# Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

  Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

*"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong"* --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do??  Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....




And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

*"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to **impeach Trump** as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”*

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was _"just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case"_ _…"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems"_ -- 

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2019)

Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 20, 2019)




----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


----------



## Penelope (Dec 20, 2019)

The witnesses can't exonerate tramp unless they lie.  Look at McGahn, the committee issued a subpoena April 22 and just finally went to court and said he would have to testify in Nov. so now its appealed and will make it up to the Supreme Court.

That is the tramp policy to hold out as long as he can, he has played the same card throughout his life hoping the people go broke.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


They will not listen to witnesses anyway
Witnesses will only make it harder to explain to voters why they ignored the evidence


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


A trial with witnesses is not an investigation you dumb ass...

You dic suckers were just on here a couple of weeks ago talking about witnesses being called in the Senate...

Why do you idiots lie so damn much??


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Yes, I want the accused to produce all of the evidence and witnesses that HE CLAIMED and YOU CLAIMED would prove he didn't do what is alleged....

The reason why you don't mind that the GOP refuses to call any witnesses is because you know he did it.....yall are just a bunch of clowns....

I bet yo dumb ass still believes Iraq was behind 9/11 too....


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Why do you use a black man as your Avatar


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political &  pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


In America you can’t accuse someone of murder with no evidence,, this is why Americans think democrats are nazis ,, you are accusing a man with no evidence of wrong doing.. your sick


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


  Wow, in America, they investigate crimes & charge only when there is sufficient evidence.  Part of that is discovered through the use of warrants.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


First of all...this is a political trial, not a criminal...

But furthermore, if there are 7 or 8 witnesses, including 2 or 3 personal admissions to that murder -- that will bring a grand jury indictment....

Now there have been cases where a person was convicted based on either no evidence or made up evidence by police or prosecutors....but Trumpers like yourself still call them guilty ...

Do you know how those who have been falsely convicted of something get released??  Evidence.....


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


So you are in search of a crime? Lol is this serious? You impeach a president because you think you have a crime? Haha


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Do you think releasing rapist in the the black community is good for the black community? 

What did black woman do to you? 

and you think it’s ok to accuse people of committing a crime with no evidence is ok? And we are the racist? Lol


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 20, 2019)

No crimes committed.
Therefore, no witnesses needed.

Now STFU and deal with it!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Have you ever read the constitution?? Here is a short list of what the Constitution deems are impeachable offenses...

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Congress than makes the decision that a president is guilty of said offenses and put it to a vote....if you feel only presidents you don't worship should be impeached -- either (a) move to a country ruled by dictatorship -- or (b) change the constitution.....or...(c) shut the fuk up....

But I expect you will do (d) -- keep whining like a bitch....


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Like you said....."this is a political trial, not a criminal" 
Then you use a criminal trial as your reference? 
priceless


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



They aren’t. The demon rats are the one who are afraid to testify. Schiff, Biden and Biden, Comey and Page and her lover. All of them fear being questioned by righteous GOP senators. That’s why Pisslosi is not sending the articals to McConnell.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


So he abused power by investigating Democrats who openly said I will withhold $1 billion if you don’t fire the prosecutor investigating my son? Ohhh ok so the crime
Is investigating democrats lol and WINNING


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


And yet, they had no evidence, they have no case.
MAGA


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Not my fault you don't know who A. Phillip Randolph is...

But an educated man like myself does...

Why do you use a man whom you will later claim is part of the Deep State as your Avatar??


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Except the evidence they already have.....the evidence that lead to Trump being impeached...

Now where is all of this explosive evidence that is supposed to own the libs that you dic suckers been telling us about?

John Durham ain't came to the rescue yet??

Bill Barr ain't charge Biden with anything yet??


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


I didn’t ask you who he is, but why are you you using black men as your pic?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Yes, they are......They do not want to call any witnesses...

Pelosi is holding it up until there is a commitment to the type of "fair trial" that Trump himself claimed he wanted....

Why do you people allow yourself to be such morons for Trump??

He literally ASKED MCCONNELL to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses....Democrats say fine....McConnell says no...why?


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


The made up crimes?  That's what you're going with? 
Just make 'em up as you go?  Obstruction of "Congress"?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Why do you keep avoiding what Trump and folks like you were saying literally just a couple of weeks ago?

You told us...."Wait until it gets to the Senate...We can call the real witnesses then"

Its in the Senate now...

Why do you trumpers hate memory so much??


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

The republican solution to all things Trump....

Pretend it never happened or attack some chick's dead husband and blame it on Greta


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 20, 2019)

Biffy boy; you're howling at the moon.


----------



## DGS49 (Dec 20, 2019)

Why no additional witnesses?  Two words:  Brett Kavanaugh.

His hearings were complete, then some scumbag Leftist bitch from California raised her Tweety-Bird voice to claim that he was a child-rapist, and the hearings had to be started over again.  Hearings in the Senate on President Trump's impeachment will be used to raise new accusations, for which ANOTHER impeachment in the House will be "necessary."

Ain't happening.


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Stop lying, Comrade. 

Hunter Biden was never under investigation which means Joe Biden wasn't holding up the billion dollars to stop an investigation into his son.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

B. Kidd said:


> Biffy boy; you're howling at the moon.


So when I post screen shots of trump circle jerkers opining about how witnesses will be called in the Senate that will totally clear Trump...

Is that still "howling at the moon"

Or is that just shit you say when its too hard for you to admit Trumpers are full of shit??


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Because witnesses are never presented during jury deliberations.


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Biffy boy; you're howling at the moon.
> ...



I don't speak for this mental subset of yours that you refer to as 'Trump circle jerkers'.
Their take you mention isn't mine.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.


 O ly because Trtump blocked his people.

Are you claiming all the witnesses who testified were not Republicans?

That there were no Republicans asking questions?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 I thought this was a trial?  You crybabies need to get better informed.

If the Senators are jurors, why is trump funneling campaign cash to them?


----------



## blastoff (Dec 20, 2019)

Witnesses to what?  

The House dims cobbled together two articles of impeachment.  Time to present them to the Senate and see where the chips fall.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

B. Kidd said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...


Yes, you do......not my fault you don't like the stench......

Maybe you should re-evaluate the company you keep...

Now do you care to address why the GOP is preventing Trump from having witnesses testify,like Trump said he wanted?


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



I already did.
Re-read your thread.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...





Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


wtf are you investigating? We heard read the transcript! They all said under oath it was accurate,, how the hell can a man that Sweats blacks be concerned about fake news, white democrats continue to destroy African American lives??  This phone call is the down fall of America but the education democrats provide people of color is ok lol you are so fake it’s ridiculous


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


^^ hissy fit ^^


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


The enemy of America would:

- Overthrow our leader
- Censor our free speech
- Disarm our citizens

I also just described the Democrat party.


----------



## Camp (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.


They didn't get to call all their witnesses. IMPOTUS (IMpeached President of the United States) blocked and forbade witnesses from appearing, hence, Article II, Obstruction of Congress.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Got cha exposed


----------



## theHawk (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


How can they call any witnesses if the House is too chickenshit to send the impeachment bill over to the Senate?


----------



## CWayne (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


It is NOT in the Senate, and btw, it won't be until next year.


----------



## theHawk (Dec 20, 2019)

Camp said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.
> ...



How did he prevent them from testifying?
Why aren’t they being jailed for failure to comply to Congressional subpoena?

Can you provide an example of who was “forbidden” from testifying?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Camp said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.
> ...


There is no statutory authority for the made up crime of obstruction of congress.  The house brings the charges.  It is supposed to be bipartisan but wasn't.  The senate acts as the jury.  The jury deliberates the Chief Justice acts as the judge.  In no case, circumstance or instance have witnesses been presented during jury deliberations.  Even if they didn't get to call all the witnesses they wanted to call.

Democommiecrats sent the testimony of dozens of partisan loyalists, professors and self described experts to give opinions and testify about their feelings.  Now, at this late date, they realize that there isn't a fact between them.


----------



## The Purge (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


That was the zHouses job, NOT THE SENATE


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

The Purge said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


No dumb ass.....why are you people so abysmally stupid??

*"The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private."*

Are you saying the Constitution is lying??

Are you saying that once someone is indicted, there shouldn't be any witnesses or a trial -- just move to conviction or acquittal? 

Where in the constitution does it say that??


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Lol no one thinks the conversation was law breaking just go away


----------



## Camp (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Don't try to lecture Americans about Impeachment comrade. You are obviously uneducated on the subject. No statutory or codified law is needed for impeachment.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



A defendant has no requirement to produce witnesses to defend himself in our system of justice, Biff!  We require prosecutors PROVE that a crime has been committed...not that defendants prove that a crime DIDN'T occur!
The GOP Senate Leader is calling for EXACTLY the same process that was employed during the Clinton impeachment!  Democrats are resisting that because let's be honest...they failed miserably at proving any crime took place between Trump and the Ukrainian government!


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Camp said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats had their completely partisan hearing.  They  called all their unfair and very partisan opinion witnesses.  They don't get to call witnesses during jury deliberations.
> ...


Nonsense.  There is no proceeding the this nation where witnesses don't have to appear.   If democrats wanted a witness to appear they had only to ask the Supreme Court for an order to compel appearance.  If necessary a federal marshal would execute a body attachment.   Trying to cry and say Republicans wouldn't let them has to be garbage fit only for democrat consumption.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Impeachments are not criminal trials, you do understand that right??


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Trump is the one who wants those witnesses to appear...

Or was he lying....as usual


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


So you admit your but hurt lol oops it slipped ha


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.


They have: an open/shut case for obstruction.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Do you see that part at the beginning where it says that each side can call witnesses and cross examine?   Do you see the part where the managers act as prosecutors and the other side can mount a defense?  That's what is supposed to happen in the house, the proceeding that we just had.   Now presenting the case is over.  It goes to the senate who acts as the jury.  Witnesses are not presented during jury deliberations.

The mistake the public is making is that they thought that the house hearings was in the nature of a grand jury proceeding where defense witnesses and cross examination was not permitted.  They thought that the real trial would come when it went to the senate.  They thought wrong.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



Here is what the Impeachment manager from the Clinton impeachment had to say...since you were idiotic enough to bring up the Clinton impeachment...

*“I certainly believe that witnesses are appropriate,” said former republican, Bill McCollum. “Both sides should be able to select a certain number and that those key witnesses should be subpoenaed and come forward and testify.”*

*Clinton impeachment manager on Trump Senate trial: 'Key witnesses should ... come forward and testify'*

In case you dumb asses forgot...witnesses were called during the Clinton impeachment.....but let's go deeper in what happened since you wanna bring it up...

*"When it was Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, to investigate the Clintons' business deals. The investigation later expanded to include a probe of Clinton's testimony in a sexual harassment case and his grand jury testimony about an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." * <<-- in other words, Clinton didn't try to fire his AG or shut down the investigation or threaten to investigate Kenneth Starr....

*"In 1998, several witnesses were called, including Lewinsky. They were interviewed by the House impeachment managers, and the videos were played during the Senate trial."*

*The differences between Trump's impeachment and Clinton's*


So I am going to ask again...what happened to all of that "rah rah" talk about how Trump will call witnesses and drop bombshell evidence in the Senate trial that will totally own the Dems?? Was it bullshit or not?? You can't talk all that shit these past few weeks and then say "just kidding, tee-hee"


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Why is Pelosi so afraid of sending the articles of impeachment to the senate?

The answer to the OP's question is simple. The jury doesn't call witnesses in a case. The senates job is to determine guilt or innocence based on the house's arguments against the POTUS. Not to just continue the house bullshit in the senate.

If Trump couldn't defend himself in the house, then why should the liberals get to call witnesses in the senate? Fuck 'em. You want unfair? We can do unfair.

Some of you mother fuckers need a real civics lesson.

Any liberals wish to answer this question? Chucky himself said the case put forth by the house is very strong. If so, WHY DOES HE NEED MORE WITNESSES?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Camp said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


There is when you claim a law has been violated.

This impeachment is based on the one fact that they they want to undo the 2016 election.


----------



## 007 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


The HYPOCRISY of this thread is absolutely MIND NUMBING.

But then, the democrat party is the party of trash, and HYPOCRISY, LYING, CHEATING, they don't care, they have no shame, they'll do or say any corrupt, mind boggling hypocritical thing under the sun as if it's as normal as apple pie, to play their game.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

007 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Let me know when you can tell me why Mitch McConnell is not calling witnesses like Trump asked him to....

I don't give a fuck about your hissy fit...either address the question or shut the fuk up


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



When you can answer why Chucky is asking for more witnesses in the same speech that he said "the house has a very strong case against the president."  If it's so strong, why continue with more witnesses? And since when does the jury call witnesses? That's the houses job. They failed to let the POTUS defend himself so fuck 'em. The senate belongs to the republicans and now the liberals are whining like little babies when they can't get their way yet accused republicans of doing the same during the scam impeachment hearings.

If liberals weren't hypocritical shithead assholes, they wouldn't be anything at all. 

Why were they in such a fucking hurry to vote for impeachment and then sit on the articles? What a bunch of fucking losers.

You people are going to get shellacked in November.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Actually Biff the option belongs to trump and mcconnell 

you are the one throwing a hissy fit because you didnt get your way


----------



## dannyboys (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...


'Bell Curve Biff'


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Here is what you dic suckers were saying during the House proceedings.....anytime a witness that was relevant to the Ukrainian call and the extortion efforts associated with it -- all we heard was "but but, they didn't have DIRECT KNOWLEDGE, waah waah waah"

So I assume that if the witnesses with this DIRECT KNOWLEDGE were to testify, that would matter more to you right?? Or were you just whining just to be whining....

And who were these witnesses that had this DIRECT KNOWLEDGE??  Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giulani.....so now you are saying that hearing from witnesses with DIRECT KNOWLEDGE will be a bad thing for Trump...why??


----------



## 007 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


I haven't seen many of your posts, and now I'm glad I haven't. I see you're border line too STUPID to even debate with.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

007 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


So you are saying hearing from witnesses with direct knowledge of the effort to extort Ukraine would hurt Trump...got it...I agree...

and so does Mitch McConnell.....


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Because I thought he would have to defend himself against a crime of........."bribery"....you know,
an actual crime. 
But, nope......just a made up crime.
wake up....Biff


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



And I'll ask again...why should anyone have to produce witnesses to prove something that the prosecution has failed EPICALLY to prove?  The burden isn't on Trump to provide witnesses.  It was on the Democrats trying to impeach him to do that!  That was what the House "hearings" were supposed to do!  Instead they showed just how little the Democrats were basing their charges on...hearsay and politically biased opinions!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Direct witnesses like the President of the Ukraine who has stated repeatedly that in his opinion no Quid Pro Quo was ever asked for?  THAT kind of witness with direct knowledge?


----------



## 007 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Are you REALLY this STUPID?

As it's been pointed out here to you MANY times ALREADY, calling witnesses and PROVING a crime was little bug eyed, pixie lipped, pencil necked Adam ScHITs's job. HE is the one you should be mad at if you want MORE WITNESSES, because the time for that is over.

What part about that don't you get?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Since the Democrats refused to let Republicans call the witnesses THEY wanted to hear from when Adam Schiff was putting on his little "show trial" over in the House...why should the GOP help Nancy Pelosi in ANY way now?  This has never been about getting to the truth in this matter, Biff!  If it were then we'd know whether there was something corrupt happening between the Biden's and the Ukraine and whether Trump was justified in asking for an investigation!


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...


They do not care about right and wrong just party. Note that no right side post even remotely answers the question posed. Just shumers a nazi or other bull shit having nothing to do with the discusion. Do not dispair, at this laugh at it. It's funny when you think about it. Resting arguments on nothing is pretty funny. You know how stupid they look and they do not care.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

When did obstruction of CONGRESS become a crime.....anyone?


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

evenflow1969 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


I answered it. You know how stupid you sound when reading your post?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Realy have not got to it yet. I will most likely laugh at you too. I am still reading I will get to you should be a good laugh I am looking forward to it.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



It is all politics and that is why the votes in the House went the way they did and that is why in the Senate the vote will go the way it is predicted to go.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


So therefore, impeachment should be removed from the constitution because after all...its all politics...big deal.....

Until someone you don't worship gets back in office..then suddenly you will be back to carrying around your little pocket constitutions whining about the rule of law...


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


So is post 16 your answer?  If so I was right I am laughing!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


I use criminal trial as a reference because you dic suckers keep whining about due process, facing accusers, blah blah...all shit relative to criminal trials...

So if that is truly important to you, stand on it....call witnesses that you feel will "OWN THE LIBS"  or shut the fuck up


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Ok blackface calm
Down ,, point to where in that conversation hurt you


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



I see it for what it is. With Clinton it was the same deal. You knew the House would impeach and the Senate didn’t have the votes to convict. Gabbard had the right idea, censure him and put an end to the posturing. The longer this plays out the worse it is for America and if the holds the articles for long, them Democrats will look worse to independents. I’m voting Gabbard, she is at least sane. Trump and the rest of the Democrats are nothing but grandstanders and ego stokers. They are supposed to serve the American people, they only serve themselves.


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Liar, they didn't all say it was accurate. At least one person on the call who testified stated it was incomplete.

Like I always say,  if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


Oh, so you support her Medicare For All plan...cool...

Tulsi strongly supports the Medicare for All Act and serves on the Medicare for All Caucus
Tulsi believes that our present healthcare system is organized by and for the benefit of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies and not the American people, which must be changed
We pay far more in this country on healthcare costs than any other country in the world and get worse results. Far too many Americans in this country are sick and unable to get the care they need.
Tulsi supports Medicare for all to make sure that every American gets quality healthcare - we must also focus on reducing the cost of healthcare overall, preventive health, bring down cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate those prices down, and ensure transparency so people know exactly what the cost is and what they’re paying for.
Tulsi believes that the Affordable Care act was a step in the right direction, but points out that issues remain with the number of uninsured and high costs related to deductibles, copayments for medical services, and prescription drugs

Medicare for All


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



She supports bringing America together. She is not going to be abrasive, like Trump and Warren, she is not going to be senile and forgetful like Biden or Sanders. I can see her reaching across the aisle unlike the others. She is willing to compromise, she is willing to work for America. I don't see any other candidate that will work for America.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


What did that "one person" say that was left out?


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

evenflow1969 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...


Not a good reader, apparently, not surprising....but no, you are wrong.
I answered the question directly....keep reading.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Witnesses for what?  You twits made no case for a crime with what was voted on..
I think it's about time for YOU to STFU.  You can't even make a case for them.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...





Meister said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


I have shit to do I go out to sea on jan 2 for four months gotta get my shit done before I disappear. I will get to it.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

evenflow1969 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Take care of yourself and stay safe, evenflow1969.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I prefer being on the water. I get out there and do not think about politics one littel bit. Just the job at hand. It is a simple way to live and peace full
PS. Thank you for your concern I will be ultra carefull 60 man crew all must come home.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Why is Pelosi so afraid of sending the articles of impeachment to the senate?


She isn't, and she is going to do so. 

Thanks for the dumb question, though. If you want to see "fear", see the obstructionist child president.


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Don't need any witnesses.   We know the evidence.  Nothing new was presented in the House.

There is nothing here.

Maybe you missed it, but the country is built on innocent until proven guilty.  Not guilty until proven innocent.

The Democraps have to prove their case.  We don't need to.  There is nothing here, that we need a witness to disprove.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> When did obstruction of CONGRESS become a crime.....anyone?


It has been quite a while now. 

18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Why does the Defendant have to provide the evidence of his or her innocence?

When did it become guilty before innocent?

Imagine a Judge told you that you are guilty now prove you are innocent and how quickly you would scream foul!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Why does the Defendant have to provide the evidence of his or her innocence?


He doesn't. But if he had it, he should and would, don't you think?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Why didn't the democrats go to court to get more witnesses...what are they afraid of?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the Defendant have to provide the evidence of his or her innocence?
> ...



No, and why?

Simple, it is the Democrats job to make an ironclad case of his guilt so that the Nation and Senate will be behind the Conviction and Removal...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



The courts telling them no...

And

It would go past the 2020 election and the Democrats are afraid they could lose power in the House...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Democrats forgot that once a case goes to the jury no witnesses are called.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> No, and why?


Haha....WHAT?! If you were a defendant, you wouldn't present evidence of your innocence...like, an alibi, or a blood sample...if you had it?

Dude, Trump has turned your brain to tapioca.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Democrats forgot that once a case goes to the jury no witnesses are called.


An idiotic post. The proceedings in the Senate are a TRIAL.

Get that through your heads.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



THIS IS NOT A TRIAL IN A COURT OF LAW!  

 When politicians are permitted to abuse their power and obstruct justice, WE ALL END UP PAYING THE PRICE. 

Bill Clinton was investigated...in FULL VIEW OF THE WORLD and he fucking testified UNDER OATH IN FULL VIEW OF THE WORLD. Then was Impeached for lying under oath. 

Trump has ABSOLUTELY DONE WORSE THINGS here. Why can’t we get his ass under oath and on TV? Because it ain’t fair?

Fuck that.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Looney Laughter is losing it over that Trump has refused to be put under oath!

You say Trump has done worst than Clinton and yet I remember on the eve of Clinton Impeachment vote he bombed Iraq...

Yeah, Trump is a piece of shit but Clinton was no better and if you believe he was then you are nothing more than a partisan nutter!


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


TESTIMONY FOR WHAT WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT THAT EVERY DEMOCRAT WITNESS SAID WAS ACCURATE! What do you need a American translator!? I’ll tell you what it said ! NOTHING  move on get a life, do you really want America to be run by republicans? It’s heading that way, get back to being American democrats before you all need up in a mental insane asylum


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Looney Laughter is losing it over that Trump has refused to be put under oath!


And you don't think a defendant should or would present evidence of his own innocence in a trial.

We will let the audience decide which is dumber. (Easy call)


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > No, and why?
> ...



So assholes like you believe someone is guilty until proven innocent... I do know that is the Amerika of today and that everyone is guilty until proven innocent but the fact is it is your side that has to have the ironclad evidence to support your Impeachment and noticed Pelosi is chicken to send it to the Senate.

Why didn't Pelosi wait until the courts ruling?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> So assholes like you believe someone is guilty until proven innocent..


That has literally nothing to do with a word I said, you stupid shit.

Haha, you said something very very stupid, and i think you know it.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Looney Laughter is losing it over that Trump has refused to be put under oath!
> ...


The conversation was released lol THAT IS THE TESTIMONY LOL 
I can answer any question you have


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Looney Laughter is losing it over that Trump has refused to be put under oath!
> ...



Wow troll!

When will Pelosi send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?

Most likely never and I hope you get arrested and are told you are guilty and you need to prove you are innocent...

Remember you need to prove you are innocent according to you...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...




