The Impeachment Trial Briefs Are In, And The Winner Is…

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  one month ago  •  95 comments

By:   Former Rep. Bob Barr

The Impeachment Trial Briefs Are In, And The Winner Is…
The House impeachment managers and the lawyers for President Donald Trump have both filed their memorandums for the Senate impeachment trial which gets underway in earnest today. While the two documents are nearly identical in length, the president’s is by far the stronger document.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

It seems the Democrats may have a hole in their basket and a lot of all those eggs they put in there fell out.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Neither memorandum breaks new legal, political or constitutional grounds, but there was no expectation they would. The only “new” evidence – if it can be characterized as such – is that the managers’ memorandum includes references to matters that came to light in the month since the two Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House. The managers discuss statements recently made by Ukraine-American operative Lev Parnas in television interviews and refer also to a Government Accountability Office memorandum released last week after being requested by Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen. The GAO report found fault with the grounds on which the Office of Management and Budget temporarily delayed the release of military assistance dollars to Ukraine last summer.

Even if the Senate decides to consider this “new” evidence, however, it adds nothing to the underlying question confronting the upper chamber – whether President Trump is guilty of the offenses alleged against him by the Democrat majority in the House and should be removed from office. If the grounds on which this seminal question is to be answered are to be gleaned from these first filings, the answer is a resounding, “Not Guilty.”

While the trial brief filed on the president’s behalf is over 100 pages long, the operative language, capturing the full essence of why the Senate trial should result in acquittal, is set forth in the preliminary “Answer” filed last Saturday and which continues as a central theme throughout the memorandum: “[the] Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face [and] fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.”

That truly is all the president’s lawyers need assert in his defense, because it rebuts completely what the House is attempting to do in direct violation of the explicit language in the Constitution itself. The Constitution mandates that the only grounds on which a president may be impeached and removed from office are “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (my emphasis). Neither the First nor the Second Article of Impeachment levelled against Trump constitutes a violation of any state or federal law.
“Abuse of Power” is not a crime, and “Obstruction of Congress” is not a crime. No amount of wordsmithing by the House managers can shoehorn either of these “offenses” into any criminal statute. Notwithstanding former President Clinton’s valiant but unsuccessful effort to escape impeachment in 1998 by arguing, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” what is written in the Constitution of the United States means what it says. Lawyers may argue about whether a particular crime constitutes a “high” crime (the House decided in 1998 that perjury and obstruction of justice by a sitting president did meet that criteria). But they never should be permitted to prevail in arguing that behavior which is not a crime is a crime in order to rid themselves of a president they do not like.
This is the reason the section of the managers’ memorandum setting out the “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment” is so short – a mere three pages of a 111-page document – and draws on such irrelevant documents as George Washington’s 1796 “Farewell Address.”
The managers tip their hand — and reveal the true motive for their drive to convince 67 Senators that the President should be removed from office 10 months before he stands for re-election — in what they call their “Statement of Material Facts.” At page 60 of that portion of their memorandum, the managers argue that President Trump should be removed from office, because Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election showed that the president tried to obstruct that investigation.

As the rest of the world knows, the Mueller investigation found that the president did not obstruct anything. However, in the never-give-up, make-believe world in which these impeachment managers and their Democrat House colleagues operate, neither facts nor constitutional language mean anything. For the sake of our constitutional Republic, the United States Senate must reaffirm that both facts and the Constitution remain relevant, and acquit President Donald J. Trump.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

Seems as though the rapid, rabid start by the "prosecution" wasn't very well thought out. It was baby Swiss upon delivery and is rapidly reaching full blown holey Swiss.

Rules of the site will be taken advantage of. In other words, play nice or don't play at all. Discuss the topic.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

The author? 

Bob Barr. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago
The author? 
Bob Barr. 

Very good, now you know who the author was. Why does the name of the author matter so much to you?

Do you know Bob Barr? Do you know what he has done?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago
Why does the name of the author matter so much to you?

His NAME doesn't matter. His state of mind nowadays does. 

Do you know Bob Barr? Do you know what he has done?

Why yes Tex, YES I do. I have a lot of respect for him and am sad about what he has devolved to. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    one month ago

You know this isn't the same Bob Barr who is the AG, right?

