Opening Arguments

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  99 comments


Opening Arguments
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

For those few who were that interested the debate involving the many amendments that Chuck Shumer offered for consideration (each allotted 2 hours of debate) took the Senate into Wednesday morning. Schumer lost every one of them as all the voting was along party lines (except for the occasion when Susan Collins broke ranks) with votes of 53-47. Schumer could not pressure moderate Republicans to vote for any one of them and there were many. Allowing for a vote to table the amendment may have saved the day for Senate leader McConnell as moderate Republicans seemed comfortable with a vote to table. I am so proud of them.

As the evening wore on the patience of many had worn thin. Chief Justice Roberts had to issue a warning to Jerry Nadler and the President's lawyers during one exchange: “I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body" and he advised them to “avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.” Roberts, himself would be forced to grab a little sleep for he had other duties in the Court on Wednesday morning — just hours after the first day of the trial adjourned at 2 a.m. Then he must return to the Senate later today for opening arguments.

Today the Senate will begin formal arguments as House managers open their case that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors.




Article is Locked


 

Tags

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

Chuck Schumer, who once ran rings around Republicans, used all his skill and every bit of the rules to wear down the moderates. He lost last night.

Round 1 goes to Mitch McConnell


In the words of Justice Roberts let's confine it to "civil discourse"


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

It appears that the democrats childish whining and crying and mud slinging greatly annoys Roberts, who is probably not happy at being there.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

the trifecta...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2    one month ago

That is a trifecta of lies. 

BEFORE the proceedings before the Judiciary Committee, Trump was FORMALLY invited to participate. Here is the letter from Chairman Nadler: 

https://www.scribd.com/document/437037102/House-Judiciary-Chairman-Jerry-Nadler-s-letter-to-Trump

Now to PROVE that Sekulow KNEW that what he was saying was a LIE, here is the letter HE WROTE in answer to that invitation: 

https://www.scribd.com/document/438599792/White-House-letter#fullscreen&from_embed

So every time you hear that Trump was denied 'due process' you KNOW it's BULLSHIT. 

I wonder how long it will take for the state where Sekulow is licensed to practice will take up his ethics violations. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @2.1    one month ago
That is a trifecta of lies.

go sell your bs to someone who might buy it.

in the house...

  •   republicans were blocked from asking questions
  •  witnesses’ were blocked from answering republican questions
  •   republicans were blocked from having their witnesses

that is not even debatable

 

 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.1    one month ago
go sell your bs to someone who might buy it.

This may surprise you but I don't give a fuck WHAT you buy. I posted FACTS, I don't expect you or your fellow travelers to acknowledge or understand them. 

in the house...
  •   republicans were blocked from asking questions

That is FALSES. The transcripts PROVE that the Republican counsel AND Republican Congressmen had the SAME amount of time to ask questions as the Democrats. 

  •  witnesses’ were blocked from answering republican questions

Only those asked in violation to the standing order NOT to expose the identity of the whistleblower. 

  •   republicans were blocked from having their witnesses

Cry me a fucking river. The House Intel Committee used the SAME rules as the Benghazi Committee, rules passed by a GOP House BTW. The Chairman decides who to call as witnesses, just like Trey Gowdy did. 

that is not even debatable

I didn't debate it, I refuted it with facts. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    one month ago
I posted FACTS

no, you posted bs and nothing more.

 but hey, don't worry trump will only be president for another 5 yrs.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.3    one month ago
no, you posted bs and nothing more.

Your comment is utterly delusional. 

but hey, don't worry trump will only be president for another 5 yrs.

That may be but it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the FACTS that I posted. 

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.1.5  Larry Hampton  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    one month ago

Truth jumped off a cliff, Republicans followed. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    one month ago
That may be but it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the FACTS that I posted. 

don't worry, you will get over it soon enough.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.6    one month ago
don't worry, you will get over it soon enough.

I don't usually disagree with you, but what is "soon"?

It has been over 3 years so far,  I think that ship has already sailed.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.6    one month ago
don't worry, you will get over it soon enough.