Moron....bill clinton lied under oath in a lawsuit......bill clinton was caught having his underlings lie under oath for him.....you moron......he actually committed a crime, Trump hasn't done anything wrong, you doofus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Haha, trying to change the subject again. Lets review the retarded shit you said:

A defendant in a trial, if he had evidence of his own innocence, should not and would not present it.

Okay, professor!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > So assholes like you believe someone is guilty until proven innocent..
> ...



Fuck off troll because you stated he must provide the evidence to prove he is innocent and it was your trolling ass that said the dumbest shit ever!

Want to go over what you wrote liar?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Hey dipshit it is your job to prove someone guilty and not their job to prove they are innocent you lying piece of white trash!

Trump does not have to provide a damn thing and it is your party job to prove he is guilty!


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > When did obstruction of CONGRESS become a crime.....anyone?
> ...


Obstruction of justice, got it.
Now, be specific as to obstruction of congress.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Fuck off troll because you stated he must provide the evidence to prove he is innocent


Well that's a stupid lie.

See what trump has done to your brain? I didnt say anything even resembling that. You are absolutely rabid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Obstruction of justice, got it.


Then no, you don't "got it". Try reading it again. That is, for the first time, since clearly you did not read it.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Also you are the one that asked the question and got upset about the answer, so why lie?

You already have found Trump guilty...

I bet you still believe Trump said " Do me a favor " and that the favor was to investigate Joe Biden, right?

I also bet you did not listen to the entire House hearings where each and every one of them stated for a fact they thought but had no hard evidence so it was their opinion!

So where is your evidence of his guilt in the first place?

Also you must allow the courts to run the cases through first before you can go for Obstruction of Congress and believe it or not I was the first poster to state that is what your political party was aiming for and was laughed at by the left!

So it is your job to prove he is guilty and not his job to prove he is innocent!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 20, 2019)

Hey, Bruce_T_Laney, has Trump done something wrong re:Ukraine?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck off troll because you stated he must provide the evidence to prove he is innocent
> ...



You are lying!

Funny how you wrote shouldn't he provide evidence to show he is innocent and now you will claim you never even wrote thay!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Also you are the one that asked the question and got upset about the answer


i didn't get upset. Your answer was utterly retarded, and I mocked it.

You are rabid. Go re-read, breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes, then see if you have a better answer.

Do you want me to restate it, or can you figure out how to find it by your big boy self?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> You are lying!


A shameless, stupid lie in itself, as anyone can read for themselves.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

This is all political theater


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hey, Bruce_T_Laney, has Trump done something wrong re:Ukraine?



Was he impeached for that?

No, he was Impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress!

You have to prove the favor was to investigate Joe Biden and as of now it is just others opinion they thought that is what he wanted but he never said clearly it was.

Rudy need to testify under oath!


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Obstruction of justice, got it.
> ...


There is no obstruction of congress, there is obstruction of justice.
Why didn't they charge Trump with obstruction of justice?
There are reasons.....they wouldn't win that case like they wouldn't have won a bribery or quid pro quo case, either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> This is all political theater



Hmm, no , that can't be right. There are two, opposing claims. One must be correct.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> There is no obstruction of congress, there is obstruction of justice.


100% wrong, per the code of law i was nice enough to spoonfeed to you.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > You are lying!
> ...



Why do you keep on cutting what I wrote?

Simple, because it prove you are lying.

Did you or did you not ask me if Trump should provide evidence to prove he is not guilty?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Did you or did you not ask me if Trump should provide evidence to prove he is not guilty?


Good god man, you are a rabid fool.

The first word of my post was to agree with you that defendants don't have to provide evidence of innocence.

The first word.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Did you or did you not ask me if Trump should provide evidence to prove he is not guilty?
> ...



Fuck you!

You just stated that I am an idiot for saying no, so you are lying you pathetic piece of shit!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Bruce_T_Laney, has Trump done something wrong re:Ukraine?
> ...



You honestly don't think that evidence was provided that proves Trump's intent was to hold aide and a meeting until an announcement of investigations into Biden was made? 

Honestly?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > This is all political theater
> ...


Subjectivity. You see red and I see green. No one cares what the actual color is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> You just stated that I am an idiot for saying no,


Because you would be an idiot for saying "no" to the question i asked. It seems clear that, despite my attempt to use the simplest lamguage possible, you still don't even know what question I asked.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > There is no obstruction of congress, there is obstruction of justice.
> ...


You spoon fed obstruction of justice.


Chapter 73. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Section 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



If she runs as a Democrat she's a Democrat, and would drag the party into office with her, which is unacceptable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Subjectivity. You see red and I see green.


Oh, sorry, that's not going to cut it. You either see red, or you see green. So you agree with one of the opposing, mutually exclusive claims. So, which one is it, for you?


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Do you care joe Biden did!? Then we don’t care trump did move on


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> You spoon fed obstruction of justice.


False, and you never read a word of my link, obviously.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Yes people, obstruction of congress is a crime. 

18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



My opinion matter not!

You have to prove that was his intent with his own words and there is nothing from him!

The favor was for Crowdstrike and later he spoke of Biden!

What I believe matter not!

Fact is even one witness stated he wanted nothing when pressured into an answer...

So it is the opinion of the witnesses that he wanted it and you have to have Rudy testify under oath to prove he ( Trump ) is lying or Rudy will fall on the sword...

My opinion matter not if I think he is guilty of Obstruction of Congress...

In the end he was not impeached for the bribery but Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress and both will be tossed...

Why?

The Democrats jumped too quickly on the Obstruction and did not let it play through the courts...

The Abuse of Power, every President since Jefferson has been guilty of that except maybe Madison...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Subjectivity. You see red and I see green.
> ...


I do not see abuse of power and I dont see how an Executive Branch can obstruct Congress. This is a partisan hack job.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Well, now that poor Brucie has stroked out, let's see if someone else wants to tackle the question:

If a defendant did, indeed, possess evidence of his own innocence, shouldn't or wouldn't he present this evidence at trial?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



OK. That's enough. 

Please remind me if I ever forget myself and respond to something you post in a serious manner. You're not worth it. I misjudged you. 

Merry Christmas


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You spoon fed obstruction of justice.
> ...


Look at the heading of your link......clearly states obstruction of justice
Dude, you have to be precise here as it has relevance.   The dems couldn't have won THAT argument
because of the three branches, they just wanted it to remain in the purview of just two branches.
Trump wanted all three which is his prerogative


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I do not see abuse of power and I dont see how an Executive Branch can obstruct Congress.


Gotcha. So, you think the republicans are correct. So, not all theater.

An executive branch can obstruct congress by refusing to comply with their subpoenas, of course. From where are you drawing your legal opinion, considering that precedent contradicts you?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



Incorrect, there are many that care about if Hunter Biden did something wrong or not when working for the Ukranian company.

As for Joe Biden the order actually never came from him but Obama himself along with members of the E.U., so if you are going after Biden you need to go after Obama.

As for Trump and what he did was wrong when he mentioned Biden in that conversation. 

Biden is a political opponent and remember how you and the right are upset with the FBI investigation of Trump campaign, well then you should be upset with Trump mentioning Biden that is a political opponent. 

In the end it is my opinion Trump was wrong but should he be impeached?

No!

Why?

Simple, if had not Impeached other Presidents that lied us into wars and got millions killed then Trump abuse of power is nothing he should be impeached for...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Look at the heading of your link......clearly states obstruction of justice


False. Nowehere in the law or the code title of the law is that phrase mentioned. It specifically refers to obstructing various congressional proceedings, to wit: "any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—"

Like I said...you didn't read a word of it. Despite begging for it. Curious.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes people, obstruction of congress is a crime.
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees



There was no obstruction.  Only a dispute that the Democrats could have resolved in court.  They chose not to.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see abuse of power and I dont see how an Executive Branch can obstruct Congress.
> ...


From Alan Dershowitz. I just think the people should decide.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> There was no obstruction. Only a dispute that the Democrat


Well that was a quick lane change.

So, you claim there was no obstruction. Fascinating! Now, could you argue that claim, as it relates to the letter of the law i posted? Take your time.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 20, 2019)

I think the better question is why is Pelousy afraid to send the articles of impeachment to the senate?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> From Alan Dershowitz


Haha, oh yeah? And what is his argument? I asked for a "legal opinion", not just an opinion. 

Does he even have one? If he does, why haven't the republicans bothered to try it out? Seems odd, no?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I think the better question is why is Pelousy afraid to send the articles of impeachment to the senate?


Answer: she isn't, and she will send the articles to the senate.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > From Alan Dershowitz
> ...


They will if the vote ever goes to the Senate. His opinion is a legal opinion. He is a Democrat and a Clinton supporter and he thinks this is stupid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > I think the better question is why is Pelousy afraid to send the articles of impeachment to the senate?
> ...



  Then whats the hold up?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

LoneLaugher said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



What do you mean?

What has Trump ever done that make you believe he should have been impeached?

The Obstruction of Congress is a bullshit charge and will be used in the future when a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office and Republicans hold the House!

Abuse of Power has been done by every President since Jefferson with maybe the exception of Madison...

FDR, LBJ, Lincoln and yes even Jefferson abused their power and so did Reagan, Bush Jr., and Teddy Roosevelt and yet Trump abuse was far worst than their's?

Was it wrong for Trump to mention Biden?

Yes, and will never deny that but was it wrong enough to Impeach Trump?

No!

Censure was the best course of action and you know this and why?

Senate was never going to Convict and Remove Trump and let be clear more people died from LBJ abuse of power than Trump abuse of power!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > There was no obstruction. Only a dispute that the Democrat
> ...



No argument is necessary.  A co-equal branch of government may challenge another.  What do you not understand?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> They will if the vote ever goes to the Senate.


Haha...by what reasoning? They have bloviated and speechified their brains out, both in congress and to reporters. Yet not one single dispute of the evidence or one legal argument that trump is not guilty of the charges in the articles. Sorry man, I dont believe that you actually believe that.

Dershowitz's simple opinion is most certainly not a "legal opinion". You should probably abandon that silly point.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the heading of your link......clearly states obstruction of justice
> ...


*CHAPTER 73 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE   SECTION 1505............*
Nowhere is mentioned Obstruction of Congress.

Go back and you read your source.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> argument is necessary.


Haha, maybe to a guy like you. But, in an actual defense at trial, or when supporting claims in crowds of educated adults, simply screaming the claim over and over doesn't cut it.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > They will if the vote ever goes to the Senate.
> ...


Not how I saw it. In the end he was convicted on subjectivity. Bush was way worse for lying about WMDs and no impeachment. This was 100% partisan. Now you’re saying my opinion is wrong and that you’re more of a constitutional expert than Alan Dershowitz? Stop it.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I think the better question is why is Pelousy afraid to send the articles of impeachment to the senate?



The answer is simple the Nation is split if Trump should be Convicted and Removed.

Pelosi knows if it get shot down in the Senate most will forget about this and just focus on the 2020 election, so she need to keep this alive as long as she can.

The best thing McConnell and Trump can do is take up all the House Bills sitting in the Senate and vote on them and pass them to Trump to veto and then tell Pelosi they lack the Senate vote to override the Veto...

That will send her into a mental midget fit you will love to watch!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Nowhere is mentioned Obstruction of Congress.


Except for very explicitly, in the law i posted to you, which you not only never read (despite begging for someone to spoonfeed it to you), but which you also have repeatedly attempted to misrepresent.

Hey look, here it is again!:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

"


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere is mentioned Obstruction of Congress.
> ...


It falls under Obstruction of Justice, which should have been their Article of Impeachment...but, they knew better


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the Defendant have to provide the evidence of his or her innocence?
> ...



So your argument is that all defendant's need to prove their innocence or they are to be presumed guilty?  That goes counter to our ENTIRE legal system!  

Interesting what you on the left are now willing to flush down the toilet in your jihad against Donald Trump, Fort!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



No, he is just saying " Trump " has to and no one else or he is asking shouldn't they prove they are innocent...

Now let you play his stupid game...


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Ah, so certain people are granted the legal rights that all Americans have...but not conservatives?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



BINGO, we have a winner!

If you are a Conservative then your rights are voided and whatever crime happen you are guilty and must provide the evidence you are innocent and even then that evidence that exonerates you can be rejected if the left just want someone to hang for their enjoyment...

The left believe in guilty and do not care if you are or not...


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Anybody explain why Trumpers are backtracking on calling all of those witnesses they were talking about calling??


Or are they still trying to claim that trials aren't for witnesses??


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


LOL 

Sure, move on. And take Impeached Trump with ya.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Is that what Republicans had to do during the Clinton impeachment?

What happened to all this talk from you dic suckers about calling all of these witnesses??

And why hasn't the Civil War happened yet?? Wasn't that what you morons promised if Trump got impeached??


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Will you charge Biden with bribery?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Why should Trump move on?

He has yet to have a trial in the Senate, so until then he stays until convicted and removed, elected out or term limits catch him...

That is America...


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Not until you can prove he gained personally  by getting Shokin fired.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > argument is necessary.
> ...



Fiddling with the quotes, eh?

Actually "No argument is necessary."


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 did his son Get prosecuted?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Joe Biden is guilty tho right?? of something....

Skip the investigation, evidence, witnesses....just convict him....

When do you think Bill Barr will get around to it?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Nope.....

I heard Bill Barr has access to prosecutors and stuff....maybe you can get with him....if you have some evidence too, that would be cool...


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So joe didn’t gain anything? His son didn’t get investigated that’s not a gain?? Ummmm what


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


For what? He was never investigated.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Mic drop hehe


----------



## bodecea (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


The jury foreman doesn't brag about working closely with the defendant either.


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Neither one gained anything.


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Thanks for admitting you have no clue. Next time though, try not dropping the Mike on your own head.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

bodecea said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...



There currently is no defendant.  There is no trial.  There is no jury.  There is no impeachment.

There is only a Democrat roadshow, which may or may not appear at the Senate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> It falls under Obstruction of Justice,


Neat! What it also does is delineate obstruction of congress as a crime. Give it up dude, you're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> So your argument is that all defendant's need to prove their innocence or they are to be presumed guilty?


No. Goddamn people, read more slowly, or something.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Fiddling with the quotes, eh?


No, the highlighted part jumps around for me sometimes. Not intentional. I menat to quote what you quoted. As I think would seem obvious from my comments regarding it.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > It falls under Obstruction of Justice,
> ...


Get a law degree. They were deliberate with the wording for a reason.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


That makes no sense whatsoever. All you have done is just whine that obstruction of congress is one variant of obstruction of justice. Which does not support your, by now, completely failed point that there is no law against obstruction of Congress. I obliterated that point with a minimum of effort.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Why are you so focused on male oral sex? You and boot-edge-edge got a little something going on under the table we don't know about?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Fiddling with the quotes, eh?
> ...



I take nothing for granted with you people.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Pelosi so afraid of sending the articles of impeachment to the senate?
> ...



If shes not afraid why is she sitting on them? She rushed through the impeachment and then held the articles? WTF? I thought it was so important to get him the fuck out ASAP?


----------



## whitehall (Dec 20, 2019)

Why didn't democrats call witnesses when they had the chance? The investigation is over. Now the Senate has to judge the case on the evidence presented (if that ever happens).


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 20, 2019)

Nancy Pelosi wants guarantees that there will be a conviction.  She is not going to get any guarantee period.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> If shes not afraid why is she sitting on them


To try to get an agreement to call witnesses. This is literally all over the news.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

whitehall said:


> Why didn't democrats call witnesses when they had the chance?


Uh....they did..lots of them...what a bizarre post...


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Because I know how fragile minded you idiots are

also, the extent that you morons bend the knee in your sycophancy for Trump -- it is definitely very fruity....almost cuckold like....

I also noticed you ain't explained to me how you morons can go from talking all this shit about all of the witnesses you were gonna call in a Senate trial -- to now being scared shit less to call Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, etc.....you can call Biden and his son too if you feel they will help exonerate trump....but you won't

You can call Adam Schiff, Pelosi, Pelosi's grandchildren, Obama's neighbors, anyone you like...if you think it will help exonerate Trump....but you won't


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


 Not buying it for a second.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Not buying it for a second


Irrelevant. The law states what it states, regardless of your cultish beliefs.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Biff has surfer knees and doesn't surf.

He comes back like that because I called him out on his own post.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Not buying it for a second
> ...


The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.  This time
they lost the support of the Independents in the polls.  What the nex


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Not buying it for a second
> ...


Yup, and they never could have nailed an Obstruction of Justice on him and they will lose the 
obstruction of congress.


----------



## Faun (Dec 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Impeachment is done.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

whitehall said:


> Why didn't democrats call witnesses when they had the chance? The investigation is over. Now the Senate has to judge the case on the evidence presented (if that ever happens).


They called.  Trump said no.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Was he going to get prosecuted?

You have no fucking clue.

Why didn't the Republican House & Senate investigate?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


You seem to have nothing but insults

trump does not need to call witnesses 

you have to prove  he did something wrong


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 20, 2019)

Faun said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes, but not as you think.


----------



## Intolerant (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


He’s a wigger mang.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2019)

Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.

The Republicans whined that there was no "first hand" testimony.

So their solution?  Refuse to allow first hand testimony to be given.

Why not?

Either they are afraid of what it might reveal or....

they are afraid of what it might reveal.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> 
> The Republicans whined that there was no "first hand" testimony.
> 
> ...



They didn't realize how badly the house would fail at proving their case. They don't need witnesses. The senate isn't just rehashing the house escapade. You people don't understand how this works. If they don't want to call witnesses they don't have to. Especially when they can easily see that they will just vote to dismiss this silly bunch of crap as soon as it hits the senate floor AND NANCY PELOSER KNOWS THIS. 

The left was totally fine with a biased and unfair house impeachment hearing. But they are now crying like little babies now that they found out what's good for the goose will be good for the gander in the senate.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> ...



So, all the Democrat evidence from all those witnesses is what they will base their judgement?

You know that is not true.  They don't want witnesses because they will vote Trump instead of country like the America haters they are.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

RealDave said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



THAT IS THEIR JOB. It is not to continue the case. The trial is based on the HOUSE findings.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Why did Democrats limit to the point of exclusion Republican witnesses?

Why can't Democrats use a fair process to Impeach?

Why can't Democrats accept who won the 2016 presidential election?

Why doesn't the House recognize it was their job to uncover witnesses and have them testify?

Why does the House ignore a Supreme Court ruling that keeps the Executive and Legislative bodies separate by protecting executive advisers to the president from testifying in cases like this?

Why can't the Democrats follow simple well established rules of law and the Constitution?

I guess we just have to accept they're stupid and uninformed power hungry losers.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Because it will show the Republican Senate for the Trump Humpin, spineless, cowards they are.   Because is Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton willing to lie under oath.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> ...






They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 20, 2019)

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2019)

blackhawk said:


> The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.



The Republicans complained - their chief complaint - NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

The WH blocked testimony of those with first hand knowledge.

Now the Republicans have a chance to call them in.

But they won't.

Why?


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> They complained there were no first hand accounts.
> 
> There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.
> 
> ...



They won't call them because the House has the responsibility to uncover the facts, not the Senate.  It is not fear, but standing up for the Constitution's separation of powers.  The Executive branch is not subject to this type of hearing as upheld by the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration.  Do your homework Coyote.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That was the houses job, not theirs. The interviewing and witnesses are over. Now its time for guilt or innocence.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.
> ...



It is not necessary.  As in all real trials there is a presumption of innocence.  The House did not bring forth any evidence of guilt.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > They complained there were no first hand accounts.
> ...



Trump stopped them from coming in, why?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.


When you are done self soothing, go ahead and look at the impeachment poll numbers for nixon and Clinton. Compare them to Trump's. Big difference.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> trump does not need to call witnesses


But he would, if they would exonerate him. 

Which they won't, so he wont. 

This isn't rocket surgery, professor.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.
> ...



Already compared them.  Republicans in the Nixon case didn't put Nixon above the Constitution.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.
> ...


There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying. The Democrats instead  chose to push ahead with impeachment and not go that route the reason why is simple this is and always has been about politics nothing more.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

blackhawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Save that bullshit, had they gone to court it would have been drug out and you know that the flunkies Trump has put on the court would have covered his ass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

blackhawk said:


> There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.


Which, they opted not to do for reasons of time, and because such a lawsuit was already filed and would be decided. Guess what? The judge ruled that they have to comply.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 20, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Separation of powers.  Presidents typically protect the office from Congressional over reach.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.
> ...



A federal judge, except the Supreme Court says different in an Obama era ruling.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.
> ...


Poll numbers?  That is your reference point for justice?  What a buffoon.
Clinton did break the law, and Nixon did break the law.  The dems had to make up shit for Trump to break the law.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...


The supreme court ruled on executive privilege and congressional demands for information? When? I don't think they have.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 20, 2019)

Meister said:


> Poll numbers? That is your reference point for justice?


No genius, it was my reference point for public opinion, which you brought up.


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 20, 2019)

The Constitution clearly states "The *Senate* shall *have* the *sole* Power to try all Impeachments".

There's that pesky Constitution again getting in the Democrats way with the Electoral College and Impeachment rules and stuff.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Poll numbers? That is your reference point for justice?
> ...


 The numbers are no longer in your favor, that is what I know.  Independents making a swing against libs. 
I think they are getting tired of the "Boy who cried wolf".  We got him, we got him, we got him, ooops we don't have him.
People are finding out that a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets it boot on.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 20, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Save that bullshit you don't like the speed the courts run at to fucking bad it runs at the same speed for Democrats and Republicans I suspect you never gave a shit about judges Obama put on the court being partisan. So spare us all your phony outrage.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



They also try to hide the truth when they had done wrong.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > trump does not need to call witnesses
> ...



Why didn't the dems go to the judicial branch and challenge it in court? Because they knew they had no evidence and it would die a quick death.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

blackhawk said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Come on Trump Humper you know why republicans are whining about the courts, because they are stacked in Trump's favor.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 20, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Remember the phrase elections have consquences dipshit? Remember who said it? Do you remember who made it possible for Trump to get so many judges confirmed when the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed for confirmation from 60 to a simple majority? The answers are Obama after his 2008 win and Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats in 2013.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Because we don’t lynch! We are the good guys.. you guys are eh ones putting 77 year old men in jail to die because trump won.. your sick


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 20, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> 
> The Republicans whined that there was no "first hand" testimony.
> 
> ...


Do you need a link to the transcript?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 20, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



There is nothing good about you, he shouldn't have broke the law.  You think because you are white you are above the law. So who is really sick.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Lol says the back democrat haha you are insane


----------



## Penelope (Dec 21, 2019)

blackhawk said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Harry Reid on did it for the obstruction of the Republicans and  did not include Scotus, so what did tramp do, decide nuclear option was good for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, they are illegitimate judges,  Garland was up for the supreme court, remember McConnell did even give him the time of day.

Elections do have consequences and I hope the Democrats prove that to you, control of the WH and control of the congress.