Right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    one month ago
Why yes Tex, YES I do. I have a lot of respect for him and am sad about what he has devolved to. 

So, what did the former Congressman do to earn your concern?

Is it his stance on a Fair Tax?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago
The author?  Bob Barr. 

And? So what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    one month ago

Anyone who has devolved to a tRump ass kisser/suck up, I would have lost any respect for as well.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago
You know this isn't the same Bob Barr who is the AG, right? Right?

Again, YES.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.8  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @1.1    one month ago

Robert Barr?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago

Oh and BTFW, the AG is BILL Barr Tex. 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

83940791_2818146778244962_24289055432098

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3  squiggy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

83019202_2818148584911448_85789049914298

 
 
 
squiggy
1.4  squiggy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

82800550_2821615991231374_16636788565333

 
 
 
squiggy
1.5  squiggy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

82802470_2818470048212635_85078644499425

 
 
 
Sparty On
2  Sparty On    one month ago

Give it time.  

All the expert, left wing internet Barristers on NT will soon be here to explain to you how wrong this is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @2    one month ago

Yesterday we were told how the House had to "instigate" for an investigation since the DOJ didn't see any law breaking in a phone conversation.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Actually you were told that the DOJ failed to investigate criminal referrals but fuck facts right Vic? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago
Actually you were told that the DOJ failed to investigate criminal referrals but fuck facts right Vic? 

Do you mean ….. Referral (No "s").

But that "Person" isn't relevant anymore. Schifty Schiff says so, and said so, all through "His" Witch Trial.

"Just ignore the person behind the Curtain"

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.2    one month ago
  • does your magic carpet match the man behind the curtain, cause i'm certain, any Trump defenders defying logic and reason and denying what amounts to treason can wear the capitol R like a Rerun walk through that can't jog their memory as they skip the facts and the witnesses exposing Rog and his lil' sis as the darker Dorothy who parks her hey, hey hey, house on the barn on the farm
  • bought produce producing bovine gastric expulsions filling the barn left open door shut tight before so as to not ignite    what's happening !

. cause Trump defenders have not a clue as to What's happening 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.3    one month ago

Read the Book ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

". cause Trump defenders have not a clue as to What's happening "

The "Defense Team" still has their 24 hr. "Talk Time" to go. You've heard only one "Imotional" side for 24hrs. The second 24hrs., will dash those "Hopes" of yours. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.5  WallyW  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.3    one month ago

. cause Trump defenders have not a clue as to What's happening 

Yep....Dems case amounts to bovine scat.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.6  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.2    one month ago

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.6    one month ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
3  Sunshine    one month ago

The Democrat shit show continues. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

Abuse of power does not need to be represented in a violation of a legal statute. It's that simple. 

It is quite telling that virtually no one is able to defend trump on the facts of the case, and almost the entire argument against impeachment is based on the false idea that if Trump didnt break a criminal law he is off the hook. 

Guilty people try to get off on technicalities. Those who are innocent on the facts can use evidence. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
Abuse of power does not need to be represented in a violation of a legal statute. It's that simple. 

It was discussed by the framers of the constitution and they rejected using it as a reason for impeachment. It is too broad a term. Many presidents have been accused of abusing their power by their opponents.

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

If abuse of power was always a meaningless term you might have a point.  It is when the accusation is fleshed out with facts that it shows its purpose and worth. 

Many constitutional scholars are more than willing to associate "abuse of power" with "high crimes and misdemeanors". 

If there weren't we wouldn't even be talking about it. 

If you can show us something from the framers that asserts that impeachment of the president must be based on violation of a specific criminal law. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago
If you can show us something from the framers that asserts that impeachment of the president must be based on violation of a specific criminal law.

It does not have to be a specific criminal act, but it should be something close. "Abuse of power" is too broad and has applied to too many presidents. What would you call the EO on DACA?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago

John - impeachment is not over "criminal" law and you should know that.  Impeachment is purely a political ploy/play - nothing else.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago
It does not have to be a specific criminal act, but it should be something close. "Abuse of power" is too broad and has applied to too many presidents.

Vic, the house managers are describing Trump's abuse of power in very specific ways. 

That reality makes your complaint meaningless. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago
Vic, the house managers are describing Trump's abuse of power in very specific ways. 

So what? That doesn't make their opinion of an abuse worthy of impeachment. 