It isn't up to me to 'get over' your utterly delusional comments or your refusal to acknowledge facts. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @2.1.8    one month ago

today's left is so full of shit I take anything they say with a grain of salt.  

actually, a grain of salt is more valuable, but, as they say... c'est la vie

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

transcripts show.... based on speculation

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    one month ago

As I proved above, Sekulow is a LIAR and unworthy of standing in the well of the Senate. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"It will be telling if the House managers try to get the Senate to pre-commit ourselves to supplementing the investigation they themselves oversaw and decided to shut down. Just last week, they said their case as it already exists is “overwhelming” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.”....Mitch McConnell

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

The right wing propaganda machine on NT is already under way. 

Schiff outperformed the presidents lawyers in every conceivable way. It was like watching Perry Mason against the no name overmatched lawyer he was up against every week. 

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @5.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.4  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    one month ago
then maybe we should stop commenting in your group. 

Damned good advice. Take it. Perhaps you'll feel a lot better.

And JR, it isn't any different with "some other" poster/seeders" here to delete for the sake of deleting.........because they don't like what is said but more times than not, who said it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    one month ago

removed for context



The rules of the group are specific. We are not here to have trolling on Trump, so that others get upset and they end up with the tickets. If you don't like it, don't comment.

It's not open to debate.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.6    one month ago

Gee I wonder who you're referring to?

When you make off topic remarks, you should expect being deleted.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    one month ago

Vic, you are a far right propagandist whose articles in your group are far right propaganda. 

I usually comment on them because I forget that they are part of your group. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    one month ago
If you are not going to allow people to say what they want then maybe we should stop commenting in your group. 

Excellent!

So, when do you start?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    one month ago
Vic, you are a far right propagandist whose articles in your group are far right propaganda. 

That's your opinion. As I said, a biased one at that. Right now you are engaging in a personal attack. Don't you even realize that? I could sit here and put some nasty names to what I see, but I don't. I stick to topics. You should too.


I usually comment on them because I forget that they are part of your group. 

So, don't forget. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    one month ago
ou also don't see Wally saying it over and over again.

Actually, I do. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.12    one month ago

I'm sure you do, John but this is not a trial nor is it the late 60's. If you don't like it stop the bitching and go.

You have been warned. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
5.1.14  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    one month ago
Vic, you are a far right propagandist whose articles in your group are far right propaganda. 

Hi John .. Doesn't labeling people ever get old?  Calling Vic a far right propagandist as the far left propagandist venom drips from the fangs of partisanship. ………..very interesting...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.1.14    one month ago

When I start promoting absurd "far left" conspiracy theories, get back to me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.16  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @5.1    one month ago
removed for context

Then you should be able to document those lies. Please proceed with links.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago
When I start promoting absurd "far left" conspiracy theories, get back to me. 

Claiming that "Trump conspired with Russia" comes to mind!

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.18  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago

[deleted

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
5.1.19  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago

Did I say anything about you personally John?   I asked you a question and then made a comment based on the partisanship labeling I read..

Demanding to be heard, while not respecting another's right to be heard .. labeling, identify politics, tribalism seem to be the norm - no where is it more evident than in DC at the impeachment proceedings  and on comment boards .. partisanship is tearing the country apart...

Good luck with yourself John ..

Sorry Vic - I am shutting up now

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.1.19    one month ago

Don't let anyone silence you!  And BTW I'm glad to hear from you again.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
5.1.21  Colour Me Free  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.20    one month ago

I only shut up after I have spoke my 'peace of mind' .. one can only bang their head off a concrete wall so many times, we are never going to change each others minds/opinions .. just have to respect that each have an opinion and the right to express said opinion .. which is not always easy

… besides being labeled sucks

Thank you Vic ..  