----------



## Penelope (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> ...



No and its a memo.  tramp needs only to look in the mirror and see his accuser.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Penny the Braintrust's Signature: "Ukrainegate is WORST than Watergate"

proving why Leftists believe what they believe


----------



## Penelope (Dec 21, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



He should look on TV as well, and he can see himself saying , Yes China should investigate the Bidens too, along with Ukraine. (I do not have the exact words of what he said, but yes he did say that)


----------



## wamose (Dec 21, 2019)

When the game is over, it's stupid for the winning team to insist on playing another period. At this point it's almost impossible to make the Dems. look any worse. Let Durham finish this thing off and tie the pieces together. Then let the perp walks begin. We're overdue for a good deep state cleansing.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > trump does not need to call witnesses
> ...


 Trump released the transcript

that exonerated him with everyone except the most hard-bitten trump haters


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


And Taylor,  vinderman said it was accurate enjoy


----------



## Penelope (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Taylor and Vindman spoke the truth.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Yes they did about the  phone call the transcript was accurate thank you


----------



## Penelope (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



The memo says tramp is guilty of abuse of power.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Lol ohh ok haha what part hurt your feelings? Haha


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't democrats call witnesses when they had the chance?
> ...



Lot's of them that were embarrassingly bad, Fort!  Adam Schiff didn't prove a crime with any of those witnesses so now Pelosi and Schumer are left begging Mitch McConnell to help them out...like that was ever going to happen!  This whole thing was so ill advised by the far left and so badly handled.  They chose two of the sleaziest Democrats in the House...Schiff and Nadler...to run the hearings...which right from the start told anyone with even a modicum of common sense that they were going to be completely biased...didn't allow the GOP to call witnesses...and had to resort to charging obstruction of justice because Trump wouldn't give up his legal rights.  They claimed it had to be done fast...because supposedly Donald Trump was such a danger to national security...but then they won't send the articles to the Senate?  I'm sorry but the Democrats have made a mockery of the entire process!  They don't have an impeachable offense!  They KNOW they don't have an impeachable offense and yet they're so desperate because of the pitifully weak field of candidates they've got going up against Trump that they've convinced themselves this is the only way to "save" the 2020 elections!  Now the polls are coming out and it's becoming painfully obvious that they've badly misjudged the public's response to their actions!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 21, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




Mr. Turtle isn't going to conduct a witch hunt against his friend and his President, no matter what Chuck and Nancy say.  

They have no leverage really.  The Senate doesn't want the articles of impeachment, so threatening not to deliver them isn't a viable threat.  Its like someone stealing dog poop off your lawn and looking to try and get you to pay to get it back.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 21, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I don't think Nancy ever really wanted to impeach Trump!  She's smart enough to know that they don't have an impeachable offense and that there is zero chance of getting a conviction in a GOP controlled Senate trial!  I think she went along with it to appease the liberal far left and the liberal media and now she's stuck with the result.  This is 100% political theatre and it's backfiring on the Democrats in a major way!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 21, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




I don't know about Nancy herself.   But a lot of Libs thought that they would be able to change hearts and minds with their bullshit witch hunt, and the speeches and votes we had earlier this week in the house, and it would get the ball moving.

That's why they kept it on TV ALL DAY and most of the evening, preempting both The Price is Right and Jeopardy for this spectacle.  In fact, after the event was over, the media were packed into Washington DC bars celebrating Impeachmas they were so sure they had succeeded.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


I think what you mean is Reid did it because he didn't like the Republicans were using the power given the minority party to have a say in these things the power both parties have when they are in the minority. When Reid used the nuclear option it was ironically Mitch McConnell who told the Democrats you will regert what you have done here one day and that day might be sooner than you think. As for Garland Mitch McConnell had the authority not to call for a vote on him he rolled the dice on the Preidential election result when Reid used the nuclear option everyone knew the Supreme Court was next it was just a question of who was going to be in control of the Senate when it happened.Yes the Democrats will take advantage of what McConnell did when they get the chance just like the Republicans did with Reid's actions I have said here before when either party does something to give themselves an advantage in the moment they are giving the other party that same advantage down the road.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




Had Mrs. Clinton won the election, Mr. Turtle would have moved Judge Garland through to confirmation before Thanksgiving 2016.

The purpose of holding him up was to respect democracy.

Further, the Garland appointment was to replace Scalia who was whacked just a short time before, had he been confirmed, it would have hurt the fragile balance in the Supreme Court that our democracy counts on.   Both sides should have a chance in the SCOTUS.

The balance would have been out of kilter.


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Meister said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Not true, polls are moving north again since he was impeached. A political poll was 50% before he was impeached but inched up to 52% since...

Poll: Majority approves of Trump's impeachment


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Go figure.  It's hugely confusing.
> ...



You have seen Bolton's transcript?  Mulvaney?  Wow.  You must work miracles or something.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



First off - the purpose was not to respect democracy but to subvert it.  Make no mistake about that because I guarantee the Republicans are not going to step aside and give a SCOTUS nominee to the Dems if the situation arose again.  

Second - the whole thing about balance is bullshit.  The SCOTUS is not supposed to be about PARTISAN balance.  Do you seriously think if Ginsburg leaves they are going hold it open for a liberal nomination?  Seriously?   Where in the constitution does it say anything about partisan balance?


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You want to talk to trumps cabinet about privileged information? Do you have a good reason?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Yes - but how far does that protection stretch?  That was tested in Clinton's impeachment I think...?

It isn't unlimited.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Maybe I'm confused...I thought you guys were demanding first hand knowledge...now you're not?  Make up your minds.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


They have executive privilege you can’t talk to them about what Trump is discussing about foreign relations. Lol We have the transcript.. trump sets Foreign policy if you want to change that have people like you nobody does


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Even Trump is not above the law...you want to set  some dangerous precedents.  What will happen when a Dem is in that seat?


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Lol dude YOU NEED TO HAVE EVIDENCE, give it to the courts.. you have none. Stop undermining the Greatest president that ever lived


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Democrat Hypocrisy:

Obama directed his AG to ignore Congressional subpoenas during the Fast & Furious scandal

An American died as a result of what Obama & Holder tried to cover up

And Democrats STILL didn't call for his impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress"

Outrageous!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Trump Humpers are in a cult, greatest president that ever lived.  Dude you are delusional, please tell me what has he done to earn that label.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Trump has been in office for 3yrs, why has there been no investigations, arrests, indictments, etc.


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Is it too late to impeach him now?


----------



## okfine (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Do you know what a "jit" is?

*jit* (_plural_ *jits*)


(US, originally prison slang, derogatory) An inexperienced, foolhardy young man.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Lol why waste my time ,, you are a black democrat.. do you understand that pretty much means you have a low iq? Do you know history and current events?


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You are a black democrat do your understand you probably have a hard time understanding anything we are saying lol


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

okfine said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


That’s funny! Nice photo shop


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


But charge yes. Hehe


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 21, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If Trump isn't above the law why didn't the articles of impeachment include actual laws that he broke?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 21, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Because it was all political theater.


----------



## okfine (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> okfine said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


You are the fool...

jit - Wiktionary


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> okfine said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Photoshop??

It's right here --> jit - Wiktionary

... see: Etymology 2


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Impeachment is charging. So is it too late to impeach him?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



You are a Trump Humpin idiot.  Answer the question genius if you are so damn smart.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > okfine said:
> ...


Wow I’m popular


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


For what? What are you going to do with that information? Not like you can understand it


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


In prison, yeah.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That to lol


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 21, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



That is the Trump Humpers way of saying, "I don't know what the fuck I am talking about."


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 21, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Umm ok


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Because it's "high crimes and misdemeanors" - there is nothing there about actual laws that were broken.

Trump broke laws with his foundation.  Is that impeachable?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 21, 2019)

Faun said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Politico?  You are getting desperate!


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


LOLOL 

The disapproval of a lying con tool is noted, laughed at and discarded.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 21, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Laughed at and discarded?  That's pretty much what any fair minded person does with polls from Politico, Faun!  When you're using THEM...it's a sign of desperation!


----------



## Faun (Dec 21, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Hisses a lying con tool. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Meanwhile, Impeached Trump remains impeached.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"Impeached" Trump is still President!  "Impeached" Trump is still killing it with the economy!  "Impeached Trump is passing things like the NAFTA redo!  "Impeached" Trump is still leading all of your Democratic candidates!  

"Impeached" Trump is laughing at you, Faun...as am I!


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL

By Impeached Trump's "economy," you mean the one he inherited.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...





Republican Senators are concerned that the Democrat Party might try to use this Fake Impeachment Trial up as a political maneuver. 

I'd be in favor of these witnesses testifying behind closed doors, with snippets favorable to President Trump released to the Media.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You know what I'm going to ask whenever one of you liberals trots THAT graph out, Faun!  It's the same question that all of you struggle mightily to answer!  If Barack Obama was responsible for growing the economy and creating jobs...please show us all the economic policies of his that made that happen!

I can show you exactly what Trump has done to keep the economy going strong.  Can you show me what Barry did?  The truth is...the US economy grew from the point where you Democrats no longer controlled Congress and no longer had the power to pass things like ObamaCare and Cap & Trade legislation!  The US economy grew because of an energy boom created in large part by advances in fracking which you liberals opposed!  So take your silly graphs and run along!


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I've already showed you last time you asked that, lying con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sure you did, Faun...sure you did!  You keep pretending that happened!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

The fact is NOBODY on the left has ever been able to show the Barack Obama economic policies that created jobs because he failed MISERABLY at that!  It's why they used "Jobs created or saved" and why Christina Romer and Larry Summers both jumped ship and ran back to their tenured professor's jobs!  Those two didn't leave because they were so successful at creating jobs...they left because despite spending billions in stimulus money...they sucked at creating jobs!


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh? You wanna bet if I can't show I posted a list of Obama initiatives I claim helped improve the economy, I leave the forum forever; but if I can, you leave forever....


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, so you're going to post that same silly shit that you CLAIM created jobs and I'm going to laugh at you again?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Fact is...you take out the jobs created by the energy boom...which Barry had ZERO to do with...and the jobs created in States run by Republicans embracing policies that liberals like Barry hated...and Barack Obama's jobs numbers wouldn't just be flat...they'd be historically bad!


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Evidently not.  Impeachment is conditional until the articles are presented to the senate.  McConnell has set Jan 6 as the day he will deal with impeachment.   Likely if he has not been presented with the articles by then, he will ask Chief Justice Roberts to dismiss the impeachment for lack of prosecution.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Thanks for admitting you lied when you claimed I didn't post a list of initiatives and policies.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Finally somebody is going to quote the Constitution where it states impeachment requires the Senate to be involved.

G'head, quote the Constitution....


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Fact is...you take out the jobs created by the energy boom...which Barry had ZERO to do with...and the jobs created in States run by Republicans embracing policies that liberals like Barry hated...and Barack Obama's jobs numbers wouldn't just be flat...they'd be historically bad!


So you cry, but you're a proven lying con tool.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 22, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Sorry son, why didn't the House call them? Schiff (within the rules btw) got to set the rules for the House and McConnell (within the rule btw) gets to do the same in the Senate. Grow up.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Stop lying, they did call them.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What a whack a doodle you are kid. Why is she afraid to send it over?


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Because they're on recess. Judt how stupid are you?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



You are a lying sack of silly excrement kid. But hey show us where they called them.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...






Yes, Schiff did call these "witnesses", although it is unclear what, if anything, these men witnessed.

But what is clear is that they claimed Executive Privilege, and would certainly do so if they were called by the Senate in a trial.

The matter is being fought through the courts, and probably won't be resolved until 2022 or so.

So its rather a moot point.  Either the libs have the dirt and can prove their charges against the President, or they can't, based upon the evidence they already have.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If President Trump is such an existential threat, why did Ms. Pelosi call for a recess at all?   Or is that bullshit too?


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


Oh look, yet another ^^^ dumbfuck ^^^ who doesn't know anything.

Trump impeachment inquiry: Who has been subpoenaed?


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


They're not executives. They're not entitled to executive privilege.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




That's certainly your opinion, but the courts have to make that decision, not you or I

And going through the courts takes time.  


Although I was thinking, wouldn't it be a kick in the ass to the libs if they made it all the way through the courts, and then the witnesses all plead the 5th?


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


Because the Republicans already announced they were going to acquit impeached Trump no matter what the evidence would show. So there's no longer an expeditious need to move on to the trisl.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




If these witnesses won't impress anyone to change their vote, why doesn't Nervous Nancy just drop the whole matter and get back to working for the American people?   Is she frightened by her Far Left Whackadoodle base?


----------



## beautress (Dec 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Projecting again? lol


----------



## beautress (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


There you go again, projecting Democrat sins onto the backs of Republicans. *yawn*


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


It has nothing to do with the witnesses. Republicans have already declared they are acquitting Impeached Trump even before the trial begins, regardless of what the evidence shows. So why should she rush to that?


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

beautress said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


I projected nothing. Republicans said that.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

beautress said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




Exactly.

The Democrats in the Senate will vote to remove President Trump REGARDLESS of whether the house managers prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

Really, they should probably all just recuse themselves, if they had any decency.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Move the entire Fake Impeachment behind us, so we can work on the Infrastructure, that the libs "say" they are interested in fixing.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Again, they can't do anything now, they're on recess. You'll have to wait until they return.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


_<crickets>_


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 22, 2019)

The real reason she won't send it over is because ALL Senators will have be there in the sessions....INCLUDING the ones running for Prez. That would just leave who...Joe and Pete?


----------



## beautress (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Instead of going home for Christine, Maxine Waters remained in Washington to say nasty things about President Trump while the other go home for respite. She won't let go of her hate for any reason. She's consumed by it.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 22, 2019)

beautress said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



Give me a break, Trump has made hate acceptable in this country again.  He has racism, hate, etc., on the rise in this country and Trump Humpers love it.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




What makes you think that racism and hate are "on the rise" at all in America?   The only ones saying it are outfits like CNN that make money promoting "hate" events, what else would you expect them to say?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Dec 22, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


The Democratic led House, wouldn't let the Republicans call their own witnesses, wouldn't allow the Republicans as much questioning time with the so-called witnesses as the Democrats and the "witnesses" were a group of individuals who "said they heard about this and felt this.  Ambassador Jovanovich was clearly just angry at the president because he fired her.  When the president of a foreign country says he/she doesn't like the US Ambassador, you remove that Ambassador from the post and replace that individual with someone that, that president can get along with.
The Democratic House also had trouble agreeing what the president did and kept bouncing back and forth.  As I recall, Clinton tried to get dirt on her political opponent to get him out of the race and paid money to get it to happen.
So, if the Senate were to take up the Impeachment, they should do exactly as the House did, have any witnesses they want and restrict who the Democrats can have as so-called witnesses and restrict their questioning time to less than the Senates.  That would be as fair is the House did.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

LuckyDuck said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



Ms. Yovanovich  didn't see anything, it was all hearsay and her opinions she gave.   She wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Senate during a trial.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

beautress said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...


#merryimpeachmas and #happyabuseofpoweranukkah


----------



## LuckyDuck (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


We both agree on that.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 22, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


A jury does not get to tell the prosecution who can testify and what evidence can be presented by them....    A jury gets to view all of the evidence, hear all of the witnesses, from both the Prosecution and the defendant, and THEN get to deliberate and make an informed decision based off of that evidence.

guessing you forgot that part...?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




Why doesn't Nervous Nancy be an adult and just admit defeat with her Fake Impeachment?   That's would be the responsible, adult thing to do.   It would clear the air so she can help her president deal with the Infrastructure.  President Trump really wants to work on this.

I mean, he will continue to get our judiciary nominees nominated and confirmed, but he was really hoping for infrastructure and that requires help from the House.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...




Who says that Mulvaney, Bolton, et al, are witnesses at all?     Were they on the call?   Do they disagree with the official transcript of the Perfect Call which was already presented?

If they weren't on the call, or have a different view of it, what would they have to say?  If they say "no" to either of these questions, there is no further questions that are relevant.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 22, 2019)

remember, A Charge only has to meet the burden of ''probable cause'' and in impeachment requires only a majority vote.

but a trial requires more evidence to convict, because to convict, the burden of ''guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt'' is much greater, and it takes 2/3's of the senate voting to convict and evict.

This is why prosecutors always present more or refined evidence and usually has more witnesses that they continued to collect, in most all trials, compared to what was used to merely get an indictment.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


the ''call'' isn't even a tenth of what was done and at issue...  this involves things that were done and said and ordered over a period of a couple of months and even longer, a year ahead of this with Giuliani's and the goon helper's shenanigans...


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 22, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...



The Senate need deal only with the case sent over by the House.  Watch and learn.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 22, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


I know they can not add any new charges, but I did not know it was illegal for them to strengthen their witness and evidence pool before trial, as long as the defendant lawyers are notified etc and given copies of new evidence popping up etc...???


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 22, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Well idiot, see if you can understand this. When the prosecution has NO case, there is no need for a defense. You have to prove a crime. You can’t because there isn’t one. So now you cry like a little bitch because you can’t just get your way when the other side is in charge.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see abuse of power and I dont see how an Executive Branch can obstruct Congress.
> ...



Your stupidity is expected lifelong loser. The Dims had the option to go to court to attempt to compel testimony. Trump used the legal remedy of the courts to back up executive privilege. They declined to do so. Thus any “obstruction” that occurred was brought on by the Dims themselves. So eager to rush this through that they wouldn’t even try to compel witnesses to appear. So you’re charging Trump with something YOU caused. Talk about. brain dead.....


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 22, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...




That's exactly right.    

I'm not a high priced legal expert by any stretch of the imagination.   But I know its a LEGAL question as to whether exec privilege applies.

And this has to meander its way through the courts.  If Congress wins, they can compel these fellas to testify.  If they don't, tough shit.

That's the American way.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never claimed you didn't post a list, Faun...you did...the problem however is that your "list" doesn't prove Obama's economic policies created jobs!  It's laughably bad.  Feel free to trot it out once again though...I'm sure someone else could use a chuckle!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, so now you're claiming that the Democrats can't send the articles that they said were needed IMMEDIATELY since Donald Trump was a dire menace to national security (cue ominous music!!!) because they had to take recess?  You get more ridiculous the longer you try to argue this farce!


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Slobbers a lying con tool.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 22, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



This forum for starters.



> The only ones saying it are outfits like CNN that make money promoting "hate" events, what else would you expect them to say?



Of course the folks who are the racist aren't going to say they are racist and hateful.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 22, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...


No witnesses or evidence is presented to the jury during deliberations.  Guessing you forgot about that part.


----------



## BWK (Dec 22, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


They don't have any supporting witnesses who can testify in Trump's defense. They don't exist.


----------



## BWK (Dec 22, 2019)

Meister said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


*Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]*


----------



## BWK (Dec 22, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


The crime has a name besides an abuse of power; 
*Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]*


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Dude GET SOME FUCKING HELP .. lol you are insane!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Truth hurts...doesn't it, Faun!


----------



## BWK (Dec 22, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


I did. It's called the Impoundment Act of 1974. It was very helpful in determining with 100% accuracy Trumps guilt. They even have the documents proving Trump's guilt. Isn't it wonderful when the truth is exposed for the whole  world to see? //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Now let's see what the corrupt senate has to say about it. I guess violation of the Impoundment Act will be used for so more process bs? "Process?" WTF?


----------



## BWK (Dec 22, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Oh, and you are minus any arguing points. Sucks to be you.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


He was never charged with it because your stupid lol


----------



## Jackson (Dec 22, 2019)

The Senate will not allow the House to dictate how the charges will be brought or who will testify.  The had their bite of the apple, now it's the Senate's turn to run things.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Not at all and no truths are found in your post.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No truth?  You know as well as I do that Barry was terrible at job creation.  You just refuse to admit it.  Instead...you fall back on personal insults repeated ad nauseum and your pathetic use of a graph that doesn't reveal the truth about what took place back then.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



Not necessary.  No crime has been proved.


----------



## Faun (Dec 22, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


His record shows otherwise, lying con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 22, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Statistics can be used to do one of two things, Faun...to illustrate the truth...or to obscure it!  You use statistics to hide how badly Barack Obama's Administration did when it came to creating jobs.  It's why you struggle so mightily for a response when I ask for something as simple as what Obama economic policy CREATED jobs!


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Poor lying con tool, Obama was handed a horrible economy and turned it around. Impeached Trump was handed a good economy and kept it growing. I mentioned a bunch of things Obama did. It matters not to anyone the a lying con tool thinks Obama's policies didn't help. Of course, I'm saying this to an idiot who _thinks_ Impeached Trump did help the economy before he was even sworn in, before even his first policy went into effect.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Wall Street welcomes Trump with a bang: Dow soars 257 points, nears lifetime high


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Um, the stock market is not an economic indicator.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ok, what about record low unemployment? Is that an "economic indicator?"

What about record wage growth? Is that an "economic indicator?"

What about record housing sales, is that an "economic indicator?"


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Um, actually it is.


The big dip in stock prices in October 1929 foretold the Great Depression.  Ditto with the dip in stock prices in 08-09 and the resultant Obama Recession, that fortunately, Trump was able to get us out of.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



How about these statistics, we lost 800,000 jobs in jan & Feb of 2009.  Our economy was shrinking at a rate over 6%.

The truth is that Obmsa built a string, growing economy.

Trump's plan was to create jobs through borrowing 1.5 trillion.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Obama was President in January and February 2009.

Just the facts, Dave.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



How the fuck is a recession in 2008 an Obama recession.  He didn't take office until 2009.

You people are so fucking stupid that it makes me sick.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  The Bush Recession started in the 4th quarter of 2007 you fucking moron.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Obama took office in January 2009, and is clearly responsible for everything from that date.

But even before than, businesses saw the upcoming Obama Regime as bad news, and started to cut back as soon as they saw his victory was inevitable during the summer of 2008.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It is an indicator of a positive or negative business climate.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


  Housing sales were higher under Bush.

As for wage growth:


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The Democrats controlled Congress beginning January 2007.  Barney had already had his way.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


  Not necessarily.

When Drumpf handed well off corporations money in his tax cut, these corporations went on the buying spree buying back their stocks.  This pushed more money into the stock market driving it upwards.

Nothing to do with the economy.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 23, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


The prosecution has not presented their case to the jury yet, in the trial...  witnesses will need to be called, in order to present their case......


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Unemployment is not at a record low. It's 3.5% now but it's been lower. Furthermore, it peaked at 10% following Bush's Great Recession and dropped 5.3 points under Obama and then another 1.2 points under Impeached Trump. Had Impeached Trump been handed 7.8% unemployment and growing, like Obama was, instead of 4.7% unemployment and shrinking, like Obama handed him, the unemployment rate wouldn't be anywhere near the 3.5% it is now.



​
Wage growth is not breaking records either...

​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Of course, you are an ignoramus here, dave, very misinformed.

When a corporation buys back its stock, those who they buy the stock from have the money and can invest if elsewhere.

