Democratic impeachment case collapses under weight of time

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  199 comments

By:   JONATHAN TURLEY

Democratic impeachment case collapses under weight of time
The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


As the House and Senate continue their bitter struggle over the coming impeachment trial of  President Trump , a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness , may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.

The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness. Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.

When I testified in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, I cited this case in my criticism of the pledge by Democrats to impeach Trump by Christmas despite a very incomplete record. While I opposed some of the proposed articles of impeachment that were subsequently dropped by the panel, I said Trump could be legitimately impeached on abuse of power and obstruction of justice if the House could establish such violations. But the House refused to wait just a couple months to build a much stronger case to remove Trump. In the mad rush to push impeachment, Democrats could not have made it easier for his team.

Securing an impeachment so fast does not earn you a historic prize. It simply earns you a historic failure. By not seeking to compel numerous key witnesses, the House now relies on the Senate to complete its case. Since the House has maintained that the record overwhelmingly proves that Trump is guilty, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House. Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.

I was particularly concerned about moving forward by Christmas on the second article of alleged obstruction of Congress. The House elected to push through impeachment with an abbreviated period of roughly three months and declared any delay by Trump, even to seek judicial reviews, to be a high crime and misdemeanor. The administration is currently in court challenging demands for witnesses and documents. Just a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted one such case for review then stayed the lower court decisions ordering the production of the tax and finance records of Trump. The House impeached Trump before that court or other federal courts could rule on the merits of claims of presidential privileges and immunities. Both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon had been able to take such challenges to the Supreme Court before they faced impeachment.

The House refused to seek to compel several witnesses in court, burning months in which it could have secured not just decisions in its favor but also testimony. Indeed, a year ago, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee and encouraged it not only to hold a vote on impeachment but to go to court to force testimony of figures like former White House counsel Donald McGahn. While refusing to use its impeachment powers with such a vote, it did take him to court. It won that case shortly before its impeachment vote. The case will be heard by the appellate court this week, even without being expedited for the impeachment investigation.

When faced with the embarrassing timing of that ruling after the hurried impeachment vote, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff insisted there was no time to waste in getting the case to the Senate and that “it has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling” to compel McGahn to testify. But after members claimed there was a “crime spree in progress” and no time to waste, House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  blocked any submission to the Senate to demand witnesses that the House unwisely omitted in its investigation. So it seems time is no longer of the essence.

Schiff also was wrong on McGahn. The House waited until August to go to court to compel him to appear. That was roughly four months to secure a ruling and without proceedings under an impeachment inquiry ordered by the House, which historically places cases on a fast track to the Supreme Court. In the Nixon case, it took three months from the ruling of the trial court to the final decision by the Supreme Court that ultimately led to his resignation. Even if the House had waited until October to seek to compel witnesses, it could have had ample time to secure rulings or testimony by a springtime impeachment. We will never know because Democrats chose to do nothing due to the need to get to a trial that they have now delayed.

Schiff is not the only Democrat undermining the case for the obstruction article. Representative Eric Swalwell, who seeks to be a House manager at the Senate trial, recently declared that not only should a sitting president be impeached if he goes to the courts rather than submit to Congress, but that contesting demands for evidence is actually evidence of guilt on all of the charged offenses. In a complete denial of the critical concepts of the rule of law and due process, Swalwell claimed “we can only conclude that you are guilty” if someone refuses to give testimony or documents.

It is unclear if his concept of due process would be extended to President Obama, who refused both critical witnesses and documents to Congress on the basis of claims that were eventually dismissed by federal courts as untenable. Likewise, former Vice President Joe Biden has made headlines by declaring that, if subpoenaed, he would defy the Senate. But someone must have explained to Biden that the man he seeks to replace was just impeached for defying the House, even without a subpoena, because he clarified his earlier remarks by stating the opposite in a later interview.

None of this bodes well for the Senate trial. Developments are unfolding from a former aide to Rudy Giuliani, who seeks to give new evidence that is relevant to impeachment. Giuliani himself was never subpoenaed and recently said he would be willing to testify. It is like pushing for a murder trial before an autopsy is completed because everyone has holiday plans. There are also new documents showing that Trump may have moved to freeze the military aid after speaking with the Ukrainian president. Those documents were produced after a trial court ordered their release under the Freedom of Information Act, and the administration did not appeal.

However, none of that is part of the impeachment record because it was more important to vote on it before Christmas than to build a full record before a trial. The nation will likely witness the collapse of a Senate trial on an incomplete record, as the witnesses and documents are still coming forward. Those Democratic voters who supported this premature act will be left to wonder, as did Doctor Seuss, “How did it get so late so soon?”




247208.jpg

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.



Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

They wanted to stain this President. They have only exposed themselves.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1  squiggy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

"And yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is."

Within hours, Smith walked back his remarks in a pair tweets .

"I misspoke this morning, I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial,"

Poor Adam Smith lost his underwear.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  squiggy @1.1    one month ago
"And yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial.

We can all agree on that. It's Pelosi that thinks holding them is smart. Today she is having the House vote to limit President Trump's "war powers." Perhaps the Senate leader can hold onto that until Pelosi turns over the Articles of Impeachment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    one month ago

This 'president' is stained already.  

How has the impeachment collapsed?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago
How has the impeachment collapsed?

Have you listened to your democratic Senators?  Dianne Fienstein has called on Pelosi to "Send them over."    Dosen't it just gall ya?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
 Dianne Fienstein has called on Pelosi to "Send them over."   

Which proves that the impeachment has collapsed how? 

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.2  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago
 [delete]
 
 
 
Snuffy
2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

This says it right here...

Since the House has maintained that the record overwhelmingly proves that Trump is guilty, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House

Some Democrats have been stating for years that they have seen evidence that proves guilt. So if they have built an impeachment document that overwhelmingly proves Trump is guilty then try the case on that overwhelming evidence. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @2.2    one month ago

Yes, it speaks volumes they need new evidence to justify the impeachment they already voted on.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.1    one month ago

Sean, that is the key to what could happen in the Senate. If McConnell lets them continue digging anything could happen. Fortunately, he is too smart for that. The trial has to be limited to what the House presents.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.1    one month ago
new evidence

...adding further confirmation to what is already established. Doubtful the majority Senate will allow any further testimony in the coming trial as trump's culpability will only get more difficult to deny with each new witness.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago
If McConnell lets them continue digging anything could happen

Right, such as - the truth might come out. I don't understand why Trump's fans are so afraid of the truth, when they screech so loudly that he's done nothing wrong.