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.22  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.12    one month ago

Actually, I don't keep harping on the same tired and boring themes, as some do

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.1.19    one month ago
Demanding to be heard, while not respecting another's right to be heard .. labeling, identify politics, tribalism seem to be the norm - no where is it more evident than in DC at the impeachment proceedings 

LOL. Thats a good one. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

I didn't watch. What substantive victories did Perry Mason win? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    one month ago

I am not going to recap 13 hours of discourse for you Sean. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
Schiff outperformed the presidents lawyers in every conceivable way.

You mean they got their argument about the case out there. To a degree that is true. The President's lawyers didn't even use all of their allotted time. Their argument that the Articles were frivolous didn't serve them well under those circumstances, plus for some reason the dems were allowed to mention things not in evidence like Lev Parnas.

However, you will have to admit that Schumer couldn't get a single Republican to break ranks and support any of those amendments.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.3.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3    one month ago
you will have to admit that Schumer couldn't get a single Republican to break ranks and support any of those amendments.

I believe that is a forgone conclusion at this point.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @5.3.1    one month ago
I believe that is a forgone conclusion at this point.

Actually, he did get Collins at one point

 
 
 
Dulay
5.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3    one month ago
plus for some reason the dems were allowed to mention things not in evidence like Lev Parnas.

Not much IS in evidence at this point Vic. Unlike in the Clinton trial, the underlying documents and transcripts of depositions and hearings have NOT been entered into the record. Wonder why. 

Every bit of the transcripts, text messages and videos that were played yesterday had NOT been entered into the record prior to their presentation yesterday. Based on that fact, I'm curious as to why you're only questioning them mentioning Parnas? 

Now if and when the underlying evidence IS entered into the record, the House Intelligence Committee's Report DOES include the Giuliani, Parnas meeting with Volker. 

Oh and BTFW, the Court obviously believed that the documents that were garnered from subpoenas of Parnas' phone records, were pertinent to the Impeachment Managers since it ruled to release them. 

However, you will have to admit that Schumer couldn't get a single Republican to break ranks and support any of those amendments.

Actually, Susan Collins DID break ranks once. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.3.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.3.3    one month ago
Not much IS in evidence at this point Vic.

Then how on earth were Articles of Impeachment written up? This happens to be the first presidential impeachment in history that proceeds forward on articles of impeachment that do not allege a crime!

 Wonder why. 

I think it might have something to do with asking for documents without having voted on impeachment. 


Actually, Susan Collins DID break ranks once. 

I noted that in the article


 
 
 
Dulay
5.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.3.4    one month ago
Then how on earth were Articles of Impeachment written up?

Are you really that clueless about the process Vic? Did you miss the whole ceremonial walk from the House to the Senate for the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment? Come on, just stop. 

This happens to be the first presidential impeachment in history that proceeds forward on articles of impeachment that do not allege a crime!

So what's your point? 

I noted that in the article

Yet you asked John to admit to that falsehood. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.3.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.3.5    one month ago
Come on, just stop.

Very well!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

I am watching Schiff now.  He is killing it big time.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.4    one month ago

And quoting Thomas Paine!  And Washington crossing the Delaware!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    one month ago

DELETED

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @6    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Near midnight, the House managers and White House legal team erupted into name calling and recriminations. The confrontation led to Chief Justice John Roberts to admonish both sides and remind them that this is supposed to be the “world’s most deliberative body” and that “those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.” He also repeated a ruling from the 1905 trial of Judge Charles Swayne that there should be no accusations of “pettifogging.” With those words, the pettifog ( bickering over trifles and petty disputes ) dissipated from the chambers.

The kerfuffle over pettifogging began with statements by House Judiciary Committee manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D, N.Y.) called the refusal to call witnesses at this stage a “treacherous vote” and a “cover-up” for Republicans:

“It’s embarrassing. The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror? … Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president’s misconduct? Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president’s coverup? So far I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

In reality, it was the Democrats who first tried to block all witnesses in the Clinton trial and then pushed for this very rule to delay any decision on witnesses. However, the response from the White House team was equally heated. White House counsel Pat Cipollone stated

“We’ve been respectful of the Senate. We’ve made our arguments to you. And you don’t deserve, and we don’t deserve, what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you; he accused you of a cover-up. He’s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you’ve addressed the United States Senate. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here. … It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing.”