In 2019, this kind of uncommitted cash was used to invest in important IPO's like UBER technologies which provides transportation services at rates lower than what we paid in the 1990's.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



They have their case.  They should not have voted to impeach if their case was incomplete.

You will see a motion to dismiss on Day One, and it will likely pass.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Precedent has already been set on this, everyone who is subpoenaed, HAS TO SHOW UP.

Trumps order to not show up, is OBSTRUCTION of congress.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


LOL

Dumbfuck, the '29 crash launched the Great Depression, it didn't foretell it. 

NO, THE STOCK MARKET IS NOT THE ECONOMY


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...



Nope.  The Executive Branch can contest subpoenas from the Legislative Branch.  Democrats could seek a court decision.  They chose not to because it would interfere with their timetable.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...




Exactly right.    When OJ and Zimmerman were placed on trial,  the prosecution teams didn't bring in uninterviewed witnesses to testify that they didn't know what they would say.   Chuck and Nancy are being really disrespectful to the defense and trying to deny President Trump a fair trial.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL 

Bush was president for most of Jsnuary. The massive job reductions began under Bush and carried over into Obama's  first term until Obama plugged the hemorrhaging. 






If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...



Subpoenas can be fought in court, that's all that's happening.  

Obama did the same thing, ditto with clinton and bush.   Pick up those guys too, if its really a "high crime".


----------



## Care4all (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


Bull crap.  No prosecutor is limited to only witnesses they had to indict.

If this case is dismissed by McConnell, it would just show how CORRUPT the Gop and Trump are....  the FIX WAS IN...  to exonerate their CROOK.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


LOLOLOL 

So Obama is responsible for the recession that started 14 months before he became president?

Dud ya think the forum really needed more evidence you're a brain-dead cultist?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





You're quite thick, so no reason to continually repeat myself.

I'm sure that's what Nancy is counting on, but no one cares how Nancy thinks.  The Democrats look completely ridiculous, and no matter which way they go with this, they will be made to look even more ridiculous.

They've lost whatever momentum they may have generated for themselves..


----------



## Care4all (Dec 23, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Yep....  And deliberation comes AFTER the trial case has been presented, after both sides have given their closing arguments and when the jury goes behind closed doors to DELIBERATE their verdict.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


No, it's not. The Dow, for example, dropped from 26K to to 23K in 2018 while during that same time, we had 2.9% GDP growth and millions of jobs added. Sometimes the market reflects the economy, sometimes it doesn't.  It is not an economic indicator.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Only to the brainwashed, brain dead, trumpettes.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


LOLOL 

If you think the causes of the Great Recession began in 2007, then your mental deformity is beyond repair.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Sure, the root causes of the Obama Recession started before 2007.   But the Do-nothing 110th Congress did nothing to address those causes, they were satisfied to see a downturn they could blame on Dubya.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


LOLOLOL

One has to be a brain-dead cultist to call a recession that began under Bush, the "Obama Recession." 

As far as the 110th Congress, what about the 109th Congress before them who did nothing? What about the 108th Congress before them who did nothing? What about the 107th Congress before them who did nothing?

The 110th Congress was the one to get a GSE reform bill to President Bush's desk.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 23, 2019)

Leftists are losing their minds when they realize that Pelosi's gavel doesn't work in Senate.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...



Precedent like Eric Holder not showing up when he was subpoenaed by Congress over Fast & Furious?  How soon they forget!  (eye roll)


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The ONLY thing that Barack Obama is "responsible" for is his choices once he became President!  He "chose" to pursue the Affordable Care Act as his primary legislative goal despite being told that it would retard job creation at a time when millions of Americans were unemployed and desperate for work!  He and you progressives "chose" to propose Cap & Trade legislation that would have placed additional costs on American businesses!  Barack Obama and the Democratically led Congress "chose" to burden American businesses with record numbers of new regulations that again increased costs on American businesses!  Barack Obama "chose" to shut down all oil exploration in the Gulf following a deep water leak...even shallow water drilling operations that had impeccable safety records!  Barack Obama "chose" to sign the Paris Accord which once again would have burdened American businesses with costs that it's competitors would not have had to bear!  Barack Obama "chose" to reorder who got paid and who didn't in the auto bailouts so as to reward his supporters in the UAW...screwing the other creditors who had invested their capital!  ALL of these things were a deterrent to job creation.

Barack Obama isn't responsible for what took place BEFORE he became President but he sure as hell is responsible for the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression!  THAT is his economic legacy...not the sham graphs that you post to hide how badly his choices affected job creation in this country!


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 23, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...




What makes the libs think that they would be able to get Mr. Mulvaney or Mr. Bolton to lie about their President on the stand?  Mr. Mueller  locked Paul Manafort- an ailing senior citizen- in the Hole for a year straight, and still couldn't get him to lie about Donald J. Trump.  What can Chuck U. Schumer do to get these other men to tell tales about Trump?    Seems sort of a pointless exercise, just an exercise of vengeance, to try and put these men "on the rack".


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


Eric Holder didn’t show up. Per Alan Dershowitz it is not obstruction as the Executive branch may veto requests from Congress and the Judicial branch breaks the tie.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 23, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


If you cannot see that this process is 100% partisan then honestly no one and nothing can help you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 23, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What in any of what I've cited falls under the heading of "erased history"?  It's what Barack Obama and the left DID with the power they were granted in the 2008 elections...power that was was indeed given to them by the voters...power that they used to push a progressive agenda that put policy before people's lives...an agenda that left millions of private sector Americans twisting in the wind without jobs.


----------



## Faun (Dec 23, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Lying con tool, Deepwater Horizon was not just "deep water leak," as you attempt to minimize, it was a massive explosion that killed 11 people and sunk an oil rig.






Obama pushed through a moratorium for 6 months to evaluate the industry's safety guidelines to prevent more Deepwater Horizons. And he collected $20 billion from BP to clean up their mess. And his moratorium pertained only to deep water drilling (non-oil producing) in 500 feet of water or more. Even worse for your lies is his moratorium affected a grand total of 33 rigs (out of many thousands in the Gulf) and none of the 33 had begun producing oil yet so oil production was not impeded.

Your claim that Obama shut down all Gulf oil exploration is nothing but you, a lying con tool, lying yet again.

Do you ever stop lying, lying con tool?

Ever???


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



You blamed Obama for losing 800,000 jobs in January of 2009 when to was sworn in on the 20th.

This is why you are such an uninformed jerk.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


 Why is Trump fighting witnesses that will clear him?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 23, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




You are an idiot in every subject.  Adding money to the stock market drives the market upward.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




President Trump has already been cleared.  He has a firm majority in the Senate that are convinced of his innocence.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Depends on how much money is being invested in new issues- IPO's.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


He is not


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 25, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...





AzogtheDefiler said:


> He is not


Are you blind and brain-dead?





Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



So none of the people who he denied to testify can clear him?  Further proof of guilt.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

Merry Christmas!

The right and just thing to do for the whole Nation and for the President to have his due process, is to have a full trial, with evidence and witnesses from BOTH sides, like with ALL trials we Americans know as fair and just,

with jurors that take in all the evidence, before they make their final decisions.

Any thing LESS of that, is simply a crooked SHAM, and makes a mockery out of our Constitution, the Impeachment trial, the juror's sworn before God oath, and justice in and of itself, and will tear the country apart even further imho.

The president will likely be acquitted because it would take 2/3's voting guilty to get him removed...  but at least we the people, will be able to believe the process was not one of, ''THE FIX WAS IN'', but an honest and just decision and verdict.

I don't see how any American could disagree with that...???


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


  List the actions of the Democrat Congress From January of 2007 to September of 2007 that created the Bush Recession?


But hey, I like your arguments that it was the Democrats fault for not stopping the Republicans,


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 It was the Bush recession that left people twisting in the wind without jobs.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


  Since you can't remember shit, the pursuit of the ACA was after the passing of the stimulus act.  So Congress already had dobe what they could to help the economy & then went to work  on the ACA.

The Deepwater Horizon showed that oil companies were unprepaid and lied about their abilities to deal with such  situations.

I realize you Trumpettes hate the environment as much as you hate your own children, but we need to protect our air & water & fight climate change.

I love it how you assfucks  take actions to save our auto industry and the efforts to help our police, fire, & education  as helping unions.

And the worst recession in 80 years would hasve the "worst" recovery in 80 years,  Any fucking idiot knows that.

You, by voting Republican, are to blame to the Bush recession.  Youy votred  for the people that took us from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 years.

Quit blaming those tasked to fix it.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 25, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> *Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??*


Pretty stupid question by someone obviously mired in media misinformation.

The Senate has nowhere to go, nothing to do when the Impeachment isn't even filed with them yet!
Without the Impeachment case on file for the Senate to look at, it is impossible for the Senate to say what kind of hearing, who they would or wouldn't call!
No other House impeachment in history has tried to set conditions or the House tried to manipulate the Senate in this way as a condition of hostage without which they refuse to file the Impeachment they said was so damned urgent.  In effect, The House is impeaching the Senate as well in a no vote of confidence, after impeaching the President on the grounds that he too must serve at the House's pleasure in order to remain in office!  In effect, a political coup.
So ---- DEADLOCK.  No impeachment, no hearing, no witnesses, Nadda. Tough titties for Nancy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 25, 2019)

Dems should impeach Trump again, like right now


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You have things half assed backwards, dave.

Its up to the Libs to prove Trump guilty, not for Trump to prove himself innocent.  And even it was, there is nothing that Mr. Bolton could say that would convince extreme doofuses like Pocahontas and Crazy Bernie that Trump is a tremendous President who is worthy to rule over the nation he loves.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


he could have prevented the charges, the articles of impeachment, from even happening, 

if he was innocent he would have shown something, anything at all that would have discredited the accusations....  like any normal human being, innocent of accusations, would have presented to the cops before they were charged... that could exculpate them, before those charges are drawn.

Makes ya wonder, did Trump want this impeachment for some perverted political gain?

OR, is he really not as innocent and perfect, as he claims to you Trumpettes?


-----------------------------------------------------------

The R's do not want a trial, where the prosecution has to provide their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

There is no other way to view it.

Ya'll seem to want a SHAM trial, where the FIX IS IN, before prosecutors even present their witnesses and evidence.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




No he couldn't have, and that's the point.   The libs announced from Day One, when Trump disembarked from the Golden Escalator, that they intended to drive him from the marketplace of ideas with impeachment.

Trump isn't perfect, no president is.   But none have ever faced the insane ire of libs like he has.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*TOO FUNNY.*  If Trump were innocent, he would have PROVED it.  

People in a free society don't prove their innocence, that is already assumed.  It is up to the ACCUSER to prove your guilt.
Since the first charge is based purely on an assumption made from circumstances rather than any hard evidence and the second charge is based solely on his exercising his legal rights, there is no proof on this planet that would have dissuaded the Democrats in the House from impeaching Trump.  I mean, seriously, they've been showing their hand for THREE FUCKING YEARS.  This was the best they finally could come up with before it got too close to the election hoping it would stick long enough to confuse enough voters to cost him the election, nothing more.  The charges are tissue paper.
Don't blow smoky up our dresses, Honey.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




President Trump cooperated 1000% with the phony Mueller investigation,which turned up exactly ZERO proof of any collusion between Trump and Uncle Pooty.   Mueller and his stooges went to extreme lengths, questioning scores of Trump associates for hundreds of hours.     Locked disabled Senior Citizen Paul Manafort in the hole for a year, trying to get him to lie about The Donald.   Complete failure by Mueller.

After the report came out, that was that, the libs don't get a chance to re-do it.  President Trump has work to do.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You don't understand American legal procedures.  The burden of proof is solely on the accuser.  The defendant need present nothing until the accuser's contentions are presented along with their evidence.

Since the Democrats have produced no evidence, they've moved to start up a another Congressional Chinese gang-fuck to try to support their nonsense.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




Since President Trump realizes that after he is exonerated on this Fake Impeachment, another is approaching right on the heels of this, there is really no reason to try and rush this one.    Another "historic" moment is right down the road as Trump become the first President to get impeached twice, and after that one is resolved, he'll be the first to be impeached thrice.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Impeaching again will not help Democrats' popularity.  My 93 year-old mom despises them even more for making the networks interfere with her soap operas with their nonsense the first time around.  And yes, she still votes.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




And it just isn't the soap operas that the libs are messing with.  My mum is 89 and complained how they cut in the middle of the Price is Right.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




my hubby has the same complaint!  He hates it when the Price is Right is usurped for it!!!!


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 25, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...



The problem with your witnesses is that they have gave their opinions only.

Their answers about any wrongdoing by the president have been in reference to the same question: in your opinion, who will benefit from this and that?

In their opinion they think the president did something wrong.

Well, I think he did not.

Now is their opinion against mine. Tell me about it.

You want to go forward with an impeachment case that in reality is not a valid case because is just accusations made based on opinions.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


No, the Senate is the trial. Jurors hear evidence. Jurors hear from witnesses.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
> ...




Exactly.

The D's have really missed the boat here.   If they could get someone to say that "Donald J. Trump told me at such-and-such a place and such-and-such a time, that he told the President of Ukraine to get dirt on Bite Me so he could win the 2020 election", that would be something to listen to.   But there are no specific lies here, just opinions.    Why didn't Kent and Taylor just make their lies clear, instead of  just giving opinions?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Your mom hates America, too? That sounds about right. You had to get it somewhere.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Synthaholic said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...




Fair enough.   What do the persecutors contend that Mr. Bolton will testify to at the trial?   Witnesses are only brought forward if they know something, and there is no reason to think that the tremendous ambassador knows a damn thing about the Perfect Phone Call.  If he doesn't know anything, there is no reason to call him at all.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Synthaholic said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...





No, my mum likes Drew Carey, and doesn't think the program should be interrupted for partisan bullshit.    If she wanted to see liberal claptrap, she'd be watching the doofuses on CNN instead this fine program.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, Dave!  Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton ever HAD a balanced budget is so ignorant that it's laughable!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


He doesn’t need to be cleared of a non crime. The transcript already cleared him.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...




That's exactly where the libs took a misstep.   They never thought that Trump would have the cojones to reveal the official transcript.  And the Trumpster did so immediately.

Trump probably cleared this with Zelensky in advance , as he knew what the lib plan was.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


He never revealed the transcript, dumbass. But keep watching FoxNews for more misinformation.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



STFU you stupid Obamanzee. Your utter ignorance of how things work isn’t astounding it’s expected. See stupid, YOU have to prove guilt. Trump does not have to prove his innocence no matter how many times you repeat your Dim masters talking points. May you be miserable with 5 more years of Trump.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 25, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



You mean the record low unemployment that started under Pres. Obama.



> What about record wage growth? Is that an "economic indicator?"



Which jobs are these record wage growths growing under.



> What about record housing sales, is that an "economic indicator?"



When did these record home sales start?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Did you want to take a crack at telling us all what economic policies of Barack Obama's it was that caused unemployment to go down?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

I can show you his economic policies that prolonged the recession and kept people out of work for years.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> I can show you his economic policies that prolonged the recession and kept people out of work for years.




B. Hussein O. instituted his 99 weeks of unemployment checks policy, which encouraged idle workers to sit on their butts for 2 years collecting checks.    He opened up eligibility for the EBT and Food Stamp programs, Obamaphones, as well , which encouraged idleness and prolonged economic malaise.    He established policies which allowed people to get on SSI and SSD checks for "back pain" and "depression"- this is one of the main causes for the opioid crisis.   People taking Vikes and Perks to "verify" they are "disabled" and could get free money.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



_The unemployment rate shows pretty much the same progression from President Obama to President Trump. The unemployment rate started to climb the last two years of President Bush’s second term and substantially in Obama’s first year as the Great Recession that he had inherited was having a huge impact.Bush’s last four years in office:

December 2005: 4.9%
December 2006: 4.4%, decreased 0.5%
December 2007: 5.0%, increased 0.6%
December 2008: 7.3%, increased 2.3%

Obama’s time in office:
December 2009: 9.9%, increased 2.6%(teeth of the recession)
December 2010: 9.3%, decreased 0.6%
December 2011: 8.5%, decreased 0.8%
December 2012: 7.9%, decreased 0.6%
December 2013: 6.7%, decreased 1.2%
December 2014: 5.6%, decreased 1.1%
December 2015: 5.0%, decreased 0.6%
December 2016: 4.7%, decreased 0.3%

Trump’s through September:

December 2017: 4.1%, decreased 0.6%
September 2018: 3.7%, decreased 0.4%_

*1. Ended the 2008 Recession *
In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended in July 2009 when GDP growth turned positive.

*2. Modernized the Auto Industry *
Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving 3 million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel-efficient and much more globally competitive.


*3. Reformed Health Care *
On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act revolutionized healthcare, in part by creating a program that offered insurance to people with pre-existing conditions who had been shut out of the insurance system. By 2014, the economy benefited from having 95% of the population on health insurance by mandate.


The greater number of people receiving preventive care reduced the number of expensive visits to emergency rooms, slowing the rise of health care costs for everyone. That's because Medicaid reimburses hospitals for emergency care.


Why did health care need to be reformed? Rising costs threatened to take over the entire federal budget. It was also the no.1 cause of bankruptcies. In return, Americans received the worst health care in the developed world. It is the only one of 33 developed countries without universal health care.


President Donald Trump promised to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. As of November 2019, he has failed to pass any legislation. But by eliminating the mandate and reinstituting "skinny plans" that don't cover a slew of expensive illnesses, he is weakening Obamacare even without formal repeal.


*4. Regulated the Big Banks *
In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reduced harmful practices of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from risking losses with their depositors' money. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulators.

*5. 2010 Tax Cuts *
In December 2010, Obama and Congress agreed upon additional stimulus in the form of an $858 billion tax cut. It had three main components: a $350 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts, a $56 billion extension of unemployment benefits, and a $120 billion reduction in workers' payroll taxes. Businesses received $140 billion in tax cuts for capital improvements and $80 billion in research and development tax credits. The estate tax was exempted (up to $5 million), and there were additional credits for college tuition and children. 

*6. Raised Fuel Efficiency Standards *
On August 28, 2012, the Obama administration announced new fuel efficiency standards. He required cars and light trucks obtain 54.5 MPG by 2025.3 That would reduce oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, saving drivers $1.7 trillion. It would also reduce the damage of climate change by lowering greenhouse gases.


The Trump administration promised to roll back these standards.4 But California requires zero-emissions vehicles. Twelve other states adopted the mandate. Major automakers must build cars to meet stricter standards in the European Union and Asia. 

Do I really need to go on.

In just seven months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped $241.9 billion into the economy. That increased growth to a robust rate of 3.9% by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, almost all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


He had a balanced BUDGET, anyone who thinks otherwise, has no idea how the BUDGET is calculated.

The BUDGET was balanced, because SS surplus funds are part of it, and have been part of the budget, over a half century.

The budget, is not the national debt.

A budget can be balanced, while still adding to the national debt the surplus SS funds used in the budget that helped in balancing the budget.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Come again


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


This is your problem.  You are grossly uninformed &too stupid to know it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I can show you his economic policies that prolonged the recession and kept people out of work for years.
> ...


 There were no jobs you fucking moron.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



The stimulus bill helped the economy go back to growing, creating jobs.

Wht did your fat ass orange buddy do?  Besides borrow 1.5 trillion to pump up his house of cards economy.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Nice racial slur you fucking racist piece of shit.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


  What transcript?  We only have the White House version of a summary.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  Funny chit.    You keep proving how fucking stupid you are every day.

Your hero GW Bush ran on "giving it back".  What was he giving back?


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 25, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



OK, so you loved Obama so much that you rushed out and bought a Government Motors car.  It sits in the driveway on those days you just cant make it work (like a Democrat Congresscritter) but that's endearing to you.

Got it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Nope.

The Democrats proved their case.

If your fast assed orange piece of shit is innocent, he can present it or we should judge based ion the testimony we have heard.  

Your choice.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
> ...




They heard shit.  That is not a fucking opinion.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You too, Care?  Clinton did not have a balanced budget.  I'm sorry but it never happened.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




So, you get questioned by the police because they have evidence that you robbed a liquor store last night, you have an alibi that you were in a different city, you would say nothing.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



The Stimulus spent nearly a trillion tax dollars and created so few jobs that you progressives had to use "jobs created or saved" to hide how few they DID create!  

What did Trump do?  He cut frivolous regulations.  He let businesses know that they were no longer the enemy of the Federal Government.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 
The Stimulus lowered the une,ployment rate between 1/2% and 1 1/2% & shortened the lerngth of the recession.

So, you think  by allowing more pollution, unsafe work places & food supply created all these supposed jobs?

Why aren't you taking about the 1.5 trillion he borrowed?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Yes, technically the recession ended when there was a slight amount of growth in 2009 but in reality it was an economic downturn that lingered on and on because of Barack Obama's total lack of understanding of what it took to create jobs and grow an economy.

Obama's bailout of the auto industry sent a signal to any prospective investors in American businesses that the rule of law that made the US a good place to invest was no longer a given.  The Obama Administration's decision to reorder which creditors got paid so they could reward their supporters in the UAW sent a message to those with capital to invest that they could no longer count on US law to protect their investment.

The Affordable Care Act didn't help create jobs.  It was the source of uncertainty that impeded the creation of jobs.

The tax cuts of 2010 weren't something Obama wanted.  He was forced to make them by Democratic moderates and the GOP.  Claiming THAT is an example of an Obama economic policy is laughable!

Only a clueless liberal thinks that enforcing higher fuel efficiency creates jobs.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The Stimulus cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars.  Unemployment went up after the Stimulus was employed.  It didn't start to come down until the Democrats lost the House and could no longer implement their progressive agenda.  Only THEN was it safe for private capital to come out of hiding and start investing again!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 25, 2019)

HenryBHough said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I thought Trump Humpers say, "buy American."


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow did you not read my last post, these economic trends that you pat Trump on the back for today started under Pres. Obama.  I know that is hard for a Trump Humper to admit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



I've never denied that the growth of the American economy started under Barack Obama...I simply pointed out that his economic policies not only had little to do with that growth...they generally discouraged it.  The main driver of the economy during the Obama years was an energy boom...an energy boom that his administration did everything they could to prevent from happening.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Fuck you you uneducated, racist, illiterate Obamanzee. That’s a statements on your lack of intelligence and blind loyalty to the worst president of all time.  But you can call Trump supporters Trumpanzees and that’s okay. GFY you hypocritical loser.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


Racist fuck.

There is NOTHING more disgusting & ignorant than a racist piece of shit like you.

Last I looked, Trump was orange.  Referring to an orange person as a chimpanzee is not a racial slur.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The oil companies did it to themselves with the Gulf disastrous spill.

Obama proved that oil companies could actually prosper without trashing federal land and following regulations.

Trump will return us to more more spills & more pollution for nothing.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  Unemployment was on the way up/.  That is why we needed the stimulus you stupid shit.

Without it, unemployment could have surpassed 11% & the recession lasted a lot longer.

