control the Justice Department's at the various levels of government. I'm beginning to think we need a fourth branch of Government that does nothing but investigate the other three branches...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
14.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @14.1    one month ago

About the same height above it that all the politicians are who control the Justice Department's at the various levels of government. I'm beginning to think we need a fourth branch of Government that does nothing but investigate the other three branches...

your seeds and comments  continue to expressionlessly express without expressions, your first impression set in soft soil as your thoughts are dirty, and more impressionable, the softer the soil, as inertia absorbed, is not equal to the energy required, to exert an unequal pressure that 'bends' your logic to the equakl of those deprived of oxygen, while it bubbles in their blood, 

it still can't resonate truth as it be denied, from all that those can't see are deprived, of all they are deprived of to knot bsee, as it is tied to the blind, folded as to divide, as in dsivision designed to multiply, one can't not wonder while wandering, how subtraction of knowledhge, is somehow supposed to advance ours, while at seconds glance, minute minutes are not kneedfed to enhance vision blurred buy bought thoughts that don't think,

minds, what additional vices define , and are by definedf, irregardless of coarser off  rrrrhed, tuned d fined buy offenses bought , defenses continued sought, as we sow, what sum have sought,

and we reek

of what has  wrought   to those,

oh sew taught to weave a moral fabric of deception, as to forcably field no objection to the violation of an erection grown from little hans a fondling a POS POTUS without a pear, of convictions to match his Flying NONE,

asz he has become an American Undone

and those who still DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE, are DESERVED OF NUN,

so, this is what i give

as RESPECT

IS THROUGH AND DUNN

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
14.1.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  igknorantzrulz @14.1.1    one month ago

 A good wordsmith knows how to finely craft their prose so it is elegant, witty, and yet easily understood. Take Shakespeare for an example. His wordsmithing while stilted, even in his own era, is of such craft that it has given us timeless entertainment and is oft repeated, though seldom matched by any attempts to do so.

Now it would seem to me that someone who had something actually important to say would ensure that the audience they were addressing would find their words to be coherent, and of value. Now of course, if the person were to be just another pompous ass, their only real intent would be to bask in the fleeting limelight no matter how they achieve it. This type of person is narcissistic to the point that they have convinced themselves that their vain attempts at the smithing of words is grandiose; so much so that it is only those unworthy of enlightenment that would dare to ignore their prose or skip over it entirely rather than waste the time to decode the message they have tried to so cleverly deliver. These people are a waste of time as their vainglory would never allow them to have an open mind in a forum for debate or discussion, no matter any claims to the contrary.

That being said, do me and you both a favor: Next time you want to insult me like this pathetic attempt to do so while praying no one bothers to read it and catch the CoC violations abundant within it, or even comment on something I've seeded or authored; ditch your stilts and post your comment in normal conversational form of speaking. Otherwise; stay the fuck off my threads...

Have a nice day!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
14.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @14.1.2    one month ago
A good wordsmith knows how to finely craft their prose so it is elegant, witty, and yet easily understood.

NEVER CLAIMED TO BE anything BUT A SELF UNEDUCATED CRITICAL OF YOUR THINKING,

.

besides,

i've been a smokin and drinkin

u have a groovy day as well

asz

i'm goin out to mRAZE SOME HELL !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
15  igknorantzrulz    one month ago

[removed]

[.]

 
 
 
Ender
16  Ender    one month ago

Funny. Out of hours and hours of opening arguments, one quote is what what people are going to point to and then claim the whole thing is a sham?

I can only laugh as it sounds like desperation.

republicans...kings of hyperbole and faux outrage...

Hell even Schiff said he doesn't know if it is true or not, just what he heard.

republicans can say any outlandish thing in the world and it is just overlooked yet any one thing they can find to pounce on, they do.

Just like trump, it is everyone else that is always at fault, never him...

Notice the trump team opening arguments are not even about what trump is accused of, it is all about hyperbole about trying to overturn an election and focus on the Dems and the process.

Typical misdirection.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
16.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @16    one month ago

when a moral compass can't be found by the GPS one can't spell,

you hav e R ationalization 

 
 
 
MrFrost
17  MrFrost    one month ago
Yes Joe, unfounded rumors of hearsay being spread by Schiff should be left out, but without them, there would be no impeachment hearing in the first place. You see, in any trial, evidence must be based on provable facts, Currently, this entire schrade is based on rumors and innuendo.

Which is exactly what the right is using as a defense...

"They want to overturn an election!!!!"

"They want to remove the will of the people!!!"

"They're just mad because, [insert ridiculous reason here]!!!"

That's the whole defense... Why? No witnesses, no evidence, no proof. That's what the right wants? Good, then they also have no argument and no complaints. They brought it on themselves. The left? They have under oath testimony. The right has a guy that would rather chew his own nuts off than testify under oath, (much less let any of his staff do so). 

If trump is so innocent, why no testimony? Why no evidence? Why no proof?

Because they have none, that's why. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
17.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MrFrost @17    one month ago
If trump is so innocent, why no testimony? Why no evidence? Why no proof?

Due to the ignorance of so many, the Republican GOP think they can continue to play those so hard at work at being deceived, it might,

just go unnoticed ,  while delivering a notice, to 

a country so pathetic, our allies sulk, as so much bulk is needed to fibre the optics of so much backed up by shit, this asswhole does coninue to omit, that we need a neew refit to remit what should have never been omitted while stored in a convenience, store, bought to destroy the creation of real truth artificially denied bu casrators who don't know dick, unless they cut off their own

knows is how one blows, and if in spite of, Y can't they Face it...?

teach those out of reach how to stretch

the truth further than elacticity can be memorized,  and one will have a better vision of those X rayed through the negative photo optix of brain waves embroiled with too much sudz foaming at the whole, blown from a whale of a pie hole, spewing in circles watt too many haven't heard they shopuld swallow,

gulp  h     of Mexico wall builders destroy confidence in the density of our destiny paid in full,

buy, those FULL of it

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
17.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @17    one month ago
If trump is so innocent, why no testimony? Why no evidence? Why no proof?

Explained in two hours.  Even more to come as they flesh it out. Will you listen?  Not just watch, but actually listen?  I watched as well as  listened to the testimony of the House witnesses, and found it lacking entirely on my own. I watched some of the Senate testimony; until they just kept on repeating the SoS, just in different words.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
17.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @17    one month ago
That's the whole defense...

Hardly.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
17.4  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  MrFrost @17    one month ago

Trump has the presumption of innocence here and need not produce anything to prove it.  It’s on or was on the house managers to provide evidence and proof.  

 
 
 
Cathar
19  Cathar    one month ago
There are LIARS, Damnable LIARS and then there are tRump and his GOP acolytes.
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lady in black


36 visitors