Trump counsel Jay Sekulow also chimed in:

“At about 12:10 a.m., January 22, the chairman of the [House] Judiciary Committee, in this body, on the floor of this Senate, said ‘executive privilege and other nonsense.’ Now think about that for a moment. ‘Executive privilege and other nonsense.’ Mr. Nadler, it is not ‘nonsense.’ These are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. And to shred the Constitution, on the floor of the Senate. To serve what purpose? The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution doesn’t allow what just took place. Look what we’ve dealt with for the last, now 13 hours. And we hopefully are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note.”

Sekulow correctly objected to the claim that withholding evidence is proof of guilt. He noted that President Barack Obama did the same thing in the Fast and Furious investigation: “So, I guess when President Obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was guilty of a crime? That’s the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the way you view the United States Constitution? Because that’s not the way it was written, that is not the way it’s interpreted, and that’s not the way the American people should have to live.”

Roberts had heard enough:

“It is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said. “One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner, and using language, that is not conducive to civil discourse. “ “In the 1905 [Judge Charles] Swayne trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word ‘pettifogging’ — and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don’t think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

Both sides can be chastised for allowing the rhetoric to outstrip the realities of the record and the law.

I simply welcome the return to 18th century standards and lexicon. Notably, pettifogging (which concerns petty disputes) or  brabbling  is less of a problem as  excogigating  about ways to avoid the issues at trial.

Roberts was not trying to  quockerwodger  counsel   or leave the defense little more than  sluberdegullion . However, there is little need to be  beef-witted  in the well of the Senate.

It is all enough to leave feeling crapulous about the whole process.


https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/22/no-pettifogging-roberts-admonishes-both-legal-teams-after-late-night-outburst/

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
loki12
7.2  loki12  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
Jerry Nadler (D, N.Y.) called the refusal to call witnesses at this stage a “treacherous vote” and a “cover-up” for Republicans:

Translation: The democrats in the house are completely worthless and fucked this up royally and are now demanding that the Senate save their miserable asses.   

News Flash Nadless, It's not Mitch's job to fix your fuck-ups.  They need to dismiss this immediately and get Bernie back out on the campaign trail before the DNC gets a chance to rig this election again. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  loki12 @7.2    one month ago

Damn right. Let's get on with the trial!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"Sen.   Susan Collins   (Maine) became the only GOP senator to break with her party during a marathon session over the rules for the Senate's impeachment trial of   President Trump .

Democrats forced a 10th amendment vote early Wednesday morning that would extend the amount of time House impeachment managers and Trump's legal team have to respond to motions.

Currently, both sides can file motions around 9 a.m., including a potential motion to dismiss the charges against Trump. Under the rules, the opposing side would have to respond by 11 a.m. The amendment by Democrats would extend that time, giving them until Thursday to respond.

A spokeswoman for Collins didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about why she broke with her party and voted against tabling the amendment."


https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479299-collins-breaks-with-gop-on-attempt-to-change-impeachment-rules-resolution

collinssusan_071019as_lead.jpg?itok=VCPc
No harm done!

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.1    one month ago

Because?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.1    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

The democrats are out in front of the cameras again and it's only 11AM. After putting the Senate through a tedious day of voting over silly amendments, Schumer has the audacity to claim victory. I beg to differ. They now have to present their case before there is a vote for witnesses.

The Senate has set the rules for the trial and they won't be Pelosi's or Schumer's.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    one month ago
The democrats are out in front of the cameras again and it's only 11AM.

He can't help himself.   I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that for the most part all politicians are publicity whores.  He's just made it an art form.

After putting the Senate to a tedius day of voting over silly amendments, Schumer has the audacity to claim victory. I beg to differ.

He's required to claim victory.  If he was forced to admit that the House phucked the impeachment like a dog in heat, he'd be on the bad side of Nancy and her minions.