The CBO said the stimulus did was was intended.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And allowing the auto industry to disappear would have sent a great signal to investors.

The ACA  had little effect on corporations.  They were already proving health insurance benefits.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


That's fine, if he has no defense....  then don't give one, and don't complain the trial was unfair because you were not able to present your own defense and or, get due process.

But that should not stop prosecutors from presenting all of their evidence.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Oh, bullshit!  The Obama Administration used a tragic disaster to knee cap an entire industry!  They waged an eight year war against Big Oil, Gas & Coal!  Despite the Obama Administration's opposition...fracking advances brought about an energy boom that created tens of thousands of high paying jobs and drove the economy here in the US.  That didn't happen because of Obama economic policies...THAT HAPPENED DESPITE THEM!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



What evidence do you think the prosecutors need to present?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The Obama Administration said that if the stimulus wasn't granted that unemployment would rise above 8% but if it were granted that unemployment would go to 6%.  They got the stimulus money but utilized it so poorly that unemployment rose above 10%!  Only a progressive would claim that the stimulus worked as intended!


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


What ever they need, to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt....  which is a higher burden than probable cause...  to make their case, 

As long as their evidence is related to the charges, they should be able to bring it forth.....  if it is not related to the charges, they should not be able to bring that evidence or witness forward.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 25, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...



Here is what we think of your trial....


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Do you not understand that it was the job of the House to bring forward evidence to make that case and then send that evidence over to the Senate to deliberate on?  It's not the job of the Senate to provide evidence...it's their job to rule on the evidence the House provides!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



If the libs "proved their case" , why is Chuck U. Schumer so insistent on calling Bolton and Mulvaney and Giuliani?  If the case is already "proven" then he should just present it.

BTW,  Mr. Giuliani is President Trump's counsel. In what kind of country does the persecution call the defense lawyer?   Maybe Marcia Clark should have brought Johnny Cochran up to the stand in the trial of the century?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



The Trump supporters don't want to call anyone because they know it will look so bad for your orange buddy that Republican Senators will have no choice.

We all know Trump did it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The House was like rthe Grand Jury.

If you assfucks are afraid to provide any witnesses then the Senate will decide based on the evidence provided.  That evidence says guilty.

And Trump will need to rely on party loyalty for Republicans to support him & fuck the country.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



They should call them, make the proceedings private, and allow the democrats to ask zero questions.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You are referring to the Romer report & it was based on the economic conditions at the time it was written.  

Blame the Democrats for running it poorly (even though the CBO saids otherwise) instead of the Republicans for running the country poorly & taking it from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 years.

The CBO s not partisan but be the typical  Trumpette & blame the Democrats for not fixing the Republican's disaster.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


Schiff will be called as a witness as will everyone involved in the bogus FISA documents.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





None of the evidence I've seen says "guilty" at all.   Most of the so-called witnesses that appeared before the Pencil Necked Geek didn't witness a dam thing.  They just gave their opinions, and obviously felt snubbed by the Trumpster who kept them out of the loop.  Since they weren't in the loop, their opinions are worth no more than the man on the street.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...




Schiff doesn't know anything at all.

However, the Biden Family certainly knows all about Ukraine and its leading businesses.  Hunter and Sleepy Joe definitely need to be put on the stand.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, we had a disaster but lets not do anything to prevent another.   Great thinking.

Waging a war against climate change & pollution.  

And it was advances in guided drilling that enabled the natural gas boom.  We've been fracking for over 50 years.

Obama did little to the drilling industry on private land.

The Oil industry fucked themselves in off shore drilling by lying about their capabilities to stop a blow out in deep water.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Schiff is the father of all the lies. Put him under oath and let’s go thru everything he’s ever said about Trump.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It's hard to see much from your vantage point being up Trump's ass.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



Investigate your little hearts out.

The IG already said you are full of shit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Grand Juries are secret...they aren't show trials like Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler put on.

If the only evidence you've got is what the House provided then this whole thing was a joke from the start.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Was it Kos or CNN that told you that?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



LOL...the Romer Report was the President's economic advisor getting it wrong from the start.  Why you think that makes the Obama Administration look better escapes me.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2019)

VIDEO: Graham Vows to Call Everyone Who Signed the Carter Page FISA Warrants to Testify | News Thud


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You had your chance to present your case. You have to do that in the House. The evidence you tried to manufacture there is ALL you are entitled to. The decision is based on what the House presents as their findings. Just because you screwed the pooch doesn’t mean you can cry for a do-over in the Senate. Nice of you to admit you have nothing.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Again FUCK YOU you ignorant illiterate fuck. You just admitted you are a racist. Then cry that YOUR racism is okay. Meanwhile moron, the term Obamanzee describes you perfectly. Lack of any intelligence or education and projecting. Lashing out because you’re an insecure ignorant racist. There is nothing more disgusting than a lying  ignorant fuck like you Obamanzee.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


What race is being orange?

You are the ignorant racist. 

I hate racists.

Especially the ones who spew slurs & then lie & hide & claim they didn't.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> VIDEO: Graham Vows to Call Everyone Who Signed the Carter Page FISA Warrants to Testify | News Thud


You & Grtaham are so fucking stupids to think that has anything to do with the impeachment.

If you assfucks want to investigate these warrants, open  your own God damn investigation.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 I was pointing out the time.  That report was written in December.  The Stimulus was passed two months later when no one really knew how the recession would develop.

The CBO report says you are wrong.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


How can it be a trial when there weren’t any jurors or judges?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 25, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


Stop this BS. If either of you cannot see that this is political theater then you need a reality check. What Bush did was 100x worse and no one considered impeachment. The Democrats have lost their minds because they lost in 2016 and are projected to lose in 2020. It’s that simple.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Did what? “We all”

Who is “we”?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




The Stimulus was SUPPOSED to provide shovel-ready jobs by the million and fix our nation's infrastructure.   Obama lied, it did neither.   Our infrastructure is still in need of repair, yet Chuck and Nancy actually WALKED OUT of a meeting with the President instead of working with him on this issue.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> VIDEO: Graham Vows to Call Everyone Who Signed the Carter Page FISA Warrants to Testify | News Thud




The Carter-Page-Fisa-warrantgate scandal is a disgrace. Mr. Page was a loyal American citizen who had his privacy totally violated in every way because of lies made to the Fisa Court.   There is a MASSIVE lawsuit against the government and a settlement WILL be made. However, the guilty parties are going to have to forfeit their pensions and public service fortunes over it. 

Its called justice.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 25, 2019)

Uh yea, sure. Unemployment went down under Obama. Because so many people stopped looking for jobs because they couldn't find any. OOPS.

Labor participation rate under Obama:







That's some UGLY shit right there and explains the unemployment rate. Liberals are too stupid to realize the number can down for TWO REASONS. Not just ONE.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 25, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Uh yea, sure. Unemployment went down under Obama. Because so many people stopped looking for jobs because they couldn't find any. OOPS.
> 
> Labor participation rate under Obama:
> 
> ...



Obama really motivated idleness during his regime.

He increase Unemployment Insurance claims to 99 weeks, basically 2 years of sitting on one's ass.   He opened the SSD and SSI floodgates, approving record numbers of new recipients mostly due to "depression" or "back pain".  And lastly, he temporarily rolled back Clinton's Welfare Reform of 1996 which made food stamps time limited for young able people without dependents  (and now, Trump is getting grief for bringing back the Bill and hillary policy)


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


The House is the prosecutor and his grand jury, determining if there are crimes to be indicted with in the impeachment process.

The Senate is the trial, senators are the jury, chief justice Roberts is judge....

That has not been started yet.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos (Dec 26, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...




IMHO this entire post epitomizes the very _hypocrisy_ posing as, *blood*, which runs through Dem's veins.

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the *same* Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower.  But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure.

The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

*I reiterate, that the House did not have to refuse to 1)let Trump have his own witnesses and 2)let Nunes or Jordan or any GOP Congessmember question his whistleblower. But, they did refuse to*.  Therefore if you sat silently and was a-okay with that unfairness by the Dems ---_then you have to now do the same thing, the right thing/delete this thread then sit silently while the Repubs get their chance to be unfair_.  True?


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Uh yea, sure. Unemployment went down under Obama. Because so many people stopped looking for jobs because they couldn't find any. OOPS.
> 
> Labor participation rate under Obama:
> 
> ...


Nice chart, too bad it does not show the full picture and is cut off.... here  is a chart that shows the trend that Obama inherited...

And the greatest recession since the great depression doesn't ring a bell?

Civilian labor force participation rate


Trumps trend and numbers ain't that great either, and trump has a booming economy.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ok, so tell me what specific policies or bills Trump has put into place that cause it to continue to grow.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



That's actually what you think of the Constitution to protect your God.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I don't have a problem with that, but only if we put Trump under oath as well.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The stimulus was a lot of things, shovel ready was a part, but the stimulus mostly kept our economy afloat.  It was mostly tax cuts, which only happen month by month, paycheck to paycheck, and not a lump sum dropped in to the market place all at once, and extended UE benefits, which again is month by month stimulus, that helped us from crashing further...  if all those unemployed did not have these checks to put back in to the economy we had left after the fall, the economic numbers from the great recession, would have been worse and deeper...  can you see that...?

the crash was already too deep, to be able to pull us completely out of it with an immediate lump sum stimulus...  these other measures in the stimulus like the tax cuts and extended UE benefits, and help to refinance your home were what really pulled us out of it, not the shovel ready jobs part, imo....  the way it was done with all the different approaches combined, was more sound than just shovel ready jobs alone...  

slow and steady, won the race....  

and gave president Trump a good, trending upwards, economy, for him to work with.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the *same* Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.


 like what?  When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?  



Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure
> 
> "]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.


  the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt.  Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important.  If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt...  so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent.  the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent...  or gone forward.   Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible...  many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating....  it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense....  just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


 Many sources said it.

I guess you want so desperately to believe the Trump/Fox version.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


 

i)  They were not the same, quit lying
ii)  Trump crires about the Impeachment e very fucking day.  Trump blocked so many from testifying, quit lying & claiming hios people could not tell their story.

The whistleblower became irrelevant with the release of the transcript summary that confirmed what was dasi.

They only want to question the whistleblower to find out who they are so you & your fat assed orange buddy can attack them.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> > i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the *same* Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.
> ...


Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs 

That was an impeachable offense


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...



The name of the WB has already been revealed, and there is no reason to think that President Trump didn't know who it was before anyone else.

The purpose of bringing the WB forward is to show that this whole line of bullshit was just an orchestrated liberal scheme straight from the start.

Schiff and Pelosi were behind this political operative and fed him the information.

BTW, the Phone Call was perfect, the Ukraine President admits it.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


The democrat house clearly voted to impeach trump without sufficient evidence


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> ...




Worse than that, Obama fought the subpoenas in regards to the Fast and Furious scandal in court.    And that is the High Crime of "Obstruction of Congress".   B. Hussein O needs to be picked off of the Oahu golf course and sent to solitary confinement for such a high crime.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Uh yea, sure. Unemployment went down under Obama. Because so many people stopped looking for jobs because they couldn't find any. OOPS.
> 
> Labor participation rate under Obama:
> 
> ...



Keerp whining about a useless stat.

The economy starts to tank & my wife needs to go to work because my work hours were shortened.  The rate goes up & you run screaming through the streets how great it is.

The economy picks up & my wife no longer needs to work, the rate comes down & you run screaming through the streeets " OMG OMG OMG the economy!!!"


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> ...


 So nearly everyone involved testified that there was quid pro quo means nothing?

In your dreams.  Your fat assed orange hero has been IMPEACHED

IMPOTUS

And in 2020, you will go down in history & laughed about when history talks how crooked Trump was & how stupid people still voted for him.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Uh yea, sure. Unemployment went down under Obama. Because so many people stopped looking for jobs because they couldn't find any. OOPS.
> ...





I remember the Double Digit unemployment during the Obama regime and how many young black guys were standing on the corners drinking fine wine and smoking expensive newports.    The number has gone down dramatically.  People are working again.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Bit players not directly involved with trump are entitled to their opinion based on hearsay and rumors

And we are entitled to ours


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




"Impeached" merely means accused.   And considering the fact that in 2020, Trump will be exonerated and declared Innocent as a New Born Babe in the matter, the D's will look like sore losers.

In 2021, the House of Reps will move to expunge Trump's record, erasing the impeachment.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 The money set aside for infrastructure was spent for that purpose.  It was just more difficult than expected.

 The stimulus was 38% tax relief.  Helping people caught up in the Bush recession also took a large chuick through extending benefits.  Money wasx sent to the States to help them fund education, police & fire protection.  

I have a thought.  Look up how it was spent instead of lying about it 24/7.

If infrastructure is so important, explain why Trump couldn't get it done?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...




Few of the so-called witnesses that the Pencil Necked Geek brought to "testify" ever even met the Trumpster.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


 IMPOTUS!!

Trump will always carry that stain.

The only way Trump is not convicted is if Republican Senators vote party.  Trump is guilty as sin.  Everyone knows it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 So.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Of course it means nothing as these witnesses didn't see anything.   guys like Kent and Taylor were "out of the loop" sitting on the outskirts.    Working on visiting Americans arrested in Ukraine picked up for shoplifting or helping with visas.

The real business of diplomacy was being handled by trusted folks like Mr. Giuliani and they were butt hurt about it.   Their careers were at a low point


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Far too much of the obama stimulus was squandered on programs such as teaching african men how to clean their penis

Stimulus Funds African Genital Washing Study - Judicial Watch

On the heels of a scathing report exposing incessant waste in President Obama’s scandal-plagued economic stimulus, a news agency reveals that nearly $1 million in recovery funds have gone to a genitalia-washing program for uncircumcised African men.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


  I did not know you were there & heard the conversations.
Quit putting party ahead of country.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



It means they weren't "witnesses" , just people with opinions like you and I.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


If dems did not have the evidence to convict trump they should not have voted to impeach


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


 
Money went to lots of agencies.  What they did was their choice.   If they had a health program in Africa, then maybe teaching washing penis was part of that program.

I bet we are still funding health organizations in Africa & hygiene is part of their education program.  SO Trump is funding penis washing too.  Fucking moron.

I have seen the list of lies about this.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


 They do have it. They did impeach.  You lying is not going to change it.

IMPOTUS!!!!!


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



They witnesses the actions carrying out the Trump bribery scheme.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


It was sold to the American people as a stimulus for the _AMERICAN_ _ECONOMY_  not a social program for african men with dirty habits


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You dont have the evidence to convince 67 senators

So dems in the house went off half-cocked


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Money went to lots of agencies.  What they did was their choice.   If they had a health program in Africa, then maybe teaching washing penis was part of that program.
> 
> I bet we are still funding health organizations in Africa & hygiene is part of their education program.  SO Trump is funding penis washing too.  Fucking moron.
> 
> I have seen the list of lies about this.




I don't how the men who live in Deepest Darkest Africa feel about it, having Obama's stooges heading into the jungle to teach Tarzan about personal hygiene.


But I would consider it a joke if Congolese health officials came to Mercer County to teach the people here about cleanliness.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Money went to lots of agencies.  What they did was their choice.   If they had a health program in Africa, then maybe teaching washing penis was part of that program.
> ...


So, you think only Obama funded health organizations working in Africa?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



Most will vote party anyhow.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


  Your stupidity and ignorance have no bounds.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


So you don’t see it as 100% political theater?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





Maybe Tarzan needed to hear Obama's advice to wash his penis.

However, what I don't see is how the hygiene of Tarzan and other African men has anything to do with stimulating the American economy.   And that was the purpose of the Trillion Dollar Porkulus.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


You are too stupid to see anying other than Trump's colon.

Show me where on the list of Stimulus spending where it talks about African penises.The funding went to the National 
institute for Health.  They decided on which studies to spend it.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


This is about the US Constitution.  This is about the law.

The ones playing politics are the Republicans.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 26, 2019)

Camp said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Keep in mind, that poster is a Poe.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Oh, bullshit!  This was never about "the law"!  This was always about removing Donald Trump no matter what!  Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and Schumer know that Trump hasn't done anything that most Presidents before him have done...impeaching him on some vague "abuse of power" charge is farcical!  This is a political maneuver because the Democrats are terrified that their candidates suck and that Trump is doing such a good job with the economy that he's going to get reelected.  What's happening now is the very definition of political theatre!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...





What questions exactly would Mr. Schumer and the house managers ask Mr. Giuliani which are relevant to proving the charges in the impeachment?   Remember that he's the president's lawyer and has attorney-client privilege attached.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


You are kidding. LOL. Delusion is your BFF. Both parties are playing political games.


----------



## Faun (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


You've been shown, lying con tool. Keep in mind, you call claim the Impeached Trump lowered the unemployment rate even before he became president and before he passed any policies.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Actually  he did.   The positive vibes that Trump created throughout the business world after his vanquishing of Hillary, helped the economy immensely even before inauguration.

The business community realized  that the large dark night of Obamunism was over and it was dawn in America.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


 
This is 100% about Trump breaking the law.

If Obama would have done similar, Republicans would have impeached him.

Trump is a crook & is fucking over America & you are too stupid to see it.

The expe t GDP growth this yerar is 2.3%

You assfucks were dancing naked around the fire when Obama would have such a rate.  Where is that promised 4%?

If the stupid fat ass fuck can't lower the deficit in the best economy ever, when is he?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



The crime is real

Democrats are doing their Constitutional duty.


----------



## Meister (Dec 26, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


The question should have been, "Why were the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



LMAO

I disagree. Bush lied about WMDs and cost us 1000s of lives an trillions of dollars and he was not impeached. This is 100% about Trump and their loss in 2016. So Dave, you've never seen politicians over promise? Market is up over 500pts in ~7 says? The budget and lack of attention to healthcare is disappointing. But those are hardly impeachable offenses. I am also not a Republican. I am just an anti Leftist. I believe people like you are ruining this country and no one triggers you more than DJT.

Thank you, Mr. Trump.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



If it were "real" then there would be bi-partisan support. Plus the transcript was released and still more than half the country doesn't see an impeachable offense.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



The better question is why are the Democrats afraid to run against Trump in 2020?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Yes because this is a political event


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Trump actually DID lower the unemployment rate before he became President, Faun!  Businesses knew what they were getting with him.  As soon as he was elected...even before he was sworn in...businesses knew that they'd be working with an Administration that saw the Private Sector as a good thing rather than the outgoing President who saw the Private Sector as a problem.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That was the point I have been trying to make but Fawn cannot grasp that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, believe me...Faun grasps it...he's just unable to admit the truth because it's embarrassing.  Barack Obama was terrible with the economy.  Take out the numbers from the energy boom and his record would have been historically abysmal!  The fact is...progressives don't know how to create jobs because they think that profit is antisocial and anyone who's making a profit is in some way ripping the public off!  You can't create jobs when you're THAT clueless!


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> ...


why was it impeachable, in your opinion? 

was it cheating?  was it self dealing?  was it self enriching? was it abusing his power? 

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> > i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the *same* Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.
> ...




This is very disingenuous.

The Dems fleeced our FISA laws to get Muellers' investigation launched. The whistleblower laws are *not* to make the WB anonymous. Yes they are to keep the WB from getting fired for coming forward.  Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.
The Dems knew that our Ukraine policy had long been to root out corruption, specifically ---so when they saw a corrupt Dem being illuminated? All of sudden, Trump is abusing his powers ---by following the same USA foreign policy we reqd for Ukraine since before Trump even ran for office.

*The dems covered up a lot of dirt in order to rush thru the impeachment sham in the House.  But You cannot wait until a, trial, to have a proper investigation into a crime. That alone, is illegal.*

...

The Dems are always illegal, totally, so they need to quit complaining and let Repubs use the deceitful path the Dems laid out to follow.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


 It is because the Republicans are making it so by voting party instead of the law.

Trump is guilty.  It is so obvious.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> ...


  THE DEMS DID NOT LAUNCH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
How fucking stupid are you people.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


  They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations.  Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  I laugh at you people.  Anything to steal Obama's good statistics.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


 They are running ahainbst Trump.

Why do you think an election means crooks don't get punished?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


It has been political since the first day of the russia collusion hoax


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.



Keeping the whistle blower anonymous is the law, for the IG who the whistle blower goes to, to report their complaints....

the IG guidelines tells the IG that the WB must be kept anonymous, unless a court order deems otherwise.

Let me ask you.....  do you think the law was written that the IG who receives and investigates the complaint and the only person who actually knows for certain, who any of the WB'ers truly are, is to keep the identity of WB anonymous for no reason?

I mean, if it is against the law for the IG, WHY IN THE WORLD would think it would be OK for congressmen to reveal their identity, or the president, or the president's admin, or the president's son to REVEAL their identity?

It is NOT okay for other gvt politicos to reveal the WB identity and demonize them, and put their lives in danger, and family in danger, and make their life miserable at work, even if they are not fired.

To me and logic used, that DEFEATS the entire purpose of the IG requirement by law, to keep them anonymous.... and defeats the purpose of making it easier for whistle blowers to come forward to the IG with the fraud, abuse, or corruption they know about... seriously.

Those congress critters and admin and the president should be censured and reprimanded for what they did and were trying to do in the press to out, demean, cause vengeance upon the WB....  imo.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Gun running is a crime


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


It was more abusing of power than what Trump did. But neither is an impeachable offense. The President is the Commander in Chief of our military. He is allowed to make these decisions.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


If that’s the case we should let the people decide in 2020. You have nothing to worry about as you said everyone sees this they way you do. Right?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


They were impossible to track

which the justice dept already know because of the same failed attemp when bush was president

obama and holder were knowingly transferring untrackable guns to the mexican mafia


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


  They wanted to call witness that had nothing to do with whsat Trump did.

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer - all had to do with Joe Biden's actions as VP.   What Joe Biden did is not relevant to Trump's bribery.

They also wanted to call the whistleblower only to find out who they were.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


 Some had GPS devices implanted but they failed.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


  So, if I rape a woman & if enough people say it is OK< then it is not a crime?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Yet that didnt stop holder from continuing the program 

and it led to the death of a Border Patrol agent


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


If you rape a woman then 99% of the people will say it’s not OK. If you brush up against a woman on the train and she presses charges that you assaulted her then you have a case. If we see a video of the incident and we see it was nothing as it was a full train and people will bump into one another, then she has no case but zealot Leftists would still believe you assaulted her.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...





Cool story, bro.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Says WHO?  Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work


----------



## Faun (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Lying con tool, unemployment started dropping a year before Republicans took control of the House.

Do you ever stop lying?

Ever???


----------



## Faun (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The unemployment rate was already about 8% when the stimulus was passed.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Obama's economic advisors promised that if given the stimulus that rate would drop to 6%...instead it rose to over 10%.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them...  and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality....  imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps?  the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything....  they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?  