I thought Pat Cipollone put it just right:  "They're not here to steal one election. They're here to steal two elections."

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.5    one month ago

Cipollone also said that tRump is a 'man of his word'

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    one month ago

Link please

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.7    one month ago

No need.  It's true.  Look it up yourself 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
It was discussed by the framers of the constitution and they rejected using it as a reason for impeachment.

Oh I can't wait for this reply. Please DO tell me all about your vast knowledge of the statements by the framers Vic. Post a link to any one of them rejecting abuse of power as an impeachable offense. 

It is too broad a term.

Have you READ the Constitution? It's FULL of 'broad terms'. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    one month ago

In other words you made it up

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.10    one month ago

Politics 

Trump Impeachment Lawyer Utters 'Biggest Lie Ever' Told On Senate Floor

1b7bcfa0-ffe6-11e8-abbe-535ccd54ed26   January 22, 2020, 4:32 AM EST

Twitter users mockingly accused White House counsel      Pat Cipollone       of telling the “biggest lie ever” on the Senate floor after he vouched for      Donald Trump       during the president’s impeachment trial.

Cipollone, who is leading Trump’s defense, claimed Trump “is a man of his word” during the proceedings on Tuesday night.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

So neither you or anyone in your cheering section can provide any documentation of the framers rejection of abuse of power as a reason for impeachment. 

Yet you're in here asking others to post links to support their statements. 

It drips with hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.11    one month ago

What's really funny is that you think the Huffington Post is a credible host! Now that is a hoot!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
Abuse of power does not need to be represented in a violation of a le

Just because a partisan line vote of democrats call something an abuse of power doesn't mean it is.  Partisan democrats can impeach Trump for having the wrong color hair and call it an abuse of power. An impeachable offense is whatever a bare majority of the House says it is. The House certainly could have impeached Obama for "obstructing Congress" on this theory as well. But if 67 Senators don't agree with the partisan House, it's not a removable offense.

The Senate is not bound by House Democrats definitions and the senate has every right to simply say the allegations, even if proven, don't constitute a removable offense. The only relevant argument is something that convinces 67 Senators that it's a removable offense, no matter what you call it. If even 34 Senators disagree with the partisan impeachment vote, its not a removable offense. End of story.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    one month ago

Well, what you say is obvious, if they dont get 67 votes to remove, then he is not removed. But that doesnt mean it wasnt a "removable" offense, it means this particular Senate makeup wanted to keep Trump in power. 

The widely discussed CNN poll yesterday indicated that 58 percent of Americans think Trump abused his power as president

58% say Trump abused the power of the presidency to obtain an improper personal political benefit and 57% say it is true that he obstructed the House of Representatives in its impeachment inquiry.

58% of Americans are not hysterical liberal partisans, are they? 

When was the last time 58% of Americans approved of Trump?  I think that may have been when he fired Omarosa on The Apprentice  television game show. 

I think you are well aware of two facts, One, what Trump did is impeachable, and two, the Republicans who are afraid of his power to primary them in their next election are cowered into casting a no vote in the Senate. 

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

I suspect some Dem Senators might not vote to convict

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
Abuse of power does not need to be represented in a violation of a legal statute.

In the abstract, I would say that's possible, sure. But being able to cite a specific statute would sure help.

Unless you tie it to some established law with specific elements, then you have to concede that virtually anything could be considered "abuse of power" if you just argue it with sufficient outrage and conviction. In any presidency, there are continual declarations from political opponents and media commentators that the president is exceeding his authority or abusing his power. Every president hears those accusations. But they aren't impeached as a result.

The problem of specific laws is particularly desirable in the case of presidential impeachments which are so rare, unique, and distinctly political as to sit outside of the normal body of case law and legal tradition. We just don't have enough (and consistent) examples to be able to say definitively, "this is abuse of power" or "that is not abuse of power." It's all opinion - and partisan opinion at that.

That being the case with Trump, it's disingenuous to speak of "clear" or "overwhelming" evidence of guilt and impeachable conduct. And considering that the effort was in place for two-and-a-half to three years prior to the events considered impeachable, the process has long since burned any credibility it could have relied on to sway people.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.3    one month ago
That being the case with Trump, it's disingenuous to speak of "clear" or "overwhelming" of guilt and impeachable conduct.