They now have to present their case before there is a vote for witnesses.

I have no problem with them calling the witnesses the House called and have them explain how everything they provided was hearsay, suppositions, innuendo, conjecture and personal feelings with no basis in fact, other than their emotions of course.

The Senate has set the rules for the trial and they won't be Pelosi's or Schumer's.

Both will be put in the corner for a long time by the radical left fringe of the party.  This might very well be their last hurrah before being forced out to pasture.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1    one month ago
This might very well be their last hurrah before being forced out to pasture.

Maybe before they go they could read the words of Constitutional Law Professor Josh Blackman who characterized their Articles of Impeachment thus:

"that the articles of impeachment avoid concise charges, instead "going for misconduct that exists largely in the eye of the beholder"

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    one month ago

Please provide a link when posting verbatim quotes Vic. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

The dems have screwed the pooch on this one.

First of all, Mr. Trump did not ask the Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He asked him to look into the scenario of corruption in Burisma. That isn't abuse of power. You cannot prove intent as we learned from Mr. Comey in the past.

Now, he has been accused of supposedly abusing the office for political gain. Not the case on the surface.

There are two substantial endings for that request. 

1.) If there was some sort of quid pro quo and corruption, it would have been exposed and lauded by all but the Dems.

2.) Short of that, the Bidens would have been exonerated should the Ukraine not find any wrongdoings and would have been cleared.

What were they afraid of? And it didn't happen, either way. Sure would have cleared the air but Dems insist that there was wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Trump. Which there wasn't. Asking for a favor is NOT an impeachable offense..........by any stretch and again, intent is in the heart and mind and is not easily extrapolated.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10    one month ago
First of all, Mr. Trump did not ask the Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He asked him to look into the scenario of corruption in Burisma.

Number one, Trump does not know what the hell he is talking about.  He never does. 

Number two, he specifically mentions Joe Biden, and the prosecutor from Ukraine.  He doesnt mention Burisma. 

The demand placed on Ukraine, as testified to in the House hearings, was that the president of Ukraine specifically mention the BIDENS in his announcement of an investigation. 

The American public is not as stupid as you seem to think they are.  A new poll showed 58% of Americans believe Trump abused his power in this case. 

 
 
 
loki12
10.1.1  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago
The American public is not as stupid as you seem to think they are. 

A lot are still voting for the scumbags like Ellison, Omar and Pelosi, and Adam Schitt, so yest, they are every bit as fucking stupid as i think they are. 

Look at Chicago or Baltimore, They keep voting for the same fucking retards that turned those cities into a shit holes, This is definitive proof that a good portion of the American public are fucking idiots.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @10.1.1    one month ago

LOL. Thousands of young people move to Chicago every year to begin their careers and experience the "big city".  It is hardly a shithole.

Dont take all your information from Trump and Rush Limbaugh. 

 
 
 
loki12
10.1.3  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    one month ago

I make my own opinions, It's a fucking shit hole. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @10.1.3    one month ago

Well, its not against the law to be delusional, so there you go. 

 
 
 
loki12
10.1.5  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    one month ago
Well, its not against the law to be delusional

I didn't know that, I will take your expert opinion on this fact. You obviously would know better than me.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    one month ago

 
The population in the Chicago-Naperville-Elgin metropolitan area declined 0.3 percent to 9.5 million people. The city's shrinking population reflects a loss that's hurting the entire state of Illinois, however.
The city's population is likely to keep declining over the next few years, according to The Chicago Tribune. Residents complain about high taxes, the financial stresses on the state, the crime rate and harsh weather.
https://www.cbsnews.com/media/12-major-american-cities-that-are-shrinking/
 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.6    one month ago

9 1/2 million people live in the Chicago area, despite it being a "shithole".  Amazing. 

Oh by the way, Chicago has 50 million+ visitors from outside the city every year,  you know, tourists, day trippers, and people visiting the city on business. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

There is an investigative report from Real Clear Investigations which makes me think it might just be worthwhile to call certain witnesses:

By   Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
January 22, 2020

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.