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...?  But he has YET to do that.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



They allowed sales that they knew were going to cross the border and end up in the hands of narco terrorists and that they KNEW they couldn't track!  The Bush Administration attempted to track gun running across the board with the full cooperation of the Mexican Government but stopped the program when they realized that they couldn't track those weapons.  The Obama Administration didn't inform the Mexican Government about what they were doing with Fast & Furious.  Why?  Because they never intended to track the weapons!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You have it backwards here.   Its up to the Liberals to PROVE it was self-dealing.   Not for the President to prove it wasn't.    I see libs hypothesizing that President Trump did this for political benefit, but where is the smoking gun?  Where is the letter from President Trump explaining how they were going to take Sleepy Joe out like this?

There is none.  And that's the point.

In actuality, you have President Trump tweeting how much he actually would love to face a slow witted dullard like Biden.  It would seem there is no motivation for the supposed motive.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care?  What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?


----------



## VanceMack (Dec 26, 2019)

I think what the OP really means is "Why wont the republicans in the Senate allow the democrats to call the shots and turn this thing into another embarrassing leftist shit show like they did in the house?"


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Because they never intended to track the weapons!


And what was your theory for the purpose for that...??

So they could get themselves killed when going after drug or gun smugglers???


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


They already have probable cause it in the house, and will do so in the Senate to even a higher burden and degree, beyond a reasonable doubt..... imo, from what they have gathered and will gather.

the issue is, will trump have a defense to what they prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

And it does not appear that he does, at this moment....  but we will see what his defense presents in the trial to counter the prosecution's evidence....


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Because they never intended to track the weapons!
> ...



My theory is that they wanted to call for stricter gun control laws claiming it was needed because so many guns sold in the US were ending up in the hands of criminals.  They only stopped the program when US border patrol agents went to members of Congress to expose what Fast & Furious was doing.  They literally were willing to put weapons into the hands of narco terrorists that were murdering thousands of Mexican nationals if it furthered their political agenda.  If that weren't the case...if they really WERE trying to track the weapons crossing the border then why wouldn't they have informed the Mexican government like the Bush Administration did?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I haven't seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt yet,why do you think that Schiff is holding it so close to his vest?

As far as the Senate, they are just sitting in judgment, they aren't going to do any investigation whatsoever.  So what we have is what we have.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



In other words I can't point to nothing specifically, it's just Trump the Messiah that has made all wholesome and good in America.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Whoa...wait a second!  How do you go from probable cause...which is the rationale for having an investigation...to claiming that the Senate will gather proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?  That was the House's task!  They are the ones charged with investigation and the bringing of articles of impeachment based on that investigation.  The Senate simply rules on what the House declares it has found. 

As for Trump's defense?  Right now if this were an actual trial in an actual courtroom there is a very strong likelihood that the judge would dismiss the case on motion from the defense because the prosecution's evidence of any wrong doing was so weak.  You don't have to mount a defense against a case that the prosecution hasn't even begun to prove.  Telling the jury that the defendant needs to prove he's not guilty would get you a lesson on our legal system from the judge!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Getting rid of burdensome regulations and passing tax cuts stimulated the economy.  Business responds when they see opportunity.  They pull back when they see an Administration that's erecting barriers to growth.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> > Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.
> ...



What law? Please quote the law that states a federal whistleblower has a right to make accusations and then remain anon.


----------



## Rambunctious (Dec 26, 2019)

The house calls the witnesses in the house inquiry...all Pelosi wants is another show trial...this time in the senate.....she can suck my .........


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


1.  The treaty we have with foreign gvts and the Ukraine on how investigations in to American citizen corruption, taking place overseas...  and it does NOT involve the president being any part of it.  It is initiated by the DOJ, with the Prosecutor General of the other Nation, AFTER the attorney General here has determined there is probable cause that a crime has been committed by the American citizen overseas.

2.  You do NOT SEND your personal campaign lawyer overseas to run our diplomatic policy and run the conspiracy to go after the Bidens....

3.  You do not make part of the agreement for a Washington DC coveted meeting and/or congressionally passed military aid, the President of Ukraine having to make an announcement to the public, on CNN that his upcoming rival in the election, and his son, are being investigated for corruption in the Ukraine.  sigh...  HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS IS WRONG?

4.  Campaign finance law does not allow candidates, to involve foreign country's help in an election.

5. The impoundment  countrol act of 1974, does not permit a president to hold back, congressionally passed financial aid to other countries without Congressional approval.  The president did not ask for congressional approval to hold back the military aid to the Ukraine, which was initially passed I believe in December of 2018.

Two govt employees quit on the spot when Trump Politicos ordered them to hold back on sending the aid to the Ukraine because they believed it broke this law, and did not want to be caught up in the scandal of breaking the law.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 26, 2019)

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag
> ...


The Intelligence agencies will get you!

Fascist


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Cite the treaty that you're referring to.  I'd like to read how it's set up to function.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Actually, they thought they could track them. If they couldn't track them, why do the program?

What is stupid is you NRA fed morons who permitted people to buy AR-15 40 at a time, no questions asked.  THAT is fucking stupid.

The White House & the DOJ was not driving this operation.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


The policy of not using federal funds to bribe foreign officials for personal gain.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



They said it would lower the rate by 1/2% to 1 1/2%.  When the report was written the rate was estimated to peak at a certain rate.   Two months later the recession was far worse & worsening.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


 The testimony clearly showed that Trump was withholding aid until he got his announcement of a Biden investigation.

Clear as day.  Trump is a crook.  IMPOTUS


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





Where is the "bribery"?    All that you have is that Ukraine felt NO PRESSURE at all, to investigate Sleepy Joe- who is just one of hundreds of liberal extremists that have hatred for President Trump.

Does the fact that someone hates Trump exempt them from the laws of the land?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





President Trump said nothing of the sort, and no one has come forward to say they heard Trump say it.   Not even the phony WB.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

boedicca said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 You assfucks are welcome to investigate your fast asses off.

Biden did it in 2016.  Note that the Republican House & Senate & DOJ never thought to investigate it.  I wonder why?  Could it be there is nothing there?  Could it be you are duped again by Trump?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





Trump didn't get an announcement and the aid wasn't withheld.   So in other words, the libs have bupkis.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




So, you think the President of the Ukraine will admit that he was being bribed?  

People don't hate Trump.  They hate what a crook and liar he is.  They hate ihis racism & bigotry.  They hate his childish behavior.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal TDS ^^^


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Why wouldn't he, if it were true?

If he stands by his friend Donald J. Trump, and the libs are able to remove Trump from the throne,   the libs will never give Ukraine another dime.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


if you attempted to rob a bank, but did not succeed at robing the bank of its money, does that mean you did not commit a crime?  SERIOUSLY?

And the aid was not released until the WB complaint, that the admin was illegally trying to cover up and hold back from congress, came out in to the sunshine...  2 days AFTER THIS they were given the president's ok to release it.

IF the admin believed what they were doing was legal, they would not have scrambled to release it after being caught.  The admin would have held their ground, insisting it was for the USA's best interest to hold it back.... don't cha think?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




The liberals would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was the reason why the President released the aid when he did.

And that's of course in addition to proof of the reasons for the aid being withheld in the first place as well as proof that Ukraine was being extorted.

I see a lot of what can generously be called "theory", a lot of opinions by butthurt civil servants peevish about being left out of the loop, but not actual proof at all.


----------



## Meister (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Left out the 'so called' whistleblower and Schiff...duly noted. 
No whistleblower goes through Schiff, they go through proper protocol.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> I thought Trump Humpers say, "buy American."



The use of "thought" suggests an ability to think.

Sorry, counselor.  Facts not in evidence.  Please take your seat.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Let me find you a link to it.... brb


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


okay, here is the link to the treaty with the Ukraine on criminal investigations over seas....

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

the working central authority principles in the treaty are the DOJ/AG and Ukraine's Ministry of Justice/Prosecutor General, and does not include the president's involvement, what so ever!

_ 
   Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the
Treaty. 

For the United States, the Central Authority shall be
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the 
Treaty.

_


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You and faun the little yellow coward can both go fuck yourselves. YOU are the racist you projecting Obamanzee. You continue to show your ignorance. Thus earning the title Obamanzee. Your lack of knowledge, continual kissing of the ass of Obozo, and general stupidity make you eminently qualified. I’d tell you to say your shit to my face, but cowards like you two would run away when looked at sideways. Prove it’s a slur or STFU moron.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> ...


the whistleblower was not just allowed to make accusations silly one!

The IG investigates every whistle blower complaint as prescribed by law, and the IG DETERMINES if the whistle blower complaint is valid and or urgent, by interviewing first hand witnesses, and gathering evidence...

ONLY IF THE IG finds evidence to support the complaint, does the WB Complaint move forward.  The office of inspector general finds many whistle blower complaints do not have legs and they DO NOT MOVE FORWARD.

tHIS COMPLAINT, WAS FOUND TO HAVE LEGS AND WAS DETERMINED BY THE ig TO BE URGENT....  (oops on caps)

When an IG determines it is correctly designated URGENT, the IG is required by law to turn it over to the Congressional Intelligence committee.

The Admin, decided to break the law, and hide it from Congress...  but the fine print in the law states that if the DNI DOES NOT TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS, then the IG can tell Congress directly that an urgent WB complaint is being held from them, as long as he notifies the DNI he is doing such....

THAT is how the Intel committee FINNALY got the complaint, from the admin who had it held back.

AND THIS is what made all hell break lose....

IF the president, and his admin, had simply followed the law, allowed the WB Complaint go to congress as per the law, then that would have been in secret, and the intel committee would have investigated it, in secret
and the president would not be in the world of poo-pee house, he is in today...  his cover up attempt, bit him in the butt.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


they did not go through schiff, they asked a staffer, what should he do....  since the complaint was made by 2 other WB's to their superiors and legal counsel and their legal counsel's for their department they worked in complaints were snubbed by the DOJ?  The advice given to the WB was to report it to the IG on official form, and that he better get a lawyer....  which he did get a non profit, WB specializing Law firm, to represent him...  and did file the official WB Complaint form, with the IG.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



If all these good times started under Pres. Obama your theory is trash.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



But they didn't start until the people saw that the Obama Regime was over on Election Day 2016.  Trump's election gave the people REAL hope, not the phony hope that Obama promised.

I remember the date of Obama's Immaculation,  20 January 2009.

The liberals, and especially the black liberals, thought their ship had come in. They felt they were finally would be living on Easy Street as the brother ascended the American throne.  A lot of joy that day that people were feeling.

The Obama Program was a complete failure however.  All he provided was free money, free phones, free food.   Kept the people on the Democrat Plantation.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 26, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If Bush lied about WMD so did a hell of a lot of democrats:

Democrat Quotes on WMD

A small snippet:

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
*-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998*

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing.  He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 26, 2019)

If Trump broke so many laws, why weren't real laws broken in the articles of impeachment that seem stuck to Pelosi's little fingers?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


You are completely wrong

Biden is only coincidently running for president

Before that he was a corrupt vice president enriching his son the bum in ukraine


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


The best and most logical explanation is that they want murders to increase which the lib media would use to demand tougher gun laws

But someone blew the whistle on the whole sordid scheme


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


It is the House’s job to investigate _BEFORE_ impeaching

Not afterward


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Obama knew they could not track the weapons


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Obama did not know the operation was happening.

No one would set up an operation knowing it would fail.  Quit being so fucking stupid.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


 They did & had enough evidence to impeach him.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


  You assfucks refused to do anything when American children were being slaughtered.

Why would anyone thgnk you cared about Mexicans?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


 
This has been debunked but hey, why woulds a Trump ass kisser like you care?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> If Trump broke so many laws, why weren't real laws broken in the articles of impeachment that seem stuck to Pelosi's little fingers?


It is illegal to bribe foreign officials to get them to help you with your campaign.

Why is that so difficult to get?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 You rtupid fucks learn nothing.  Not this argumenmt again.

It is one thong to thing there is sufficient evidence to vote for a bill to go after Sadam's activities through sanctions etc, a bill that said no war.

And Bush lying to go to war.

You people are too fucking stupid to be alive.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 So in 2016 we were still losing 800,000 jobs a month, had a shrinking economy, and the unemployment rate was 10%.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Obama has a failsafe with eric holder as his wingman

who will never squeal of his patron

so it has never been proven that fast and furious reached as high as the white house

but it did reach holder who was held in Contempt of Congress


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Obviously not since dems want to continue the investigation in the senate that they should have done in the house


----------



## Persistence Of Memory (Dec 26, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


Because Durham is doing it for them.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


As usual, when libs lose the debate they turn to personal insults


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




No, in 2009 Obama gave us double digit unemployment

And the most jobs lost in a month under Dubya was less than 600,000


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




The Senate isn't going to investigate, its not their job.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Of course they knew it would fail!  It had already been tried by the Bush Administration and the program was stopped because it FAILED!  So why on earth would anyone revive it?  It obviously wasn't to track guns.  They didn't even try to do that.  They WANTED guns to be taken across the border!  They WANTED those guns to end up in the hands of Narco terrorists!  What they DIDN'T want was for Fast & Furious to be exposed...something that happened when Border Patrol Agent Terry was killed by one of the weapons that the Obama Administration allowed to cross the border!  They attempted to create a problem so that they could then call for tighter gun controls here in the US.  The end justified the means...right up until Terry was murdered and his fellow Border Patrol agents started talking to members of Congress about Fast & Furious.  Only then was the program suspended.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office!  Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




FDR's record on his economic downturn was more pitiful that B. Hussein O.

Roosevelt inherited the economic downturn in March 1933 when he was inaugurated, and it took Hirohito pulling a Pearl Harbor job on us in Hawaii in December 1941.    8 years and 8 months of dramatically high unemployment.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well.  Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




Actually, it wasn't.   Donald Trump estimated that we had 90 million unemployed in 2016, the markets were significantly lower and unemployment a lot higher.

Further, had Hillary Clinton been elected, we'd be looking at close to double digit unemployment and a Dow at 6000.  The Democrat idea was economic malaise, so that people would be open to new government programs.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



There you go predicting again, unemployment had it's biggest drop in what year?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs.  The American economy is remarkably resilient.  All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will.  If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital.  Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"?  He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him!  They didn't feel like he ever had their backs.  He was the "You didn't build that!" President!


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos (Dec 26, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> > Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.
> ...



Nope. The law is not designed to keep a whistleblower, anonymous, but to ensure they do not face retaliation/do not get fired, for doing the snitching.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 26, 2019)

trump and his cronies have things to hide.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


Biff, it isn't that Trump doesn't want to call witnesses.  Pelosi wants him to call HER list of witnesses.  Trump said, no way is she going to call the shots on the Senate's trial.  She can send managers , but no witnesses.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos (Dec 27, 2019)

bodecea said:


> trump and his cronies have things to hide.




Well Obama and his cronies did exactly hide things in Ukraine, since 2014, _*and when Trump was about to expose it?*_  Dems go scream, "Impeach him!! For going after his opponents!"

lol

Since UkraineGate & FISAgate proved that the Dems will stoop to crazzzzy levels of dishonesty then ........ If you don't make haste and abandon ship, instantaneously, then you might deserve what you get once the Dems' mechanism starts to eats its own ---and you're on the menu!... Look at how the Dem party has turned on our darkskin-Black USA citizens, their most loyal and integral success element for 65 years now ... lol ... luckily President Trump has now scooped those good people up. Ann Coulter exactly laid this out in 2011.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


I named policies, you talked about your feelings...

This is why folks like you are so easily conned and are politically all over the place with who you claim to support....because its all about your feelings and then you project them onto the candidate....


Why do you think reaching across the aisle is important when on one side of the aisle is a party who consistently caters and appeases the worst segment of America??  Republicans are the problem....

Obama tried that "reach across the aisle" -- Obama ditched the public option and settled for a healthcare plan that was a republican idea until the black guy was for it...

Obama tried that "reach across the aisle" bullshit when he appointed republicans to his cabinet -- what did that get him??

Obama was even willing to cut social security and medicare in order to "reach across the aisle" -- what did that get him??

I care about policies, period.....reaching across the aisle doesn't mean shit if you can't talk policies


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Meister said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


It's obstruction of congress because Congress is not involved in a criminal investigation you dunce....

If Trump intervened to obstruct an open criminal investigation (which he did, see the Mueller report) -- then that would be obstruction of justice...

And if Pelosi and democrats weren't such pussies, they would have included the 8 or 9 instances of obstruction of justice that was in the Mueller report.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Mac-7 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Obama had no idea about the operation you dunce...

Just like Bush most likely had no idea about Operation Wide Receiver.....which was basically the same type of operation....


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Obamas wingman knew about it and let it continue 

Afterward obama used executive privilege to prevent congress from investigating


----------



## Care4all (Dec 27, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The question for you is : 

if this were a politician that loved and supported trump to no end,

Would he go after them with a vengeance,

 send his personal consiglieri Giuliani to hook up with  bunch of Ukrainian Russian sympathizers, crooked oligarch and ex kgb, a corrupt ex prosecutor, and bring two other ex Soviet American goons in to the search, to find or create this conspiracy against this person and their son,

and make the Uke President make a public CNN announcement about an investigation opened on this Trump supporter, before the Uke President could get their aid and DC meeting at the white house?

Do you really think Trump would go after a politician that was a huge supporter of his for so called corruption, to the extent of bringing in Giuliani to be some faux personal Elliott Ness?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 27, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Trump sent giuliani because he cannot trust the FBI, DOJ or State Dept

And I dont blame him

I dont trust them either based on the way they have acted since 2016


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So it just was happening, smfh.



> The American economy is remarkably resilient.  All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will.  If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital.  Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"?  He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him!  They didn't feel like he ever had their backs.  He was the "You didn't build that!" President!



You are not answering the question.  What specific policies or bills did Trump put in place that has the economy thriving.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Why wouldn't you send Giuliani?  He has a long background fighting organized crime and corruption.  He's not a "faux" Elliott Ness...he's actually as close to the real thing as you can get.  Giuliani cut his teeth going after the Mafia in New York City.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



First and foremost, Trump has cut government regulations.  He instituted the policy that if a government agency wanted to add a new regulation they were required to cut two regulations.  The amount of time and money that American businesses have to waste attempting to comply with government regulations had reached absurd levels.  Running a business required so much time be spent filing paperwork to satisfy Washington that you had little time to spend on growing the business.  Trump has addressed that.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Giuliani is part of the corruption, are you telling us he is better at fighting organized crime and corruption than the FBI and the DOJ.  Come to think of it what is Giuliani's official title and who is paying him?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Again nothing, which government regulations has he cut.  Be specific.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Probably the biggest shot in the arm to the US economy was his redoing of the corporate tax structure...specifically moving from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation and the repatriation of profits made overseas by US corporations.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

I really don't want to waste the time to list each and every one of the above deregulations.  It would take hours.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone in the FBI or the DOJ with a better record at fighting organized crime than Rudy Giuliani!  His record at that is what got him elected in politics to higher things.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Exactly.   Giuliani was able to defeat the La Cosa Nostra, it is really his crowning achievement until now.  But he can lead in taking down the Deep State, not just in America but Worldwide, it will make that seem insignificant in comparison.

If I were advising Soros, I would suggest he make a retainer to hire Bruce Cutler for his defense.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



More smoke blowing, the FBI and DOJ were around long before Guiliani was ever heard of and they will be around long after he is gone and if he is so SHARP why didn't Trump make him the AG?  I'll tell you why, because then he couldn't use him as a operative because his actions would have to be above board if he was the DOJ.  Also he isn't fighting any crime or corruption he is running around trying to find dirt on Trump's political opponents.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Also he isn't fighting any crime or corruption he is running around trying to find dirt on Trump's political opponents.




Its the same dam thing.   The dirt on Trump's political enemies is their disgraceful corruption that is being brought forward.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Also he isn't fighting any crime or corruption he is running around trying to find dirt on Trump's political opponents.
> ...



Now that's funny for the simple fact you Trump Humpers turned a blind eye to the disgraceful corruption that Trump has done.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




It isn't "corrupt" to troll the Far Left and ridicule the pathetic characters of the Deep State.

Lisa Page has sued because she is embarrassed by Trump's award winning impression of her



And that's all that Donald J Trump has done, and no, it isn't "corrupt".


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



The FBI and DOJ were around before Giuliani and will be after he's gone.  That doesn't change the fact that Rudy Giuliani led the task force that crippled the Mafia more than any other prosecutor in US history!  He put heads of the 5 families in prison with sentences of 100 years.  Your claim that he's somehow not qualified to look into corruption is quite frankly LAUGHABLE!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



That is what they call WISHFUL thinking.  Yea that looked real presidential and man acting like a woman having sex.  It is corruptful to try and have a foreign gov't find dirt on your political opponents.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What is more laughable is that bullshit you are spewing that he was looking into corruption.  He is part of the corruption you claim that he fought for years, he is in Ukraine looking for anything he think Trump can use to defeat Joe Biden.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




When Lisa Page decided to have an adulterous relationship with Adam Schiff, she had to realize that there was a risk of being found out and ridiculed.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




No.  He is looking for any corruption by the entire Biden Family to toss their corrupt asses into the Supermax.

Trump and Giuliani know that the libs will never abandon Sleepy Joe because he is corrupt.  That would be a stupid strategy really by Trump.  Give him a little bit more credit.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Here is that Super Sleuth in action, lying like a rug.

Rudy Giuliani Admits He Went To Ukraine To Dig Up Dirt On Biden


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

*Giuliani admits he needed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch “out of the way” for Ukraine scheme*
*Ukraine ambassador “was going to make the investigations difficult," Trump's lawyer tells The New Yorker*

“I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” Giuliani told the outlet. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.

In other words she was going to go along with the corruption.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



When did Lisa Page have a relationship with Schiff?  You can't get any lower than a Trump Humper.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...




Mea culpa, my error.   I mixed up Schiff with that other piece of vermin Strzok.  

I should have remembered that Schiff's first name is "Adam" not "Peter", as in "peter, peter, I love you so much"


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Hating Republicans is a feeling. Liking Democrats is a feeling. Those are two facts. I didn’t vote for either major candidate and unless the Democrats put a moderate candidate, I will vote third party again. Gabbard is an option for me. Every Democratic candidate is for government run healthcare, so if I follow your stupid logic, if I vote for any Democrat I would be supporting government mandated and controlled insurance, so I should vote for someone else. I like her isolationist policy, I like her standing up to the establishment Democrats. Sanders is to old for me to vote for him and he is a hypocrite. Warren is a self serving politician trying to play that she is for the common people. I could go on but I’ll vote Gabbard if you put her up, the rest of the field I am not interested in them as they all sound alike. 

My preference is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, that seem the best fiscally, which is my biggest concern.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 27, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



I can respect that.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOLOL


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What's your point? A president should be allowed to break the law if the stick market rises on their watch?


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Not true. Impeached Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue for no good reason and Republicans would still defend him conservatism is a cult.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to talk about policies...……

As much as it may make you feel warm inside -- her standing up to establishment democrats doesn't mean shit without policies...so if she stands up to them by pushing to get money out of politics, then talk to me...if she stands up to them by not giving away billions of taxpayer money to subsidize oil companies, then talk to me...but her standing up to them because you like sound bites isn't a policy.....that is like saying Trump stood up to the Republican establishment, yet he passes every republican policy they put in front of him....