Not if that evidence exists and IS clear and overwhelming. 

Abuse of power is like porn, you know it when you see it. Or in the case of the GOP, you pretend it isn't porn because you support it's creator. 

And considering that the effort was in place for two-and-a-half to three years prior to the events considered impeachable, the process has long since burned any credibility it could have relied on to sway people.

So by that standard, every POTUS who has been strongly opposed from the start, because of questionable actions, can do whatever the fuck they want afterward because others were 'mean' to him/her at the start of the term.

  

 
 
 
WallyW
4.3.2  WallyW  replied to  Dulay @4.3.1    one month ago
the process has long since burned any credibility it could have relied on to sway people.

It really has. Really!

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.3.1    one month ago
Not if that evidence exists and IS clear and overwhelming. Abuse of power is like porn, you know it when you see it.

BoXUpyeCQAA2WhY.jpg:large

So by that standard, every POTUS who has been strongly opposed from the start, because of questionable actions, can do whatever the fuck they want afterward because others were 'mean' to him/her at the start of the term.

Nope. Read the whole statement before trying to rebut it. I'll highlight the important part.

And considering that the effort was in place for two-and-a-half to three years prior to the events considered impeachable , the process has long since burned any credibility it could have relied on to sway people.

Previous impeachment efforts weren't continuous and random, finally settling on whatever popped up. Democrats campaigned on impeaching Trump long before the Ukraine events even happened, but it's the Ukraine events he is being impeached for. That adds up to a negative number for credibility.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.3    one month ago
Previous impeachment efforts weren't continuous and random, finally settling on whatever popped up. Democrats campaigned on impeaching Trump long before the Ukraine events even happened, but it's the Ukraine events he is being impeached for. That adds up to a negative number for credibility.

How DARE you use logic in an argument???????????

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.3    one month ago

Fine Tacos!. Your comments are just your opinion and thereby not even worthy of a meme. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.3    one month ago
Read the whole statement before trying to rebut it.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.3.5    one month ago
not even worthy of a meme

Cuz you know I already took the best one. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

ooh-burn-meme.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.7    one month ago
Cuz you know I already took the best one.

No because your comment isn't worthy of me posting one. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    one month ago
As the rest of the world knows, the Mueller investigation found that the president did not obstruct anything.

This is , well, a lie. 

As I remember the writer, Bob Barr, from his days in Congress years ago, lying is one of his things. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

"Just wait for the Mueller report!"

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

384

 
 
 
squiggy
5.1.2  squiggy  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.1    one month ago

Sorry, didn't see that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    one month ago

Barr's summary of the Mueller report was his resume.  He submitted it before he was appointed tRump's consigliere

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @6    one month ago

Show us that FACT - we'll wait.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6    one month ago
Barr's summary of the Mueller report was his resume.  He submitted it before he was appointed tRump's consigliere

Wrong Barr............but I'm not surprised about the confusion. Looking for a crime in all the wrong places...................

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @6    one month ago
Barr's summary of the Mueller report was his resume.

You might be thinking of Bill Barr.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @6.3    one month ago

Obviously, I didn't realize my error until Jim condescendingly pointed it out.  Next time, I'll read the article

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.3.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.1    one month ago
Next time, I'll read the article

Good on ya. Tissue?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    one month ago

So this Barr is a different liar from tRump's consigliere Barr.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

If you don't know what you're talking about - don't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1    one month ago

Well Barr is tRump's consigliere and lapdog and toady.  

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

So this Barr is a different liar from tRump's consigliere Barr.  

Yes Tessylo, a completely different Barr...who is telling the truth.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    one month ago

Schiff looked like a fool... he was glaring at the lawyers. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8    one month ago

Are you making fun of his bulging eyes? Thats not nice. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    one month ago

Actually she didn't, as tempting as it is

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    one month ago
Are you making fun of his bulging eyes?

No, making fun of his political theatre.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.2    one month ago

That's right it's about substance. Isn't it nauseating to have the same points drummed out over and over again?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.1    one month ago

Well I guess if people can make fun of how fat Trump is, and his ridiculous hairstyle (both of which Trump could change if he wanted to), people can make fun of the size of Schiff's eyeballs, which he cannot change. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    one month ago

Oh stop it...