“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.

“They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”

Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s committee, where sources say he offered “guidance” to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Schiff is now claiming that Trump is using Putin's narrative, as opposed to the progressive narrative that it can only be Russia that tried to interfere in election - Nobody else!

 
 
 
lib50
12.1  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    one month ago

They didn't say nobody else, but it was NOT Ukraine.  It WAS Russia.  If Trump and gop actually investigated the interference they would have more to offer up than a lie - one that just happens to help RUSSIA,  who were the perps!   We know it was Russia mainly.  If only republicans had done their jobs, we might know more now. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @12.1    one month ago
but it was NOT Ukraine. 

No?  What about the famous Politico investigative report: 

politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

What about that?


 If only republicans had done their jobs

I thought the 2016 election took place under the Obama presidency?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
12.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.1    one month ago

Why dont you conservatives just nominate someone else for president? There is still time, get off the disgrace (Trump) train while there is still time. This is the high point of the Trump reign, it is all downhill from here.  The case against Trump is overwhelming. Even if the Senate lets him go, history will make only one verdict.  The one you don't like. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.2    one month ago
Why dont you conservatives just nominate someone else for president?

because we enjoy the pain trump causes the left.

don't worry... only 5 more yrs.... enjoy.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.2    one month ago
Why dont you conservatives just nominate someone else for president?

Because we're happy with the results President Trump has provided thus far.

Here's a challenge JR.  How about the Democrats nominate someone who does not want to destroy this economy, have Americans pay for every ill in the world, assign blame to America for every ill in the world since it's creation in 1776, secure our borders, deport ALL illegal alien invaders, enforce laws nationally equally, not tax (seize illegally) the wealth anyone created and desires to give his/her heirs, challenges other countries to pull their fair share of the burdens internationally, and I'll see if I can support that candidate.

So, JR.... are YOU up to the challenge?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.1.5  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.2    one month ago
Why dont you conservatives just nominate someone else for president?

Here is a idea, why don't democrats nominate a electable candidate? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
12.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.1    one month ago
What about that?

***Crickets***

And that's gonna leave a mark.................

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.7  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1.3    one month ago
because we enjoy the pain trump causes the left. don't worry... only 5 more yrs.... enjoy.

Oh, you all make that perfectly clear - it is more important to piss off 'the left' than do what is right for the country.  Because there is never a rebuttal to the crimes, first comes denial, than maybe a little, than it doesn't matter Trump is above the law and dems are mean and don't do and say what we like.  The biggest beneficiary of that attitude thanks you.  Спасибо

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @12.1.7    one month ago
never a rebuttal to the crimes,

If there were CRIMES we would likely join in the desire to impeach and remove.  However, THERE ARE NO CRIMES!!!  So, try yet once again.

do what is right for the country.

President Trump will do yet MORE for the country.

I'm certain he will guide it to yet lower unemployment which will be very difficult as there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.

I'm certain he will guide it to yet higher market valuations further securing the financial well being of retirees and workers contributing to their IRA's and 401k's, and the public and private pension plans dependent on the returns those high market valuations provide.

I'm certain he will guide to yet more and better trade agreements with other countries as he already proved capable of doing.

I'm certain he will guide it to returning America to the global preeminent and predominant military and economic power it had previously been.

Yes, I'm certain President Trump will do exactly what's right and good for the country.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @12.1.7    one month ago
it is more important to piss off 'the left' than do what is right for the country. 

pissing off the left is just the byproduct of doing what is right for our country.

go peddle your crap elsewhere. I'm immune to liberal bs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.2    one month ago
Why dont you conservatives just nominate someone else for president?

Here we go again....It's always about Trump. I don't speak for anyone but myself - I wouldn't trust anyone other than Trump as President. He is EXACTLY what I want at the helm!


The case against Trump is overwhelming. 

So we are told, yet they need "evidence."


Even if the Senate lets him go, history will make only one verdict.  The one you don't like. 