All the Trump idolaters kept complaining about the lack of first-hand testimony in the impeachment hearings, but they don't give a crap about Trump forbidding people like Bolton from testifying. It's hypocritical as shit. Basically, they don't care what Trump has done, and he's convinced them that evidence and facts no longer matter.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.5  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.3    one month ago
Doubtful the majority Senate will allow any further testimony in the coming trial as trump's culpability will only get more difficult to deny with each new witness.

They don't actually want any of that first-hand testimony they keep falsely calling for.

If anyone gave a crap about honesty, ethics, and patriotism - they would want the testimony of Bolton and others.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.2.4    one month ago
Right, such as - the truth might come out.

Maybe a blue dress?

 I don't understand why Trump's fans are so afraid of the truth, when they screech so loudly that he's done nothing wrong.

He is without a doubt the most investigated man in history. All in search of a crime. Should we permit you to keep digging? No, let's get your democratic representatives defeated in 2020. It will be hard in some precincts like New York's 14th district which has more immigrants than locals, but it is going to happen.


All the Trump idolaters kept complaining about the lack of first-hand testimony in the impeachment hearings, but they don't give a crap about Trump forbidding people like Bolton from testifying.

The House could of had Bolton. Why didn't they go after him?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.2.4    one month ago

Nancy said she had all the goods. All she has to do is trot her little happy ass over to the Senate and drop the articles of impeachment off. She and other top Democrats have assured the American people that Trump is guilty as sin, so why delay when you have declared Trump and his actions to be a "Constitutional crisis"?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.3    one month ago
adding further confirmation to what is already established

What is established?  Hearsay, supposition, innuendo, conjecture, personal theories and beliefs?

Pelosi had her ass pushed into something she didn't want to do by the radical extreme left of the Democrat party, and now she can't figure a way to get her and the rest of the party out of the quagmire without bleeding to death.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.9  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.3    one month ago

All the "witnesses" up to now have provided nothing compelling or impeachable. Everything turned out to be second and third hand hearsay, rumor, and uusubstantiated opinions about what others have said or inferred. No new "evidence" will be forthcoming, and if they had enough when the vote was taken, it should have been enough. What this all boils down to is that the Dems screwed themselves bigly...there will be no "happy ending" for them.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.10  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.9    one month ago
Everything turned out to be second and third hand hearsay, rumor,

Because Deranged Donnie ordered the people with firsthand order not to testify. But for some reason that doesn't bother you - I wonder why you don't want to hear any of the firsthand testimony, while screeching about the secondhand testimony?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @2.2    one month ago

'This says it right here...

Since the House has maintained that the record overwhelmingly proves that Trump is guilty, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House

Some Democrats have been stating for years that they have seen evidence that proves guilt. So if they have built an impeachment document that overwhelmingly proves Trump is guilty then try the case on that overwhelming evidence.'

No, it doesn't.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.11    one month ago

What in the hell do you think will be gleaned by dragging this out even longer. The Senate should have enough, since the Dems thought they did, to conduct a trial without testimony. If anyone doesn't think that Senators were following the dog and pony show in the House as it played out, they are sadly mistaken. They've heard it all. Send the 638 pages and get this over with.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.12    one month ago

I wasn't talking to you.  

Sound familiar?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.9    one month ago
All the "witnesses" up to now have provided nothing compelling or impeachable. Everything turned out to be second and third hand hearsay, rumor, and uusubstantiated opinions about what others have said or inferred.

False. 

Vindman, Williams and Holmes were first hand witnesses. 

No new "evidence" will be forthcoming, and if they had enough when the vote was taken, it should have been enough.

New evidence has already been documented. If not for Trump withholding documents, much more evidence would exist on the record. 

What this all boils down to is that the Dems screwed themselves bigly...there will be no "happy ending" for them.

Right, Trump being impeached screwed the Dems. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.3    one month ago

adding further confirmation to what is already established

Exactly. The facts have been established. The majority of Americans don't think they merit removal. Getting more people to say the same thing won't change anything. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.9    one month ago
All the "witnesses" up to now have provided nothing compelling or impeachable. Everything turned out to be second and third hand hearsay, rumor, and uusubstantiated opinions about what others have said or inferred. No new "evidence" will be forthcoming, and if they had enough when the vote was taken, it should have been enough. What this all boils down to is that the Dems screwed themselves bigly...there will be no "happy ending" for them.

Wow. It's sad how uninformed or intentionally obtuse some conservatives have become. I guess when they have no actual argument, sticking their heads in the sand and humming is their only option.

The House impeachment process is the equivalent of a grand jury. A grand jury doesn't hold a trial and convict anyone, they listen to the witnesses called by the prosecutor to decide if there is enough evidence to indict and send it to a trial in the Senate. The evidence heard, regardless of whether it was 2nd hand, was compelling enough for the majority of the grand jury to recommend two indictments. The grand jury requested all the key witnesses but the President has blocked them from even testifying, not just limiting what testimony they could give if the answers actually fell under executive privilege. This is a first in history, to simply refuse the grand  jury access to the witnesses all together which forced them to recommend the indictment based on the 2nd hand testimony which was extremely compelling.

Pelosi has wisely held off sending the indictments to the Senate because as soon as the impeachment vote was made GOP senators said there would be no fair trial in the senate and they intended to kill the indictment sight unseen even though they will be required to take an oath of impartiality before the trial. Pelosi has been continuing to build additional evidence even after the first two articles of impeachment were passed, just like many other prosecutors who continue to build the evidence prior to trial even if there was already enough evidence to recommend an indictment (aka impeachment). The case is just getting stronger and many of the key witnesses are ready and willing to testify, the American people just need to make sure the partisan Republicans don't sabotage the process and make up rules that prevent any witnesses from testifying at trial. If Republicans don't allow any witnesses during the trial it will prove beyond a doubt what useless sycophants they are of this criminal President.

Anyone deluding themselves into thinking the articles of impeachment won't get sent to trial in the Senate need to have their heads checked. This is just the tip of the iceberg that the Trumptanic has already hit and it will not end well for all those desperately clinging to the railings of his rapidly sinking ship.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.6    one month ago
He is without a doubt the most investigated man in history. All in search of a crime.

The Whitewater investigation against Clinton ran from 1992-2002. Trump isn't even in the running...yet.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.2.17    one month ago

Close but "no cigar".