Sanders being old and being a hypocrite again, isn't a policy...and as for Gabbard being hypocritical, there is a long list...as is with most politicians...so something tells me hypocrisy doesn't bother you much....like I said, talk policies.....

As usual, the rightwing props up some Democrat candidate as if she is someone they would see themselves supporting and the minute she is the nominee, they will attack her with the same script they would attack any other Dem candidate...because they are hacks... 

Which why they will never tell you what policies of hers they support, just how she makes them feel...which is also a lie....


----------



## edward37 (Dec 27, 2019)

these moron republicans brought this trump plague to America and they refuse to admit what asses they are


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 27, 2019)

edward37 said:


> these moron republicans brought this trump plague to America and they refuse to admit what asses they are




Trump was the only Republican who could win in 2016, and is the only one who can win in 2020.   That's the real problem libs have with him.

And personally, I don't think its that "moronic" to want to win.   Au contraire, investing time and money into a sure fire loser like Kasich or Romney is a lot less smart.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL

Lying con tool, then why didn't the rate of employment growth increase faster when Trump won the election?





Do you ever stop lying, lying con tool?

Ever??


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Great, then let's you you explain the post above this one...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It is self explanatory. Do you need me to dumb it down for you?


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL

This is what, _"Obama was terrible with the economy,"_ looks like to lying con tools...



 


And this is what reality looks like...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Increasing an NFL win total from 4 games to 8 games is 100%. 8 wins to 12 wins is only 50% but much harder to achieve than going from 4 to 8. If you knew six sigma, which you don’t you would see that there are several data points and other circumstances to consider.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL 

What a stupid analogy.  Unlike football which has a limited number of games, our population continues to grow.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You missed the point of my post entirely. Amazing. My point was that numbers and %s don’t always tell the full story.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


So, _"no,"_ you can't explain it. Thanks for meeting my expectations.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Imbecile, I understand the point you were _trying_ to make. You simply failed miserably by using a stupid analogy.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

boedicca said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Literally no one is saying that.


----------



## Fang (Dec 27, 2019)

"Witnesses"  LOL!  Democrats still don't realize "butt-hurt" isn't a valid reason to impeach.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again, the unemployment rate was higher than the ARRA predicted (December, 2008), than when ARRA was passed (February, 2009). And they predicted it would drop to 6% in 2012 and that happened in 2014.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Lying con tool, the economy was already stimulated when Impeach Trump became president.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I said it was self explanatory. That to you means “ I cannot”? LOL


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> You and faun the little yellow coward can both go fuck yourselves. YOU are the racist you projecting Obamanzee. You continue to show your ignorance. Thus earning the title Obamanzee. Your lack of knowledge, continual kissing of the ass of Obozo, and general stupidity make you eminently qualified. I’d tell you to say your shit to my face, but cowards like you two would run away when looked at sideways. Prove it’s a slur or STFU moron.


^ ^ ^ ^ ^


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Triggered. Didn’t take long. Typical Leftist.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


If you could have, ya would have. Who do you _think_ you fooled with that sad excuse for why you couldn't?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It would be like you asking me to explain what number Tom Brady is. It is 12. Self explanatory. What about his post confuses you exactly?


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


LOL 

Pointing out your failures is triggered??


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


LOL 

Uh, not, it would not be like that.


----------



## August West (Dec 27, 2019)

Fang said:


> "Witnesses"  LOL!  Democrats still don't realize "butt-hurt" isn't a valid reason to impeach.


Trump`s exculpatory evidence is where? The testimony was as credible and overwhelming as testimony could be?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You’re the one with ad Hominems.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Again what about his post confuses you? Be specific and I will gladly explain it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


So? Ad hominem in itself might be triggered but I pepper ad hominem in my points. That one, for example, was pointing out how utterly off the mark your analogy was.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


WTF? Who do you mean by, _"his?"_ I was posting to *you.*


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Opinions vary. Ad hominem was not necessary.


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Got the excuses all ready to go.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



I don't care for Sanders or his policies because there is no trust in Sanders, why would I vote for someone I don't trust. That was one of the reasons I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. If I voted strictly policy, I'd vote for Trump because the less government I have seen in my industry is helping. His stance on healthcare aligns with mine. His stricter immigration align with me, however I don't find him honest, I don't like his spending and I don't like the way he handles issues, so I wouldn't vote for him. 

Gabbard wants to work to overturn Citizens United, I agree. I support her view of citizens privacy being upheld and rid us of unConstitutional wiretapping. I am with her on legalizing marijuana. I am for her policy on staying out of other countries regime changes and policies. I am for her ideas for treating veterans for burn pit injuries. Her stance on impeachment was a stand I liked, which isn't a policy but a common sense solution for America and the Democrats would have looked a lot better for it. 

A lot of policies I don't care for, healthcare being one of them but name me a Democrat who isn't for government interference in healthcare. I don't care for many of her environmental ideas. 

So in my state she will get my primary vote and you can kick scream and make emotional responses with no facts, I really don't care because you haven't made a case for any Democrat, other than they aren't Trump, who I wouldn't vote for anyway.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


Yes, you would and have voted for Trump...

Trump has no stance on healthcare  -- which is why you can't point to any healthcare policies of his -- other than making healthcare LESS ACCESIBLE to people....

Citizens United? Lol.....care to tell me where Trump and the republicans stand on Citizens United?? Let me know what Tulsi has done to try to do away with Citizens United at a legislative level -- which is the only way you will do away with it

I know Bernie has a long consistent history against it and money in politics in general...He is the one I know who actually put a plan out addressing the very issue you pretend to support Tulsi for....

*“When we win the Democratic nomination and defeat Donald Trump, we will transform our political system by rejecting the influence of big corporate money,” Sanders said in a statement. “Our grassroots-funded campaign is proving every single day that you don’t need billionaires and private fundraisers to run for president.”*


Bernie Sanders takes aim at the DNC with his new anti-corruption plan


Now as for Tulsi, I will give her a pass on accepting campaign donations from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and BAE Systems -- as I am sure you will too...

Or did you not know she accepted donations from the very defense contractors who are anything but against military intervention?? But hey, hypocrisy in politics is nothing hew right?


As far as me making emotional responses with no facts -- I am the only one here who has posted Gabbard's policy on healthcare -- THAT YOU NEVER READ

And I am the only who continues to back up everything I say by posting facts....you on the other hand can only tell me about what you feel she stands for...and haven't told me one policy yet....


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



I would have voted for Trump? No I wouldn't, when I was on this board during the primaries I stated I'd go third party if Trump was nominated, so again you are talking without knowledge. What legislative action has Sanders taken on Citizens United? Care to tell me? 

Why does it matter what Trump and the Republicans stand on Citizens United, I want it overturned. You can have Sanders, I won't vote for him.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


So? A lot of things are not necessary but are fun just the same. Still, you posted a stupid analogy that was not applicable and got called on it. Stop whining and grow a pair.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 27, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


It matters because it will be the republicans who will be opposed to doing away with Citizens United....and I trust Sanders messaging more on overturning CU than I do Gabbard --

I trust the person who ACTUALLY HAD THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT work to sink his campaign than a person who just talks about opposing the establishment....

I trust Sanders to be the one who can push and fight for the policies he stands for to the extent he forces republicans to bend to his will....

When you as a candidate can use your platform to sway the public to your side of the argument -- others will bend the knee -- including republicans....which is why so many people are now campaigning on Medicare For All -- which was considered unthinkable a few years ago...

Gabbard has not shown the ability to launch that type of a movement -- but you keep believing....maybe she will run 3rd party and you can vote for her -- and Trump will pat you on the head for your help...


----------



## 22lcidw (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


You will get your healthcare agenda at some point. When it gets here they may be a lot of strings in it or added as time goes by. You may not like it then.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 27, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Yes, and the Democrats will pat me on the head for helping them. Both sides tell me the same thing. It seems to piss both sides off. The solution put up better candidates.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > You and faun the little yellow coward can both go fuck yourselves. YOU are the racist you projecting Obamanzee. You continue to show your ignorance. Thus earning the title Obamanzee. Your lack of knowledge, continual kissing of the ass of Obozo, and general stupidity make you eminently qualified. I’d tell you to say your shit to my face, but cowards like you two would run away when looked at sideways. Prove it’s a slur or STFU moron.
> ...



So you have no response. Typical of a racist little yellow coward like you. Keep projecting. You don’t even qualify for beta. More like delta or lower. You keep screaming and cry8ng because you’re  a failure.  You are a retard of the first order. Insecure and a coward. You are dismissed. Failure.


----------



## Faun (Dec 27, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


LOLOL

Aww, poor widdle snowfwake ... that was my response.



And what a pity you're not man enough to dismiss me.


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No you have no response you no balled wonder. And I am more than man enough to dismiss a little yellow coward like you.  But a coward like you would run away upon somebody looking at you. By the way fuckwad, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Asshole. You are dismissed you feckless little coward.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You mean winning. All I do is win in our debates. You resort to ad Hominems like a loser


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Giuliani is a part of corruption?  Really?  In what way?  Because he supports Trump?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



It was already stimulated!  Not by Barry but the Private Sector generally felt more confident as soon as your progressives no longer had the power to pass legislation that could harm them.  With Trump coming in that confidence was taken to a whole new level.  I know it burns your ass that Trump's policies haven't resulted in the recession that liberal shills like Paul Krugman were promising would happen if Trump were elected.  If you think it's bad now, Faun?  Wait until Trump works a deal with China.  The economy will take off like a rocket!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



You keep showing those two stupid graphs, Faun...and I keep pointing out that Barry had little to nothing to do with creating jobs or growing the economy!  Our economy improved despite his awful economic policies and the mountains of additional government regulations that his administration burdened us with.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 27, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's five years later, Faun!  ARRA didn't make the unemployment rate drop to 6% five years after it was passed!  Those unemployment numbers were driven by things like the energy boom...things that Barry not only didn't DO but actively opposed!


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


LOL 

Poor, triggered PussyBitch, I'm still not dismissed. I'm still here.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Slobbers a lying con tool. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And by the way, lying con tool, I never said Trump's policies would cause a recession nor do I want them to.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your empty denials are noted and laughed at, lying con tool.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Lying con tool, *you* were the one to point out ARRA predicted a return to 6% unemployment. I was the one to point out it predicted that would happen in 2012 and that unemployment due to Bush's Great Recession turned out to be greater than the ARRA expected, resulting in it taking 2 extra years to get back down to 6%.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 28, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Maybe you didn't.   But Paul Krugman, the Great Economic Guru of the left, predicted exactly that on Election Night.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So what? Do you not recall some on the right predicting Obama would lead us into a double dip recession? They proved to be as wrong as Krugman. There are always some folks on both sides making such predictions about the other side.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 28, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Denials of what?


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Read better.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 28, 2019)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Read what?


----------



## lantern2814 (Dec 28, 2019)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey fuckwad, you ran in and responded tp a post not even directed at you. YOU are the triggered fat, little yellow coward, uneducated, illiterate, DISMISSED BITCH!  You must enjoy being made a foo, of on a daily basis. Still NOT impeached you crying, lying bitch. You are dismissed. Referees declare you unable to defend yourself.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


LOLOL

Still not dismissed, putz. 

And Impeached Trump is still impeached.



​


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 28, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Once again...you clueless partisan hack!  ))   Obama and Pelosi assured us that the unemployment rate would rise above 8% if the ARRA wasn't approved but if it WAS then the unemployment rate would go down to 6% and do so quickly because of all the "shovel ready" jobs they were going to create!

So they got their money...did their stimulus package...and what happened?  The unemployment rate went to over 10% and the whole "shovel ready" job thing never happened!  That's what you progressives do to an economy when you're running things.


----------



## Faun (Dec 28, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again, lying con tool... the unemployment rate was already about 8% when the ARRA was passed. 

That earlier prediction was already out the window.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That earlier prediction was so clueless that it WAS already out the window when the ARRA was passed...just like the claims about "shovel ready" jobs was out the window by the end of the summer!  Face it, Faun...you progressives just plain SUCK at creating jobs!  It's just not your thing.  You're good at buying votes.  You need to give things to people to get them to support you.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL

Obama added 16 million jobs in his last 7 years.

Bush43 added 1 million jobs in 8 years.

Clinton added 23 million jobs in 8 years.

Bush41 added 3 million jobs in 4 years.

Reagan added 16 million jobs in 8 years.

Carter added 10 million jobs in 4 years.

Even deducting the 4 million jobs lost during Obama's first year after inheriting Bush's Great Recession, we still find over the last 6 presidents spanning 20 years of Democrats and 20 years of Republicans, we end up with...

*Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs*

Do you ever stop lying, ya lying con tool?

Ever???


----------



## Street Juice (Dec 29, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??



Probably for the same reason a wealthy person in 1920 Russia didn't want to testify in a Bolshevik proceeding.


----------



## Erinwltr (Dec 29, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


Jesus, jitler.  You really are Fucking Stupid.


----------



## MeBelle (Dec 29, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...




*why-is-the-gop-senate-so-afraid-to-call-witnesses.*


What a FAIL!

The HOUSE wouldn't 'allow' GOP witnesses to 'testify' in their close door interrogations.

The HOUSE is AFRAID, should they finally turn over impeachment papers to the Senate, of ANY and ALL witnesses called to testify.


----------



## MeBelle (Dec 29, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Jesus, jitler.  You really are Fucking Stupid.




Ahhhh.....

An intelligent response from the USMB community.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Obama added those jobs?  How exactly did he do that?  What economic policy of HIS was it that made that happen?  As I've said repeatedly...the American economy slowly recovered DESPITE Barack Obama's totally clueless economic policies!  He wasn't responsible for the oil and natural gas boom that drove job creation...he opposed the use of fracking that created that boom!  
As usual...you use statistics to hide the truth.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Look at that substance you come with more substance than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you go girl lol


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Asked and answered, lying con tool. Meanwhile, despite your lies, Democrats have added roughly twice as many jobs over the last 6 presidencies.

*Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs*


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Poor guy lol


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You give Obama credit for something he had nothing to do with...but accuse me of being untruthful?  You're one of the board's biggest bullshit artists, Faun.  You use statistics to obscure the truth and then whine about "liars" when you get called on it!


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let's take a look at real numbers that take the size of the entire economy into consideration when talking job numbers:

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

Oh wait.....Obama isn't near the top. In fact, Obama is under JIMMY CARTER!! LOLOL Clinton is top of the list, but he handed Bush the dot-com bubble. Clinton wasn't responsible for the jobs, the growth in tech that just so happened under his administration was what grew the jobs but that busted in his face in 2000.

Roosevelt was actually the biggest increase in jobs under a president. But that was before the parties switched. He would NOT be considered anything CLOSE to a democrat today.

Reagan is number 3, a republican by todays standards.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


_Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law._
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying.  It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


If you ha e no evidence time to put the baby to sleep. What trump says to his cabinet is none of your business. It’s called executive privilege elections have consequences if you don’t like it try to win try to get America to like your candidate Democrats we don’t like you you’re gonna be voted out again


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


A jury does listen to witnesses.


----------



## yidnar (Dec 29, 2019)

the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade?  He is obviously wrong and he knows it.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Elections have consequences


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 29, 2019)

NoNukes said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...



That is the job of the House.  They must present a completed investigation.  The Senate has no obligation to continue the investigation.

As things stand now, if Pelosi doesn't present the case to the Senate following the recess, the Senate may well declare it null and void.

In any case, the House Democrats may well have brought their own party down with this ridiculous charade.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> The republican solution to all things Trump....
> 
> Pretend it never happened or attack some chick's dead husband and blame it on Greta


Well said.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

yidnar said:


> the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....


The people the Republicans wanted to call had no bearing on Trump's behavior.  It has been explained to you over and over.  Both Bidens were already investigated and found NOT GUILTY of what the Repubs are accusing them of.  Crowdstrike is a bad dream cooked up by the bots and having no stake in reality.  Calling the whistleblower and Schumer to browbeat them for bringing forth a complaint against the Orange Lord is nothing but petty revenge.

So who else did they want to call?  Sondland was theirs.  I heard him.  Maybe they should have let him stay home.  lol


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump.  There is no there, there.  I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton.  With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


  Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will?  What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?  

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth?  Trump released the transcript of the call.  Can't get anymore direct than that.  The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play.  Can't get anymore first person than that.  So what are YOU basing your accusations on?  The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place?  The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


No he didn't, quit your lying


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2019)

MeBelle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


  Bullshit.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 You elected a fucking crook & we are supposed to allow him to do crooked shit?

Who knew.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Quid pro quo is not a crime.  PERIOD


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Trump withheld Federal funding because he was concerned about rampant corruption in the Ukraine.  He asked the President of the Ukraine to look into that issue.  Was looking into Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine included in that request?  Yes, it was and for good reason.  What took place between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma and the government of the Ukraine smells to high heaven.  At BEST it's highly inappropriate!  At worst it's outright influence peddling.  That isn't a "partisan" view...it's simply seeing what's THERE!


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 Oh fuck off.  There has been evidence presented.  It all points to Trump's guilt.

Let the Senate base their decision on that.  

If Trump has something to add, then he should do it.  He can testify under oath.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


We are starting to uncover why women were never allowed to vote when you don’t get what you want you dem women turn into Nazis, all norms are thrown out the window until you get what you want.. it doesn’t work that way


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Yes, Trump was elected by the people of the United States.  You don't get to negate that election because you don't like that it happened.  You get to run someone against him in the next election.  What you on the left are doing right now is not what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned happening.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



The Senate WILL base their decision on that and they will vote not to impeach.  Why?  BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE THAT ADAM SCHIFF "PRESENTED" WAS PATHETICALLY BAD!!!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 29, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


This thread didn’t age well. 

Biden says he would not comply with a Senate subpoena in Trump's impeachment trial


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


As far as I'm concerned, there has been plenty of evidence presented and I agree that he should be impeached.  And removed.  However, a lot of lawyers who know about standards in court do not believe it is enough.

When you hold a gun to a man's chest and say "This is not a stickup, just give me all your money," it is still a stickup.  Zelensky has several million good reasons to say whatever Trump wants him to say.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Here's the litmus test for the impeachment "evidence"!  If it had any credibility whatsoever then Republicans like Susan Collins would be voting against Trump.  She's not.  Why?  Because this whole thing is a total farce.  It's such a farce that you haven't managed to pick off even a single Republican...even the ones that cross the aisle all the time on votes like Collins!


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


TDS is real


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Evidence of what?  Because, quid pro quo is not a crime and that's why the democrats didn't want to use the courts. You are being vague

Then you bring up a gun being placed on a man's chest....which IS a crime.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...


What's the sense in Congress doing anything if people are just going to blow them off left and right?
It's not really Biden's place to determine strategy.  There will be lawyers present for the impeachment team and they can object to questioning that is off track or inappropriate.  This is just nuts.  BOTH of them.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Trump stuck a gun to Zelensky's chest and demanded money?  What are you babbling about?

Zelensky was requesting aid from the US.  Trump granted him that aid.  He also asked the President of the Ukraine to look into apparent corruption that had taken place there.  He didn't ask him to make up things about Joe Biden like you liberals did to him in the previous election...he simply asked Zelensky to look into apparent corruption.  Bottom line?  Trump did nothing that ALL President's haven't done!  Impeaching him over THIS is laughable!


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


What is nuts is that because Trump won the 2016 election the democrats have been non stop with the 
impeachment war drums from day one of his tenure as president.  That is nuts.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Even Obama's team players were questioning the legality of what Biden did at worst, and at best the bad optics of it.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Here's the litmus test for the impeachment "evidence"!  If it had any credibility whatsoever then Republicans like Susan Collins would be voting against Trump.  She's not.  Why?  Because this whole thing is a total farce.  It's such a farce that you haven't managed to pick off even a single Republican...even the ones that cross the aisle all the time on votes like Collins!


Oldstyle, Susan Collins is my senator, so let me correct you there.
Susan Collins is continuing to refuse to comment as she is a jurist.  Murkowski, another moderate Republican, has also refused to make a decision PRIOR to the trial.
We are certainly all waiting to hear how our senator will vote, but she has made no announcement and knowing her, she will listen to the whole damned trial before she makes up her mind.  She's that good.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 29, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.



Biden withheld foreign aid in order to get a foreign gov't to fire a prosecutor looking into the corrupt dealings of his son. And that gets a pass by you?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Keep telling yourself that if it consoles you, Meister.


----------



## yidnar (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....
> ...


the fact that Trump inquired about what Biden boasted about on live television when he said if the prosecutor is not fired you,re not getting the money makes him relevant to the trial .... thats the main reason the dems originally held the impeachment inquiry ! so its the senates duty to see if Trump was justified by asking Ukraine to look into it ..notice he said look into it ..he didnt ask them to drum up false accusations to frame him like the dems did with their bullshit dossier .


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


He did nothing wrong,, move on with your life, your party is responsible for the biggest shit holes in America,, change your Disaster us policies before it’s too late


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


At least you couldn't deny the facts.  I'll take that as a win, OldLady.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the litmus test for the impeachment "evidence"!  If it had any credibility whatsoever then Republicans like Susan Collins would be voting against Trump.  She's not.  Why?  Because this whole thing is a total farce.  It's such a farce that you haven't managed to pick off even a single Republican...even the ones that cross the aisle all the time on votes like Collins!
> ...



This is as of yesterday.  There was just an article in the local paper about it yesterday.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

yidnar said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > yidnar said:
> ...


*The Bidens' role has already been investigated and they were not found guilty of anything.  Trump knew that*; he was just pissed off that some Ukranians backed Hillary in 2016.  He wanted it to LOOK like Biden had done something wrong by making The Announcement that Sondland said was so important to Trump.  It just needed to look like Biden might have done something--even though Trump knew better.
Biden is his political opponent.
Doesn't need a rocket scientist,here, yidnair.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the litmus test for the impeachment "evidence"!  If it had any credibility whatsoever then Republicans like Susan Collins would be voting against Trump.  She's not.  Why?  Because this whole thing is a total farce.  It's such a farce that you haven't managed to pick off even a single Republican...even the ones that cross the aisle all the time on votes like Collins!
> ...



Will you admit that the whole thing was a farce if she doesn't vote to impeach?  Fact is, Old Lady...if the evidence presented can't sway a Susan Collins to vote for impeachment then it's obvious that the evidence SUCKED!