He was glaring at the lawyers in anger..

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    one month ago

“Bulging eyes?”  You are the one that is saying he has bulging eyes on this thread.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.4    one month ago

Be careful John. If your'e only looking to insult the President you will be deleted. No skirting!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.7    one month ago

I wonder why Kathleen is only mentioning Schiff "glaring" at the Republican lawyers.  

I saw both sides glaring at the other from that podium. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.8    one month ago

John, you've got to admit Schiff got the academy award last night. That was quite a performance! It's why Pelosi is so fond of him. He got those two judges impeached.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.7    one month ago

You must not insult this 'president'.  The king of lies.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.10    one month ago

Actually you must discuss the topic without the name calling

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.9    one month ago

Schiff ran rings around the presidents lawyers. 

Your seeds are largely right wing propaganda, which is allowed on internet discussion forums. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    one month ago
Schiff ran rings around the presidents lawyers.

I have already granted you that they used the opportunity to make their case. That however didn't help Schumer get any rule changes did it?


Your seeds are largely right wing propaganda

That is your opinion, one which is decidedly biased.


which is allowed on internet discussion forums. 

Freedom of speech, John....progressives haven't gotten rid of it yet!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    one month ago
Schiff ran rings around the presidents lawyers. 

JR...   you do post some hillarious nonsense quite often, but this one is one of the best I've seen in quite awhile.   I'm just thankful I've already finished my coffee or it would have been sprayed all over my keyboard and monitor.   Hell, even my wife called and asked "What's so funny?  Did your brother send you another joke?"

Your seeds are largely right wing propaganda, which is allowed on internet discussion forums. 

The only propaganda is from the left JR...  need I remind you, collusion, Russia, Mueller, Cohen, Avenati and other nonsensical propaganda ad nauseum since President Trump was sworn in?  And they purveyors of that propaganda have all been Democrats and the left.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    one month ago

As opposed to your endless "I Hate Trump" screeds?

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.7    one month ago

Are you forgetting who the seeder is?

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.17  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    one month ago

John, be fair, you post many articles about all this yourself. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.16    one month ago

He is a member of the group

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.19  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.8    one month ago

It was an article on fox news that said that verbatim.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.20  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.18    one month ago

Better amend those group rules then, or make sure the seeders know to post YOUR rules.

Otherwise stop threatening members of NT.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.20    one month ago

[DELETED]

[Thanks SP!]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.20    one month ago
Better amend those group rules then, or make sure the seeders know to post YOUR rules.

Group rules are posted at the group site. Not that "they" are much different from NT. We don't like trolling. Coming on to smear the President in every post is trolling.


Otherwise stop threatening members of NT.

Don't threaten me

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.22    one month ago
Coming on to smear the President in every post is trolling.

Only in Trumpworld does telling the truth about him constitute "smearing". 

Almost all of the articles you write contain some sort of declaration that Trump is winning this or McConnell has dominated in that, or that the "progressives" are destroying America. 

Then you want to have rules where people cannot object to your propaganda unless they say it in a way you approve of. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1.24  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.23    one month ago
Then you want to have rules where people cannot object to your propaganda unless they say it in a way you approve of. 

"nonsense"

 
 
 
arkpdx
8.1.25  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.23    one month ago

""progressives" are destroying America. "

Make up your mind! First you complain that you aren't getting the truth then turn around and complain that people are telling the truth. What is it that you want?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    one month ago
and draws on such irrelevant documents as George Washington’s 1796 “Farewell Address.”

You know that when they're coming at you with you stuff like this, they really have nothing to say. I lost track of how many times I heard "no one is above the law" last night. Ok, but so what? That's not an argument. It's not evidence. It's not persuasive. It's a platitude.

Hour after hour, the managers do what TDS Democrats have done since the 2016 campaign. They relate mundane details of ordinary speech and behavior, but they do it with gravitas in their tone and raised eyebrows to convince you that it's all some shameful scandal.

The whole process is one big circular argument. You know that Trump's behavior and speech is impeachable because they just got through telling you that it's impeachable.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @10    one month ago

But Trump already stated from Davos, today, That "...we have all the material They don't have the material" jrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Larry Hampton
The Magic Eight Ball
JohnRussell
JumpDrive
CB
Dignitatem Societatis


28 visitors