1994-2002

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.19  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.7    one month ago

 I understand her reasoning for the delay - but there's no way the Trump toadies in the House will ever conduct an impartial hearing, no matter how much evidence they're presented with. They've come right out and said so. Mitch McConnell's ethics are disgusting; he actually said he will lie under oath.

Hopefully we can at least get Bolton and McGahn to testify in the House, so the American people (those who aren't Trump worshippers, and who actually give a shit about our Constitution and laws) will be able to hear for themselves.

I'm sure the idiots who voted for McConnell will re-elect him even if he does publicly violate an oath, [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.18    one month ago
Close but "no cigar". 1994-2002

If true, that would make all of the difference wouldn't it Just? jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Yet it's not true since a RTC investigation was started in 1992 and a criminal referral for Bill and Hillary Clinton was made to the FBI in Sept. 1992.

1992-2002. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.21  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @2.2.14    one month ago

You talk about "documents" and more testimony. Do you really believe in your heart of hearts anything new will be revealed?

What this all means is that the left wing lynch mob hasn't been able to make a credible case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.2.19    one month ago
I understand her reasoning for the delay - but there's no way the Trump toadies in the House will ever conduct an impartial hearing, no matter how much evidence they're presented with. 

Nancy is in charge of the House--haven't you heard?

he actually said he will lie under oath.

Citation?

Hopefully we can at least get Bolton and McGahn to testify in the House, so the American people (those who aren't Trump worshippers, and who actually give a shit about our Constitution and laws) will be able to hear for themselves

Testify as to what exactly, and to whom? Impeachment is almost over as far as the House goes--just waiting on Nancy to trot her happy ass over to the Senate with the articles already voted on.

I mean, it IS a "Constitutional crisis?, right?

Right?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.21    one month ago
You talk about "documents" and more testimony. Do you really believe in your heart of hearts anything new will be revealed?

Why yes Greg, YES I do. I base that belief on reviewing the facts that have come out in the last 2 weeks. 

Judging from the emails received by the Center for Public Integrity through FOIA and the review of unredacted copies of those emails by Just Security, a hell of a lot of new evidence has come to light. 

What this all means is that the left wing lynch mob hasn't been able to make a credible case.

The House report makes a credible case. If you can refute it do so. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.25  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @2.2.24    one month ago

If there are actually any new facts, that only roves the House was incompetent for over 3 years of investigations. 

Do you really like incompetents?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.27  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @2.2.25    one month ago
If there are actually any new facts, that only roves the House was incompetent for over 3 years of investigations. 

Actually, what it 'roves' is that Trump and his sycophants obstructed Congress. 

Do you really like incompetents?

No, that's why I didn't vote for Trump. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.28  katrix  replied to  Dulay @2.2.27    one month ago
Actually, what it 'roves' is that Trump and his sycophants obstructed Congress. 

Bingo.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.2.26    one month ago

Well I guess we have conflicting reports. Mine says "case closed" and yours states "the final report". So, I surmise, you are saying it wasn't over till the final final report was released.

We both right?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.30  gooseisgone  replied to  katrix @2.2.4    one month ago
I don't understand why Trump's fans are so afraid of the truth

Please provide your proof of anyone being "Afraid".  If they called every single witness that the House called and asked them, did you, yourself hear the President say we are withholding funds until you investigate Joe Biden the answer is "NO". Did a "court" render an opinion that Trump obstructed Congress by not allowing people to testify, the answer is"NO".  Maybe you should be afraid of what the Democrats pulled off in the House.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.31  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.30    one month ago
Please provide your proof of anyone being "Afraid".  If they called every single witness that the House called and asked them, did you, yourself hear the President say we are withholding funds until you investigate Joe Biden the answer is "NO".

You know this how? 

Did a "court" render an opinion that Trump obstructed Congress by not allowing people to testify, the answer is"NO". 

WTF does a "court" have to do with it. The House impeached him for it. The Senate will decide if he should be removed for it. 

Maybe you should be afraid of what the Democrats pulled off in the House.

Why? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

Seriously Tessylo???

Aren't you keeping up with current events. The "impeachment process" is going nowhere.

The Senate will not convict him because the "evidence" is bogus and the House investigation was unfair and unconstitutional,

Trump will not be removed from office, and thanks to the Dems, will easily be reelected.

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.1  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3    one month ago
The Senate will not convict him because the "evidence" is bogus and the House investigation was unfair and unconstitutional

What utter bullshit. The Senate will not convict him because they're his toadies and are afraid of him. They have come right out and said things like they won't even bother reading the evidence, because they've already made up their minds to acquit; they will not be impartial jurors (as they are required to SWEAR to be, but they're fine with violating their oaths for their orange idol).

There was nothing unconstitutional about the House investigation. Too bad Trump's apparently guilty and therefore is refusing to permit those with firsthand knowledge to testify ... but his anti-American worshippers honestly don't give a crap how illegal or unethical any of his actions are, or how he spits on our Constitution.

Stop drinking the damn Fox koolaid and learn some fucking facts.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @2.3.1    one month ago

[Deleted] You have no facts. There is no credible evidence of Trump doing anything that is impeachable.

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.3  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.2    one month ago

Since you avoid all credible news sources, your comment is laughable.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.3.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @2.3.3    one month ago
all credible news sources

name one credible news source

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.5  Dulay  replied to  katrix @2.3.3    one month ago

You don't need a news source. All of the transcripts are online as is the House Report. In addition, Just Security [not a news source] has posted the excerpts from the unredacted emails between OMB and the DOD which make clear WHY Barr ordered the redactions that he did. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago
How has the impeachment collapsed?

There hasn't been one. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3  Ed-NavDoc    one month ago

As the saying goes, haste makes waste. The Dems tried to hurry and totally wasted their time and that of the American public and taxpayers!

 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    one month ago

He's been impeached, will always be impeached, will go down in history as impeached.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @4    one month ago

With an asterisk that says it wasn't real.  Tose who were that invested in hate will go down in history as SCUM!

Just look at Nancy's face

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

It's real.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
'Tose who were that invested in hate will go down in history as SCUM!'

The 'president' and his administration?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

Vic - a question - do you try to make your comments have a cartoonish tinge for effect?

It's hard to believe that you think some of your pronouncements are realistic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    one month ago
Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz light, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters.

Trolling?

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one month ago

Vic - a question - do you try to make your comments have a cartoonish tinge for effect?

It's hard to believe that you think some of your pronouncements are realistic. 

Please John, stop with the Projection.   It's getting very ridiculous.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one month ago
do you try to make your comments have a cartoonish tinge for effect?