It is you who are on the wrong side of history.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.11  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.10    one month ago

I guess the Reagan love is finally dead.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @12.1.11    one month ago

Ronald Reagan will always be the Gold Standard for the GOP. We are in a much different time. Our society has denigrated since then. We live in a far less civil society. I hate to say it, but street fighters are the order of the day.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.13  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.12    one month ago

So to you there is no remedy to the situation so it is best to have someone that does nothing but fight with others and call people names, belittle people, denigrate people, lie to people.

Yep that is the ticket.

Do you actually think Reagan would have embraced, or even put up with, trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @12.1.13    one month ago
So to you there is no remedy to the situation so it is best to have someone that does nothing but fight with others and call people names, belittle people, denigrate people, lie to people.

Do I think America will ever have the civilization it once had?  No too much has gone into the baking of that cake. Politically we have people retiring from congress in droves. There is no more bipartisanship or reaching across the aisle or even getting much done. Last night we had to have the Chief Justice remind a certain House Committee Chairman to remember where he was! He was calling people "traitors."  Here we have Hillary Clinton, former first lady and Secretary of State randomly calling presidential candidates "Russian assets" and half the country "deplorable" & "irredeemable".

Your solution is to have a perfect gentleman the likes of a John McCain or Mitt Romney to go out there and be nice.....and get beat!


Do you actually think Reagan would have embraced, or even put up with, trump?

No, nor would the nation of the 1980's ever have elected a modern progressive but of course, you are comparing two different worlds

 
 
 
JohnRussell
12.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @12.1.4    one month ago

People are going to have differences of opinion about policies. I dont agree with every proposal by every Democratic candidate myself. There is room for disagreements in politics that can be overcome through compromise in the legislature and in the executive branches. 

What we should not permit is someone like Trump who  is morally, ethically and intellectually and psychologically unfit for office. 

Nominate some fucking body else. 

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.16  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.14    one month ago

I don't see political life as mirroring everyday life.

In my life I can go pretty much anywhere and people can/do get along.

Political life and online life are exaggerations.

It is not just one side that is to blame. Why trump gets a pass and not everyone else is what I don't understand.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.17  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @12.1.8    one month ago
If there were CRIMES we would likely join in the desire to impeach and remove.  

You WILL? 

Here you go:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

However, THERE ARE NO CRIMES!!!  So, try yet once again.

Violation of the Impoundment Control Act is a CRIME. READ the link. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @12.1.16    one month ago
It is not just one side that is to blame.

It is!

Goodnight....I will leave this open as long as there are still ongoing discussions.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.19  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.18    one month ago

That right there only shows me blind partisanship.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Final Thoughts:

Tuesday Night Chuck Schumer tried to force the issue with amendments to the trial rules that would have guaranteed the Senate would hear from specific witnesses or obtain documents. Those proposed amendments all failed along party lines. The Senate finally adjourned after no less than 11 amendments had been defeated, at around 2 a.m. Wednesday.

mcconnell-opens-abc-ps-200121_hpMain_16x

Today we heard opening arguments. As much as I despise the man for his McCarthy-like tactics, I do have to give Adam Schiff credit for his debating skills. He did make an impassioned plea (over 4 hours) albeit with the usual false statements nicely mixed in, for a very difficult case which does not contain crimes. That takes skill.

We also had one individual who tried to burst into the chamber and was quickly escorted out.

Otherwise, we didn't hear anything new. In a statement issued to reporters, Senator Susan Collins said she remains open to the idea of witnesses after opening arguments and the first round of questions by senators. Which leads to the possibility of John Bolton or Hunter Biden being called. We will be subjected to another few days of opening statements. There may be a bottle of Rum with my name on it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @13    one month ago

Hunter Biden would not be a relevant witness, which is why the Republicans did not agree to the amendment to the rules which would have allowed Chief Justice Roberts to decide which witnesses would be relevant to receive a subpoena. . 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Paula Bartholomew
igknorantzrulz
Freewill
Ed-NavDoc


44 visitors