I just call 'em as I see 'em. I do realize that every great tragedy contains some comedy.


It's hard to believe that you think some of your pronouncements are realistic. 

It would be to the progressive mind. Too much CNN.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.5    one month ago

Sparty, I have had a lot of patience with you trying to troll me.  It will wear thin soon enough. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    one month ago

I haven't called Trump supporters "scum" although I could, so why do you call those who want to impeach Trump "scum" ? There is in your face evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Trump's political opponent Joe Biden,  which is an impeachable offense.  I am not speculating about this, or wishing, it is fact. 

Your side is the one that has not been honest, maybe that is their way of emulating their hero, who lies , to the public, many times EVERY DAY. 

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.9  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

It's real and will always be real...he was impeached

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.1.9    one month ago

well, if he remains in office, just like Bill Clinton, who really cares? 

The only ones getting all worked up over it are Democrats.

Democrats who started calling for impeachment from Day One of Trump's Presidency.

Phffft.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one month ago
I haven't called Trump supporters "scum" although I could, so why do you call those who want to impeach Trump "scum" ?

You have attacked Trump supporters, you may not have called them scum, but nonetheless you attacked them for voting for someone you don't like. The people who want to impeach Trump have been wanting it since inauguration day. Do you remember? Do you remember the so-called "women's march" on that day when we heard about "blowing up the White House?"  And how about the violent antifa riots that took place on that day? Or the harassment of Trump officials and their families at restaurants or their homes?  Or the vile treatment of Brett Kavanaugh? Then there is the nature of the Russia-hoax and the impeachment proceedings. What about that?

I think the name scum is appropriate. Just as applied to the Weathermen, who are the pedigree for the current progressive hoard.


There is in your face evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Trump's political opponent Joe Biden,  which is an impeachable offense. 

It is NOT an impeachable offense!


Your side i

No john, its your side that lied and divided America.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    one month ago

Sorry buddy but that's not a troll.   I'm sure you think it is but it isn't.   Its the truth.   The truth is not a troll   You were inferring that someone else here was doing things that you do rampantly here nearly every day.   If mine is a troll, then so is yours.

But feel free to report it and don't act like you ever do me any favors here John.   We both know thats simply just disingenuous.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
With an asterisk that says it wasn't real.

In that case, Clinton's impeachment wasn't real either. But anyone with a basic grasp of civics understands that both Clinton and Trump WERE IMPEACHED even if not removed from office.

How can people live in such fantasy lands?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.12    one month ago

You follow me around and try to insult me with your petty little insults, because the TRUTH about your hero Trump is too disturbing for you to contemplate. 

IF YOU support Donald Trump you support someone who is a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot and moron.  These conclusions  are not really open to debate, so you Trumpsters spend most of your time trying to ridicule those who oppose him.  This is all YOUR problem, not the problem of those who are anti-Trump. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago
'Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz light, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters'.

'Trolling?'

Why are you addressing this comment to me?

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.16  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

Nancy's face is real?

That is even more horrifying!

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago
You follow me around and try to insult me with your petty little insults

Lol hardly.    Don't flatter yourself John.   I really believe, deep down, you are better than that.   You just let your emotions get the best of you.   Not the end of the world but it is what it is.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.16    one month ago

Face by AbbVie ..... that is to say ..... Botox

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @4.1.13    one month ago
In that case, Clinton's impeachment wasn't real either.

I didn't agree with Clinton's impeachment. Clinton did commit the offenses he was charged with - Perjury & Obstruction of Justice. However both of those crimes were committed because of an event that had nothing to do with what the investigation was supposed to be about. In Trump's impeachment you don't even have actual crimes - "abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are slogans not crimes. 

The Clinton impeachment was partisan and the Trump impeachment was bitterly partisan. The voters vindicated Clinton and they will do the same for Trump!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago

Well, you have us back in the mud pile again. Is this all progressives on NT want to do? You keep repeating the same drivel and you convince nobody. Just look at what this is doing to you?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.21  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @4.1.13    one month ago
In that case, Clinton's impeachment wasn't real either.

Major fucking difference is that the "articles of impeachment" actually were sent to the Senate.  Right now, Pelosi is using them as replacements for her Depends.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago
spend most of your time trying to ridicule those who oppose him.

Nope.  We just spend our time trying to make the Trump haters of the world smart enough to know they're insane.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.17    one month ago

I dont care what you think is better. If you support Trump, and evidently you do, you are the one who has to explain himself, the people who oppose him dont. 

On its face, he is a horrible human being. He lies, he cheats, he is incredibly vain, he is incredibly ignorant, and he is buffoonish. 

And you support him. Why do you think that is someone else's problem?  It's yours. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    one month ago
If you support Trump, and evidently you do, you are the one who has to explain himself, the people who oppose him dont. 

And to whom do you think we need to explain anything to? Why?

Please don't think that Trump voters give a shit what Democrats think.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    one month ago

I've got no problems in this regard but you seem to.   Very badly i might add.  

I really hope for your sake that this is just act for you here because if its not, and your posting here is how you really are day in and day out.   You are headed for the big one.   Do yourself a favor and chill out there buddy.

Hate is not the answer

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    one month ago
And you support him. Why do you think that is someone else's problem?  It's yours. 

If it is our problem, then why are you so concerned about it?

We don;t have a problem--what makes you think we feel we do?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.25    one month ago
I've got no problems in this regard

Ok, You have no problem supporting a known liar, crook, bigot and moron. I understand. You probably should keep it to yourself though. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.28  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @4.1.9    one month ago
It's real and will always be real...he was impeached

So what....he doesn't care.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.29  Greg Jones  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.17    one month ago
Don't flatter yourself John.   I really believe, deep down, you are better than that

It's called bullying and taunting and he does it all the time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.29    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.31  lady in black  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.28    one month ago

Doesn't matter...he has been impeached...full stop.  Crooked donnie and his supporters can come with any excuse in the book...he's been impeached and that is that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.1.31    one month ago

So what? 

Without removal, it means virtually nothing.

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.1.33  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @4.1.31    one month ago
he's been impeached and that is that.

And still President, and always will be a President.

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.34  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.32    one month ago

It means everything...too bad you can't see it.

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.35  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.33    one month ago

And he's been impeached and will always be remembered for being only 1 of 3 presidents to be impeached.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.36  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.33    one month ago

384

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.1.37  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @4.1.35    one month ago
And he's been impeached and will always be remembered for being only 1 of 3 presidents to be impeached.

So?  

Did Clinton's impeachment make him less of a President?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.38  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.33    one month ago

GOP lawmaker offers resolution to censure Pelosi for holding articles of impeachment

EN258lBX0AES-Tx?format=jpg&name=small

hill.cm/mmQUEEL

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @4.1.34    one month ago
Without removal, it means virtually nothing.
It means everything...too bad you can't see it.

Really? How much did it mean to the other two? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.1.40  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.36    one month ago

enuff said! jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.27    one month ago

Please don't try to put words in my mouth John.  [deleted]

I support this President who has my country clicking along at a fantastic pace.   And other than a loud group TDS ridden individuals, who still can't accept his legal election, so do many, many other people.

Which is pretty amazing considering he's had a mass media hacking away at him nonstop for over three years.    A do nothing partisan congress constantly trying to make shit up to get rid of him and the Hillary faithful who no matter what Trumps does, will never accept him.   The amazing thing about that is many of those dumbasses are railing against their own prosperity.  Pretty amazing to say the least.

Keep ridiculing the opposition John.   You're just solidifying his base and helping add to it for that matter.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.42  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.41    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.43  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    one month ago

Bingo!!!!!!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.44  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.40    one month ago

See any similarities here...........

"The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team."

Compared to this.........

CBS News Legal Consultant Andrew Cohen said Ray "applied the correct legal standard, as all prosecutors must, that a case which cannot be won at trial should not even be brought."
Cohen added Ray's statement is "pretty standard stuff" and "good news" for the Clintons, "it is interesting for what it does not say."
"It does not say that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever against the Clintons and it does not rule out the possibility that the Clintons may have unintentionally or unknowningly done anything wrong - and I think the Clinton's political opponents are likely to seize on those points."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whitewater-case-closed/
 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.1.34    one month ago
It means everything...too bad you can't see it.

Please tell us you don't actually believe that swill.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.46  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @4.1.35    one month ago

He doesn't care...it means nothing. It was just a trumped up vote by the dopey Dems on bogus allegations.

He will continue to have his magnificent and forceful leadership for 5 more years.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.47  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    one month ago

Trump soundly defeated an even worse option in 2016. By the looks of the Dem candidates the 2020 election will be Trumps by an even greater majority 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.48  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    one month ago

That's comical John. I have seen you repeatedly go out of your way to rant at great length how much you despise Trump and any conservative you believe may support him and to explain in great detail how evil you think he is with little or no evidence other than progressive leftist liberal Democrat talking points to attempt to back yourself up with.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.48    one month ago

I doubt that I have ever said I despise Trump. 

I have said he is a known liar crook bigot and moron who is not fit for office, and of course all that is true. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.50  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.49    one month ago

I am quite sure that, to you in your mind, he certainly is. Problem is that you just cannot seem to stand the thought that there are people that disagree with you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.50    one month ago

If you want to say that you dont care if he is a known liar crook bigot and moron, that is of course your right. 

As to whether or not , those things are true, there is no debate. 

I have been over and over this with people here, and the facts are indisputable. 

Donald trump was the head of a racist conspiracy theory (birtherism) for gods sake.  

Wake up. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.52  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.51    one month ago

There is no way in fucking hell you are the final arbiter of the truth to say otherwise is a farce.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.53  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @4.1.52    one month ago

There is an ongoing list of his lies. Even if we throw out 90% of them just for the hell of it, he has still told thousands of lies since he started to run for office. Donald Trump paid more than 20 million dollars to the victims of his Trump U. fraud. He also participated in inheritance fraud with his family, as a NYT article from 2018 proved.  That makes him a crook.

He was the "leader" of the racist birther movement.  He has also retweeted white supremacists multiple times and pretended  not to know who David Duke was in order to try and keep Duke's endorsement. Bigot.  As for proving he's a moron - should we really go there? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.2  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @4    one month ago
He's been impeached, will always be impeached, will go down in history as impeached.

Maybe, maybe not.  Can an impeachment vote be overturned if proven false statements where given under oath during proceedings?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @4.2    one month ago
Can an impeachment vote be overturned if proven false statements where given under oath during proceedings?

Who do you think gave false statements under oath? NONE of the witnesses in the Impeachment inquiry were rebuttal witnesses. In fact they ALL corroborated one another. So that would mean that ADDITIONAL witnesses would have to testify. Whose testimony will you rely on to rebut existing testimony?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    one month ago
In fact they ALL corroborated one another.

They most certainly did.  They all corroborated that they had no direct knowledge of anything said.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    one month ago
In fact they ALL corroborated one another

Not true, they actually contradicted each other.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.3    one month ago
Not true, they actually contradicted each other. 

So now all you have to do is post the statements that were contradictory. Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.5  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.2    one month ago
They most certainly did.  They all corroborated that they had no direct knowledge of anything said.

It's sad to see that after all this time you and so many others are so uninformed about what was actually testified to by the witnesses. 

Vindman, Williams and Holmes ALL had direct, first hand knowledge about what was said by Trump. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @4.2.5    one month ago
Vindman, Williams and Holmes ALL had direct, first hand knowledge about what was said by Trump. 

And it was NOTHING of importance:

Both said they were alarmed; Ms. Williams called the call “unusual and inappropriate” while Colonel Vindman said it was “wrong.”

And in the words of Vindman himself:

Colonel Vindman testified that he believed that Mr. Trump’s request for Ukraine to open investigations into the “2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma” — inquiries that could help Mr. Trump’s re-election chances — should be viewed as demands that were “inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security.”

Source:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/politics/what-we-learned-impeachment.html

So, something inappropriate are now impeachable?  Seriously?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.7  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.6    one month ago
And it was NOTHING of importance

I'm not surprised that someone that relied on others truncated versions of testimony would believe that. 

I on the other hand rely on my own FULL review of the testimony. 

The quote that you posted was from Vindman's opening statement about the July 10 2019 National Security meeting between Ukraine’s National Security Advisor and Bolton. 

Vindman statement:

We fully anticipated the Ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the two presidents. Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about the requirement that Ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with President Trump. Following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. Dr. Hill also asserted his comments were improper. Following the meeting Dr. Hill and I had agreed to report the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.

Vindman on the call:

I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region.

There's much more in his deposition and open hearing testimony about that. You can always review that for yourself if you were so inclined, which I doubt. 

So, something inappropriate are now impeachable?

Yes.  

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. 

 
 
 
squiggy
4.3  squiggy  replied to  lady in black @4    one month ago
He's been impeached, will always be impeached, will go down in history as impeached.

... and re-elcted.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.4  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @4    one month ago

Impeachment without removal amounts to the proverbial bucket of warm spit.

The House vote amounts to a shitstain on their credibility and body blow to the loser reputation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @4.4    one month ago

Yeah, but it makes Democrats feel good!

 
 
 
lady in black
4.4.2  lady in black  replied to  Greg Jones @4.4    one month ago

Wishful thinking, he has been impeached...end of story.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @4.4.2    one month ago

Explain what you think impeachment means.

 
 
 
squiggy
4.4.4  squiggy  replied to  lady in black @4.4.2    one month ago

Explain what you think end of story means.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

When you talk about impeachment in the Senate , you have to start with the conclusion that the Republicans will acquit Trump basically no matter what. So it is a sham.  Therefore, the Democrats cannot "fail".  All they can do is choose to use the material that they have which shows Trump's guilt in whatever way they think is best.  I don't have any problem with what has been done so far, though I do think they should subpoena Bolton and McGahn before its all said and done. 

Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz lite, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters.  Nothing he says has any importance. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
When you talk about impeachment in the Senate , you have to start with the conclusion that the Republicans will acquit Trump basically no matter what. So it is a sham.

It wouldn't be that democrats were determined to impeach - no matter what?  Which is a sham!


I don't have any problem with what has been done so far, though I do think they should subpoena Bolton and McGahn before its all said and done. 

I'm sure you don't. Like you admitted to us, many months ago - "He probably didn't collude with Russia, I just want him gone." I haven't forgotten those words. You are more honest than your fellow progressives. For elected officials to act the way the dems have is a national disgrace. The fact that they could be elected is frightening!


Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz light, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters.

That's right smear anyone who counters the progressive lies.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago

Donald Trump is not fit, ethically, morally, or by judgement or intellect to be president of the United States. He is a known liar, crook, bigot, and moron. Nothing on this earth can change those facts. 

Nominate someone else for 2020. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago
Donald Trump is not fit, ethically, morally, or by judgement or intellect to be president of the United States.

I can make the same claim:

Barak Obama was not fit, ethically, morally or by judgement or ideologically to be president of the United States.

He is a known radical, who politicized & weaponized agencies of government and divided America. Nothing on earth can change those facts.


5 more years John!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago
Nominate someone else for 2020. 

Lay that pipe dream to rest for good. Ain't going to happen.

When has any major party EVER nominated anyone other than their own sitting President if he chose to run again?

It is political STUPIDITY to nominate someone else when you already have someone who has proven he can beat a Democrat, as Trump proved by beating the VERY best the Democratic Party could offer up.

Just because you get all nervous, realizing that the Democratic clown show doesn't look like they can beat Trump doesn't mean the GOP will EVER do your bidding.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one month ago
I can make the same claim:Barak Obama was not fit, ethically, morally or by judgement or ideologically to be president of the United States.He is a known radical, who politicized & weaponized agencies of government and divided America. Nothing on earth can change those facts.

I think I read something a while back showing that Trump has personally attacked or insulted something like 600 different people , since he became president, either with his mouth or with his twitter output.  He's a clown. 

You compare Obama to Trump, I will compare Trump to Hitler.  The comparisons are just about equally apt and realistic. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago

I take it you don't plan on voting for him huh?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    one month ago
When has any major party EVER nominated anyone other than their own sitting President if he chose to run again?

No other party has had a sitting president who lied to the public 15,000 times while in office.  Duh? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    one month ago
I will compare Trump to Hitler. 

I'm sure you do. You do know that is an insult to the 6 million Jews and their families, who were murdered by the Nazis as well as the 55 million who died in the European theater during World War II.


I think I read something a while back showing that Trump has personally attacked or insulted something like 600 different people , since he became president, either with his mouth or with his twitter output.

Well maybe some need it. Nobody from antifa has ever been prosecuted and then there are all those local officials openly defying immigration law or the media which has done nothing but lie to us about Trump. Ya, I'd say verbal attacks on the like of such swine is justified!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.6    one month ago
No other party has had a sitting president who lied to the public 15,000 times

According to whom?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.6    one month ago

Gee, I just hope your dreams and fantasies will sustain you for another Trump term and doesn't send you completely over the edge--or am I too late for that?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago
Nominate someone else for 2020.

NO.  We'll re-elect President Trump.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    one month ago
am I too late for that?

Good morning sir....

You're way too late for that.   TDS runs strong in some, especially those that know all they throw at Trump gets brushed off like an annoying gnat and does nothing more than help him in his re-election.

So, for that, I must thank those like JR, Tess, Kat and all the others for doing so much for the Trump campaign.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    one month ago
You compare Obama to Trump, I will compare Trump to Hitler.  The comparisons are just about equally apt and realistic.

OMG

Are you fucking serious?

Look, when you try to compare Hitler to Trump---you have already lost any shred of credibility you may have once had.

HITLER???????

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    one month ago

Texan, unlike some people, I think before I type things. 

I didnt say Trump is like Hitler, I said if you want to compare Obama to Trump, I will compare Trump to Hitler. 

Is it outrageous to compare Trump to Hitler? 

Well, you should get the picture. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    one month ago
According to whom?

Reality. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    one month ago
I think before I type things.

When did that start?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.14    one month ago

That's what I thought.

There is the answer from the man who supposedly thinks before he types!

Thar she stands!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    one month ago
Is it outrageous to compare Trump to Hitler? 

The mere fact you had to ask tells a lot about you.

 
 
 
squiggy
5.1.18  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    one month ago
Is it outrageous to compare Trump to Hitler?

It leans more toward asinine.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago
It wouldn't be that democrats were determined to impeach - no matter what? 

The evidence shows that the Democrats didn't seek impeachment until after Trump's blatant abuse of power came to light. If the were determined 'no matter what', they would have gone after him based on the Mueller report. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.20  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    one month ago

" unlike some people, I think before I type things."

😅😂🤣😹

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.21  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.14    one month ago

That is something you are not familiar with

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @5.1.19    one month ago
The evidence shows that the Democrats didn't seek impeachment until after Trump's blatant abuse of power came to light.

Then what were the previous attempts all about?   

Formal efforts were initiated by representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman , both Democrats , in 2017 , the first year of his presidency. [5] [6]

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.22    one month ago

Shhhh....we aren't supposed to know about that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.19    one month ago
f the were determined 'no matter what', they would have gone after him based on the Mueller report. 

The Democrats were banking on the Great Mueller Report.

It fizzled out on them--which is the REAL reason why impeachment didn't include one bit of the Great Mueller Report, even though we were assured time and time again that Trump was done as soon as it came out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.21    one month ago

Arkpdx, is Donald Trump, a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron, fit to be president of the United States? 

Let's get you on the record. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.25    one month ago

Four times is the limit John. Iv'e been very generous to you. Back to the topic which is Pelosi

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.27  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.28  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.25    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.28    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.28    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.31  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.22    one month ago

Ohhh, 'formal efforts were initiated'. That sounds scary.

Then what were the previous attempts all about? 

Here, read it for yourself:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/438/text

Note that it was never assigned to a committee and never acted on other than being introduced. Like I said, scary. 

When I say that 'Democrats didn't seek impeachment until after Trump's blatant abuse of power came to light' I mean the PARTY. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.32  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @5.1.31    one month ago
I mean the PARTY. 

So the DEMOCRATS that initiated the initial impeachment ATTEMPT in 2017 are not members of the party?

Another Dulay word game swing and miss.

Thanks for playing.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.24    one month ago
The Democrats were banking on the Great Mueller Report.
It fizzled out on them--which is the REAL reason why impeachment didn't include one bit of the Great Mueller Report, even though we were assured time and time again that Trump was done as soon as it came out.

I'll wait until the McGahn litigation is over. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
6  Kathleen    one month ago

I am watching Nancy speak and she is all over the place. She does not make sense. I wonder if she has been drinking? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Kathleen @6    one month ago
She does not make sense.

I'm seriously wondering if she is suffering the early onset of dementia.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @6    one month ago

She is under a lot of stress.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    one month ago

I am sure, she was talking about football and games and other things out of the blue. She is putting that stress on herself. It’s her decision to hold back. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @6.2.1    one month ago

Kathleen, your president Trump babbles pointlessly about something every single day.  And you have the nerve to say something about Pelosi mentioning the football playoffs? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @6.2.1    one month ago

First she answered the question about when she intended to hand over the Articles of Impeachment. With that vicious look she reponded "when I'm ready." Then she got a host of friendly questions about the football tickets her family had. For a while the media & Nancy laughed like normal people. You would never know that she was trying to oust a duly elected president.

Now the press is asking Trump questions and suddenly there is no sign of "warmth" in the room!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.3    one month ago
And you have the nerve to say something about Pelosi mentioning the football playoffs? 

Why not, John?  It's the type of question she gets from the leftist media.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.5    one month ago
It's the type of question she gets from the leftist media.

I wonder why the media hasn't asked her why she blew off VP Pence's phone call to inform her of Irans attack on the base in Iraq? And she cry's because she wasn't informed of the strike on the Terrorist Soleimani. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.6    one month ago

Lol, Great point. No, they'll never ask her that one. Maybe only Fox's Peter Doocy, who receives Joe Biden's scorn on a daily basis, is capable of asking that question.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.7    one month ago

Peter Douchebag?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.4    one month ago

I heard when Satan is present - things go cold, very cold.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.9    one month ago

Unfortunately, we can't contact Ted Kennedy to see if it's true.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.10    one month ago

I was talking about tRump.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.11    one month ago

As always!  Enjoy life....Don't dwell on it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.2.13  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.4    one month ago

Well, her train of thought was all over. Not so much what she was talking about. Yes! The press was being very friendly and almost trying to comfort her. That’s expected from the biased media. I am sure many Americans can see that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @6.2.13    one month ago
I am sure many Americans can see that. 

Yup. It is sad that the people can no longer trust the media.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @6    one month ago
She does not make sense

She has been rambling for quite sometime.  She is well aware that the impeachment was wrong from the beginning and it could easily destroy the Democrat party.  Especially after the Mueller and IG report failed to support any crimes and charges against Trump.

She realizes the rampant dumbfuckery of her own party lately and it is wearing on her.  Oh well, she let it be.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.4  dennis smith  replied to  Kathleen @6    one month ago

She looks like she is  still trying to appear sober from her last drinking bout. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Pelosi is doing a press conference now. The giddy reporters asked her if she's going to the 49ers game. She said I'd like to go, but I have to save the country. They are all giggling and laughing. The current state of affairs in progressive America!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
The current state of affairs in progressive America!

Nancy is being overtaken by the radicals of the party and she has no idea how to stop them.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    one month ago

Kind of like when Custer's scouts told him of the thousands of hoof prints leading to the River. Custer knew how it would turn out.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.2  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

The press never fails to show us how biased they are. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

Did she mention the piles of human fecal matter she has to dodge on her sidewalks and roads?

Tough to do in heels i suspect

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @7.3    one month ago
Did she mention the piles of human fecal matter she has to dodge on her sidewalks and roads?

Oddly enough, it never came up. Possibly because Nancy lives in a walled in estate away from the common folk. She probably has her own security service to protect the place. BTW, that would be a good business to start out in San Francisco.

https%3A%2F%2Fb-i.forbesimg.com%2Fthumbn
Lovely, Isn't it?


Tough to do in heels i suspect

Nancy is well past the age for her to be wearing heels.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.3.1    one month ago

Already covered by the City of SF public services.

Note the compensation package for poop washers these days:

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8

Bazinga!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.2    one month ago

Wow! Now that's good money. And every one of them will vote democrat!

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.3.3    one month ago

I know.   Note the difference in wage and bennies.   Most benefit packages are less, or at most, equal with wage

The taxpayers in SF are getting gored big time.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.3.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.4    one month ago
The taxpayers in SF are getting gored big time.

As usual. And the poop patrol looks to democrat leadership to keep the poop coming!

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.3.6  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.3.1    one month ago

Come on Vic,

Setting aside the disparities between a border wall and a wall around a piece of personal property, there’s a much bigger problem with this meme: this isn’t Pelosi’s house. The pictured property is located at 2724 Pacific Avenue in Pacific Heights, a wealthy area of San Francisco. The house was designed by E.A. Hermann, constructed in 1894 and was the most expensive house on the San Francisco market in 2013 (it eventually sold for $24 million in 2015). However, Pelosi doesn’t own it. 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-a-wall-around-nancy-pelosis-home/

Pelosi's house can be seen from one of the wrap around porches, complete with daily protesters.

512

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.3.7  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.3.3    one month ago

Wow, 4 more Dem votes in San Fran, stop the presses.

There are like 300,000 cats & dogs roaming SF along with thousands of small & large parrots

and 7,500 homeless humans.

The city, like it's residents does not differentiate or identify where the poop comes from, i.e., it's not all human.

Annual precipitation is 8 inches of rain in the "winter", the rest of the year zero which cause poop to accumulate.

The city budget for the poop patrol is $750,000, enough for 4 employees at $184,000 and a few power washers.

They probably can't even afford to live in SF.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @7.3.6    one month ago

From one of the wrap around porches my ass........................

https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/nancy-pelosis-house/view/google/ https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/nancy-pelosis-house/view/bing/

That McMansion is NOWHERE in sight if the map is correct.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.3.9  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.8    one month ago
The pictured property is located at 2724 Pacific Avenue in Pacific Heights, a wealthy area of San Francisco. The house was designed by E.A. Hermann, constructed in 1894 and was the most expensive house on the San Francisco market in 2013 (it eventually sold for $24 million in 2015). However, Pelosi doesn’t own it. 

The confusion likely stems from a virtual tour of the mansion published  in  Forbes  in 2013. The writer of the article mentioned Pelosi because her house was in the same neighborhood and could be seen from one of the mansion’s wraparound porches:

It’s true that Pelosi lives (or lived) in Pacific Heights, but we couldn’t find much information about the House Minority Leader’s San Francisco home. We did, however, find a few photographs of Pelosi’s “red brick manse” from a 2007 protest that was staged outside the property: 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-a-wall-around-nancy-pelosis-home/

I don't know who lives in Pelosi's house in SF and I'm pretty sure they will only hold on to it until she is retired,

it's nothing special on the outside as you can see.

Now when I lived in Napa, I passed this Pelosi vineyard every day.

512

This is what you cannot see from the road.

512

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.3.10  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.8    one month ago

Not sure what you are looking at.

Does Nancy Pelosi Have A Wall Around Her House?

A quick search for Nancy Pelosi house photos often shows a picture of a massive mansion located at 2724 Pacific Avenue in San Francisco. The huge home can be seen towering over a very tall white wall that encloses the property. This home was once San Francisco’s most expensive home on the market, valued at nearly $30 million. Of course, these stats are staggering…there’s just only one problem: this isn’t Nancy Pelosi home. There was a popular meme that made its rounds around the internet claiming that this was the home of Pelosi. While she does live in the same neighborhood, she isn’t quite sitting on a 26,000 square foot property…yet, anyway.

Nancy-Pelosi-House-San-Francisco-Fake-Me

"her neighborhood" while never giving the actual address to prove how far or close.

https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/nancy-pelosi-house/
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.3.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @7.3.10    one month ago

So you didn't follow my links....................color me surprised /s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.3.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Split Personality @7.3.10    one month ago
there’s just only one problem: this isn’t Nancy Pelosi home.

You can't really expect those on the right to use facts do you? If you limited them to facts they'd have nothing to mock or try and turn into a "leftist" wicker-man they're so desperate to burn on their pyre of hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.8    one month ago
That McMansion is NOWHERE in sight if the map is correct.

That 'McMansion' is right around the corner from Pelosi's house. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.3.14  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.11    one month ago

I won't pretend to know what you are contesting Jim.

2724 Pacific is one of the highest homes in zip code 94115 with views of the Presidio, the Marina District and the Bay,

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2724-Pacific-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94115/2110571049_zpid/

Per your own link the Pelosi home is either at the corner of Broadway and Normandie Ter or one house in on Normandie.

Either way the 2 homes are a block apart and clearly visible to each other as the Pelosi home is downhill from Pacific Ave.

which is parallel to Broadway.

800

You can see from the map that most SF lots were shotgun style with multi level homes set right on the street

allowing for large year round gardens in the rear.

2724 Pacific is fairly unique because the house is set back from the street to take advantage of the elevation and

views with gardens on either side. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

An incomplete record dooms the impeachment trial. They can't build the record now, it's too late.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"This is a challenging time to create bipartisan agreement. But the Speaker Pelosi has managed to do the impossible. She has created growing bipartisan unity — in opposition to her own reckless games with impeachment."......Mitch McConnell

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.1  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

EN23IxXX4AI4jwp?format=jpg&name=large

 
 
 
Dulay
11  Dulay    one month ago
Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.

I wonder why Turley wrote such a demonstrable lie. 

No one sought a summary vote without a trial. 

Trent Lott initially wanted to deny any and all witnesses and stated that his GOP conference convinced him to allow witnesses so he changed the content of the Senate Resolution that was passed by 100-0. That includes Schumer. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11    one month ago

I wonder why Turley wrote such a demonstrable lie. 

It's not. Sadly, you don't understand what's going on. The Senate Resolution Schumer supported simply allowed for a vote on witnesses, not that witnesses would be called.

Schumer, and the other Democrats,  did, in fact, seek a summary vote to end the trial before any witnesses were called. Look it up.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1    one month ago
It's not. Sadly, you don't understand what's going on. The Senate Resolution Schumer supported simply allowed for a vote on witnesses, not that witnesses would be called. Schumer, and the other Democrats,  did, in fact, seek a summary vote to end the trial before any witnesses were called. Look it up.

Your comment is obtuse Sean. 

READ MORE CAREFULLY. This is what I quoted from Turley:

Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.

Now you make an utterly irrelevant argument with your statement:

Democrats,  did, in fact, seek a summary vote to end the trial before any witnesses were called. Look it up.

That vote was DURING the fucking trial, NOT 'a summary vote without a trial' Sean. Look it up. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @11.1.1    one month ago

Since Nancy "Bot" Pelosi hasn't turned over any paperwork.....the "Senate" doesn't have to do Squat !

Crying Chuckies comments to date.....mean NOTHING !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

In Conclusion:

Nancy Pelosi will have the embarrassing job of climbing down from her position on holding the Articles of Impeachment until Mitch McConnell declares how he intends to run the Senate trial. It's too bad the Speaker put herself in this position.

merlin_166883343_cd0b7418-0026-4daf-8a12


"After calls to deliver the charges from lawmakers in both parties, Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday, “I will send them over when I’m ready, and that will probably be soon.”
Related:   Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, signed on to a resolution that would alter Senate rules to allow the charges to be dismissed without a trial if they are not delivered within 25 days. The House impeached Mr. Trump on Dec. 18."
New York Times Morning Briefing
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Transyferous Rex
evilgenius
JBB
KDMichigan
Wishful_thinkin
Sunshine
bccrane
Ed-NavDoc


37 visitors