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


As a mod, I expect a little higher standard of behavior from you, Meister.
It does not make you right when a post is too off target to bother with.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


If you’d learn the facts you’d be a conservative.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I guess it would depend on your definition of "guilt", Old Lady!  Are the Biden's guilty of a crime for all of the money that Hunter Biden raked in on that no show job he had no qualifications for?  Quite frankly I don't see anything criminal there.  Was it sleazy and totally inappropriate?  Oh yeah it was!  That's why Hunter resigned when it became an issue.  Joe Biden knows damn well it wasn't appropriate and shame on him for not putting the kabosh on it.  But let's be honest here...Joe Biden has been hooking Hunter up with jobs due to his influence ever since Hunter left college.  He has a long history of that.  Once again...not illegal.  Once again...totally sleazy and inappropriate.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I really get tired of posters having to resort to the mod thingy that I do, OldLady.
I'm a poster just like you are a poster.  Can't handle that, then just fuck off.

It has been nothing but bullshit from your tribe regarding Trump since he became president.
They have lied and made up crap to try and take him down.  Investigations after investigations and they
can't do it because he hasn't broken any laws.  Now, the truths are starting to see the light and your tribe is knee deep
in a rising tide and that won't bode well for your people.

PS....when I type in red, you know that I'm modding....but not until then.
Good grief......get a thicker skin, darling.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL   In Maine, we don't need our senators to make up our minds for us.  I've always respected Susan Collins and I always will, but I disagree with her fairly regularly.  I've already told you that I've heard plenty already.  But I'm not a trial judge bound by laws of criminal evidence.  I've just got some common sense.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Found not guilty? So he was tried in a court of law? Or "found not guilty" by reason of firing the prosecutor? That does help the ol' "not guilty" thing when the person in charge of charging you with a crime is fired.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Okay, so my opinion of you as fair has been modified.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with my skin; there is something wrong with saying "Oh ho--I didn't get a reply so I must have been right"  That's third grade tactics.
Nuh uh.  I have been telling you MY opinion.  I did not start yammering for his impeachment on day one and I waited until the Mueller report and I accepted its findings.  I challenge you to find one thread or post that contradicts that.  I figured we were in it for four years and I crossed all my fingers and toes that we would get through it in one piece.  Period.
So I see nothing "thin skinned" in reminding posters that they are talking to ME not some boogey man of a political enemy because I take a liberal view of things.
The tribal talk says more about where you're at than me.
Now do you want to start this over, Mr. Ordinary Poster, or will you continue with the rightwinger public service announcements that have little to do with me?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > yidnar said:
> ...


That's quite different from wanting to call the Bidens to testify about their involvement with Burisma, don't you think?
Did Hunter get the job with Burisma because he was Joe Biden's son?  Of course.  But cheer up; at least you weren't having to pay for his food stamps and rehab via Medicaid.
Getting jobs because it's who you know happens everywhere at every level, and while we wrinkle our noses at it, if Hunter was hired and his work satisfied Burisma, it really was their business, not ours.   It is my strong belief that this all came up because it is campaign season.  Biden's announcement about withholding aid was made two years ago.  You know how Trump loves oppo--he'll even take it from our foreign adversaries if he can get it.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 29, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > yidnar said:
> ...


The prosecutor who took Shokin's place completed the investigation.  There was no "trial" because they didn't do anything illegal.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 29, 2019)

OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Oh I bet he did "complete it" LOL


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





They ruled on it in 1974 when Nixon was being impeached. He claimed executive privilege to hold back the tape recordings and certain records between nixon and some of his cabinet who were indicted by the grand jury.

The case went to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled unanimously.

Nixon lost. 

The tapes were released and the population turned against nixon. nixon resigned 16 days later.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Slobbers a lying con tool who _thinks_ Impeached Trump began improving the economy without passing any policies.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I didn't get very far into that bullshit to see they made up their own numbers.

They claim Clinton added 18.6 million jobs.

But the BLS shows he added 22.9 million...

1.1993: 109799
1.2001: 132712

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

*Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs*


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






Wow the person you replied to really isn't dealing with reality.

When Obama became president we were bleeding 850 thousand jobs a month. The bush boy's economic collapse sent the unemployment rate up to 10%.

By the time Obama was finished that unemployment rate was slashed to 4.7%. 

That's a decrease of 5.3%.

In contrast trump has decreased the unemployment rate by 1%.

When trump has a record of decreasing the unemployment rate by 5.3% he would have caught up to Obama's record and I would be impressed.

Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.

Most of the jobs that trump has created are low paying service jobs and jobs dependent on tax dollars in the military industrial complex. 

The person who has the terrible job creation record isn't Obama. 

You're right. That person is a lying con tool.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


And that "transcript" reveals Impeached Trump broke the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


He's not lying. Impeached Trump's acting chief of staff admitted to it...

_"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. *And that’s why we held up the money*." ~ Mick Mulvaney_​


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime.  Even if there was no quid pro quo.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so concerned about corruption that the only things he asked Zelensky to look into were related to his own election.

And what did Zelensky do that inspired Impeached Trump to finally  release the funds some 4 months after Zelensky became president?


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Imbecile, from where do you get this nonsense??

The Senate does not vote "not to impeach."  

Impeached Trump is already impeached. There's nothing the Senate can do to change that.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Um, lying con tool, the Burisma case was settled and closed before Impeached Trump asked Zelensky to re-open it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.
> ...


Liar. No one was investigating Biden's son.

Like I always say,  if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## edward37 (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Where's bri  ?


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


That is funny, Faun.....That's not even what he was impeached for, and if it was as obvious to them as it is to you, they would have brought it forward. lol


----------



## edward37 (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Hate to mention it Mr Meister but the longer Pelosi waits the better the chance of finding more impeachable evidence  Then Trump could have a double header ..1st president impeached in 1st term and  1st with a double impeachment


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

edward37 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Another first was a bipartisan vote that went against the prosecuting party.  Leaves a taint of political  gamesmanship.
It just lowers the bar for impeachable offenses


----------



## edward37 (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


bipartisan?  with how many  DINO's voted no?  You're counting the one who changed parties?


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

edward37 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > edward37 said:
> ...


After the vote he changed parties.  How many defects does it take to make it bipartisan?


----------



## edward37 (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Guess the rule is just one  but imho that's assinine


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Meister said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Of course he was impeached for that....


IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

_Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He  did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020  United States Presidential election to his advantage._​


----------



## Jitss617 (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


*What’s your point? *


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


Look up --it's the one sailing clear over your head, comrade.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Abuse of of Power,  and Obstruction of Congress from the kangaroo court


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



A Trump Humper calling anyone a Partisan Hack is comical.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



It was "settled"?  What does that mean exactly?  Does it mean that they investigated influence peddling between Burisma, Hunter and Joe Biden?  If so...who was it that decided nothing untoward happened?  The Ukraine had a well deserved reputation for corruption.  Why would anyone trust in what was "settled" by politicians known to be corrupt?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Most of Faun's posts are comical!  He's still here pretending that Barack Obama was an economic GENIUS!  What does he back that up with?  Graphs that show jobs were created while Barry's skinny ass was sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office...jobs that Obama had ZERO to do with creating...jobs that in most instances Obama tried to pass legislation that would have prevented from being created.

That's why I refer to him as a political hack.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What's the difference you Trump Humpers claim that Trump is the Messiah.  So how is it Pres. Obama had zero to do with low unemployment, but Trump has everything to do with it.  Talk about having your head up your ass, because again a Trump Humper calling someone a "political hack" is a joke.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It means they addressed all of the charges against Zlochevsky.  They dropped money laundering but upheld tax evasion. They worked out a deal to collect back taxes from Zlochevsky, which he paid and Ukraine closed the investigation into Burisma.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL 

Spits the lying con tool who claims Impeached Trump created jobs without passing policies while he asks which Obama policies helped job growrh.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 29, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.
> 
> Most of the jobs that trump has created are low paying service jobs and jobs dependent on tax dollars in the military industrial complex.
> .



Me thinks you have your presidents confused.

Most of OBAMA'S jobs were low paying jobs and unlike you, I have proof.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

So while liars like Faun love to look at "jobs created" he'll put his fingers in his ears and his head up his ass when confronted about WHAT KIND OF JOBS.

Obama: part time menial work
Trump: Manufacturing

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

Mining: 

Construction:

This chart shows jobs in industries like mining and construction are thriving under Trump


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



The difference between me and you two, Super...is that I can show exactly the policies that Trump has employed to created jobs and grow the economy.  When I ask what policies Obama used to do the same thing...all I get from you two are the same stupid graphs that give him credit for things that he had nothing to do with.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 29, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



It's not rocket science, Faun!  You want to create jobs?  Get the government out of the business of business and amazing things happen!  It's what you on the left can never seem to grasp.  You can't legislate your way to economic growth.  It's not going to happen.  Trump understands that when government regulations become so burdensome that businesses spend more time complying with them then they do growing...it has to change.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.
> ...


_*"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract"*_

Lying human scum, that was actually a study from 2005-2015. Obama was president from 2009-2017. Rendering that claim false as it includes 4 years under Bush, who produced the fewest jobs since Herbert Hoover, and it doesn't cover Obama's entire presidency. 

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie,  they'd have absolutely nothing to say.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Lying con tool, aside from claiming Impeached Trump created jobs without passing any policies, all you're doing is saying Impeached Trumpxs policies he did pass added jobs but Obama's policies didn't. 

That's just one of your vacuous positions that demonstrates you're a lying con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 30, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



You really don't have a response to the fact that Trump's economic policies WORK and Barry's didn't...do you, Faun?  Other than your usual "Lying con tool" response which has you sounding more and more idiotic each time you use it?  Now you think "Impeached Trump" is an argument winner?  Pathetic as usual.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 30, 2019)

You've got one President who's administration saddled the nation with record numbers of new regulations and one who came up with the simple yet brilliant strategy of requiring agencies to cut 2 regulations if they want to pass a new one.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


YOU say Impeached Trump's poloucies worked. YOU say Obama's policies didn't work.

But you're a lying con tool so what else would YOU say?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 30, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let me guess...you think that adding a record number of costly regulations worked?  Duh?


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Show me where removing those restrictions increased the rate of job growth...






Looks to me like you're bullshitting about the effect of restrictions on job growth. Which also explains why you're utterly incapable of proving cause and effect on any of the restrictions Obama added or Impeached Trumo removed.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 30, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What economic policies?  You have yet to list any of them, tell us Trump Humper about all these great policies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 30, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The elimination of regulations?  The revamping the tax code?  Repatriating capital earned by US corporations operating overseas?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 30, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Only a progressive would have to have it explained to them why getting rid of burdensome regulations would spur economic growth!  What did you two study in College?  Women's Studies and Philosophy?


----------



## The Original Tree (Dec 30, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag


*“Irrefutable, Overwhelming, and Incontrovertible Evidence so shocking that The Democrats had no choice but to Impeach.

The Constitution was at stake, We were in a Urgent National Emergency, and were Witnessing a Crime Spree in Process, and Trump is an Existential Threat to The Republic, and must be Impeached because we cannot trust The American People to vote for whom should be President!”

These are quotes from Democrat Leadership, while trying to whip up support for impeachment and after voting for it were so concerned about America, went home for a 3 week Vacation.

According to The Democrats own words, they need no further witnesses, and according to their own words, they have been trying to impeach The President for 3 years and have concluded that he obstructed Congress and Abused his Powers.

Looks like to me, The Prosecution rested its case when they voted on The Articles.

No new witnesses are needed.

*


----------



## The Purge (Dec 30, 2019)

Who needs stinking, know nothing, witnesses?

Trump impeachment: Senate GOP unites behind a no-witness trial - New York Post
3 days ago · After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal. ... But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Translation: the lying con tool can't prove what he claims.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What specific regulations did he get rid of that has the economy booming. As a Trump Humper surely you know them by heart.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just for 2019...the following...

*DEREGULATORY, Economically Significant (7)*

*Health and Human Services*


Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E, 0910-AH93
CY 2019 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update and CY 2020 Case-Mix Adjustment Methodology Refinements; Value-Based Purchasing Model; Quality Reporting Requirements (CMS-1689-FC), 0938-AT29
CY 2019 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment Rates (CMS-1695-FC), 0938-AT30
CY 2019 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Medicare Part B and the Quality Payment Program (CMS-1693-F), 0938-AT31
Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations (CMS-1701-F2), 0938-AT45
*Department of Transportation*


Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Amendments, 2130-AC46
*Department of Veterans Affairs *


VA Claims and Appeals Modernization, 2900-AQ26
*DEREGULATORY, Other Significant (26)*

*Department of Agriculture*


Scrapie in Sheep and Goats, 0579-AC92
Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements, 0584-AE53
SNAP: Eligibility, Certification and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, 0584-AE54
*Department of Defense*


Submission of Summary Subcontract Report (DFARS Case 2017-D005), 0750-AJ42
*Department of Energy*


Price Competitive Sale of Strategic Petroleum Reserve Petroleum; Standard, 1901-AB29
Energy Conservation Standards: External Power Supplies, 1904-AE23
*Health and Human Services*


Laser Products; Amendment to Performance Standard, 0910-AF87
Medicaid, Revisions to State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Rules, 0936-AA07
Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act (CMS-9925-F), 0938-AT46
Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act (CMS-9940-F2), 0938-AT54
HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption of Good Faith of Health Care Providers, 0945-AA09
*Department of Homeland Security*


Marine Transportation--Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances, 1625-AA12
Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances, 1625-AA13
*Department of Housing and Urban Development*


Streamlining Warranty Requirements for FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Removal of the Ten-Year Protection Plan Requirements (FR-6029), 2502-AJ40
Exemption of Recreational Vehicles From Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (FR-5877), 2502-AJ33
Streamlining HUD's Consolidated Planning Process (FR-6058), 2506-AC44
*Department of Labor*


Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 1210-AB83
Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 1210-AB84
Crane Operator Qualification in Construction, 1218-AC96
Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 1218-AD17
*Department of Transportation*


Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace of Afghanistan               , 2120-AJ69
Pipeline Safety: Issues Related to the Use of Plastic Pipe in Gas Pipeline Industry, 2137-AE93
*Environmental Protection Agency*


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates Rule, 2040-AF25
Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals; 2050-AG39
*Federal Acquisition Regulation*


Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); FAR Case 2017-009, Special Emergency Procurement Authority, 9000-AN45
*Small Business Administration*


Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive, 3245-AG64
*REGULATORY, Economically Significant (4)*

*Health and Human Services*


CY 2019 Changes to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System, Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) (CMS-1691-F), 0938-AT28
*Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms*


Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 1140-AA52
*Department of the Treasury*


Guidance Under Section 199A (Anti-Abuse), 1545-BO69
Guidance Under Section 199A, 1545-BO71
*REGULATORY, Other Significant (11)*

*Department of Commerce*


Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 Implementation, 0648-BC86
*Department of Defense*


Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015-D035), 0750-AJ11
*Department of Health and Human Services*


Prior Authorization Process as a Condition of Medicare Payment for Services Provided by Certain Chiropractors (CMS-6070-P), 0938-AS68
*Department of Transportation*


Mandatory Event Data Recorder Requirements, 2127-AK86
Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (FAST Act),         2137-AF08
*Department of the Treasury*


Guidance Under Section 199A for Cooperatives, 1545-BO70
Guidance Under Section 163(j) Applicable to Pass-Through Entities, 1545-BO76
*Environmental Protection Agency*


Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume (BBD) for 2020, 2060-AT93
Methylene Chloride; Regulation of Paint and Coating Removal for Consumer Use Under TSCA Section 6(a), 2070-AK07
Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 2070-AK27
*Federal Acquisition Regulation*


FAR Case 2015-017; Combating Trafficking in Persons--Definition of "Recruitment Fees", 9000-AN0


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

The fact that this is going on...and progressives like you two seem to be clueless as to it happening...makes me think the two of you are devoted CNN and MSNBC viewers!


----------



## Wapasha (Dec 31, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.



The dems in the house had to rush this impeachment thru. They could not wait, and now they want the senate to continue the House investigations for them????


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 31, 2019)

Nice list, but you are not telling us how they changed the economy.


----------



## Wapasha (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Nice list, but you are not telling us how they changed the economy.


It's just inferred that removing regulatory burdens that stifle growth and productivity, by either eliminating regulations or amending them to make them more friendly towards economic growth, does help the economy.

I remember Steve Jobs saying that we have creating so many new regulations today, that it would have been impossible to create Apple back then, if he had to operate under the regulations we have today. 

Hell, our society has gone crazy with new laws and regulations, that little kids are even having their lemon aid stands shut down

West Virginia correctional cadets who gave Nazi salute in photo will all be fired

Child's Lemonade Stand Shut Down For Lack Of Permit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-up-a-lemonade-stand-then-she-was-fined-200/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-stands-these-lawyers-work-for-big-lemonade/

yadda, yadda


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 31, 2019)

Wapasha said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Nice list, but you are not telling us how they changed the economy.
> ...



Again just explain how that list of regulations boosted the economy, if that is what they have done it should be easy to explain.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Nice list, but you are not telling us how they changed the economy.



Do you really need to be told how eliminating needless regulations saves businesses time and money that can then be spent on growing?  This conversation we're having right now, Super is a perfect illustration why the Obama Administration couldn't create jobs!  You progressives simply don't grasp how businesses function!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Nice list, but you are not telling us how they changed the economy.
> ...



That sounds good, but if they were needless why were they created in the first place.  Wasn't that the same argument that was being made when a minimum wage was created, when Social Security was created, when OSHA was created, when the 40hour work week was created, when overtime was created, should I go on.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 31, 2019)

The Purge said:


> Who needs stinking, know nothing, witnesses?
> 
> Trump impeachment: Senate GOP unites behind a no-witness trial - New York Post
> 3 days ago · After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal. ... But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some ...


That's called a SHAM

THE FIX IS IN!

That ain't no trial.

There has never been an impeachment trial without witnesses.....

I m now all for Nancy holding back!

THANKS for helping me make that decision!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Can you understand how money spent on compliance with frivolous regulations can't be spent on hiring?  On R & D?  On advertising?  On new plants?  Just how clueless are you, Super?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Government is the equivalent of a large snowball rolling downhill, Super!  The further it goes...the bigger it gets.  All one has to do is look at the growth of the Federal Government to understand that concept.  Departments in government almost never shrink...the people that run them continually seek more funds...more control.  Government employees create new regulations to justify the monies that they are paid.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...



I keep hearing that, but tell me what corporations have raised wages, bonuses, built new plants, etc. as a result of the removal of all these regulations.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Who needs stinking, know nothing, witnesses?
> ...



Of course you're all for Nancy holding back the articles of impeachment, Care!  They're going to be laughed out of the Senate.  Then what do you have?  Trump and his robust economy?  Good luck running against that.  Nancy needs to keep this farce going for as long as she can to distract from the fact that the Democrats don't have a platform the American people support.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Now you're unaware that wages are up?  That businesses have been investing in growth?  What's your source for news, Super?  You're amazingly uninformed!


----------



## The Purge (Dec 31, 2019)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Who needs stinking, know nothing, witnesses?
> ...


You mean like the HOUSE SHAMPEACHMENT...NEED I play videos of Schitt REFUSING republican requests for witnesses and the STAR CHAMBER...?

ME TOO, I want Nancy to hold them as we rightly so will point out their corruptness and cowardness after all the hoopla....I want the Dem Senators running for president to be HELD UP by a vote in the Senate if no impeachment sent, and as you know  Trump is not IMPEACHED UNTIL THE SENATE GETS THE BILL!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Who needs stinking, know nothing, witnesses?
> ...



But Care!  You liberals claimed that Trump had to impeached IMMEDIATELY because he was a danger to national security!  That was why you rushed impeachment through the House!

So what happened?  You vote for impeachment and then go on a three week vacation?  

What happened to the dire emergency we were facing?  Duh?
Do you even believe the shit that people like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi are putting out these days?  Are you THAT far gone that you can't see it for what it is?


----------



## Wapasha (Dec 31, 2019)

Superbadbrutha said:


> I keep hearing that, but tell me what corporations have raised wages, bonuses, built new plants, etc. as a result of the removal of all these regulations.


Well, for example, the modifications to HUD and FHA loans and such, it speeds up the process of buying a home, which means home sell faster.  

I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand that the economy will move along more quickly, if regulations which are stifling growth are emended to streamline the functions of a business, or by simply removing regulations which make it cost prohibitive.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Wages have never in the history of this country went up due to de-regulation....

In fact, the golden age of "no regulations" occurred during the worst of times for working class people...and despite unions winning collective bargaining rights, enforcing 8-hr work days, OSHA, EPA and a whole host of other labor regulations --- wages went up...how is that possible??

Especially when you consider the top marginal tax rate was north of 70% for much of that time we refer to as the "good old days" for the middle class


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 31, 2019)

Wapasha said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing that, but tell me what corporations have raised wages, bonuses, built new plants, etc. as a result of the removal of all these regulations.
> ...


He asked you to name a regulation that raised wages -- and you couldn't......which pretty much makes his point...

Simply saying "get rid of regulations" is what people say when they can't tell you much more than that......Right now, can you tell me what regulation we can do away with that will raise wages right now??

Will loosening environmental protections so  large corporations can pollute easier -- will that raise wages?? what??


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



And yet wages ARE going up?  What's causing that, Biff?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



Are you involved in any kind of business, Biff?  If you were...you'd have a good idea how much time and money we waste in this country jumping through hoops set up by government.


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Low unemployment. That creates a demand for employees.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Let me know when you want to talk about wages after they have been adjusted for inflation....

Wages for the most part have remained stagnant, especially when you consider how productivity has continued to go up....


Now can you tell me what regulation was removed that caused your wages to rise?


I'll wait


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to tell me what regulation was removed that caused your wages to go up or that caused you to give your employees a wage increase....

I am still waiting...…


----------



## hadit (Dec 31, 2019)

edward37 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That would be super stupid for them to try.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Low unemployment means a demand for employees?  Really, Faun?  That's about as obvious as saying water means things get wet!  There is NOTHING more amusing then watching a progressive attempt to have an intelligent conversation about economics!


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



You're claiming we're in an inflationary cycle?  I'm not seeing that.  

This really isn't rocket science, Biff...when you get rid of regulations that save billions of dollars...businesses will use part of that money to attract or retain good employees in an employment market that favors job seekers.  When businesses have to waste that money complying with needless regulations there is no money to give raises.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I see you keep avoiding to answer the question....why??

Let me type in crayon for you and see if that makes my question easier....


You own a business...you have an employee....you tell the employee that you would pay him or her a dollar more if what regulation was done away with??

Go!


----------



## edward37 (Dec 31, 2019)

hadit said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


It would bring joy to my heart  to see trump lose it


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL

You asked and then you say the answer is obvious. Too funny.


----------



## hadit (Dec 31, 2019)

edward37 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edward37 said:
> ...


Just as it would bring joy to my heart to see the House democrats slink home in utter defeat.


----------



## Wapasha (Dec 31, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> Are you involved in any kind of business, Biff? If you were...you'd have a good idea how much time and money we waste in this country jumping through hoops set up by government.



Your company, or mine, does not exist in a bubble. Regulatory changes don't have to only be affecting your company. If your suppliers are positively impacted, they may lower their costs. New suppliers may now be available to provide for you. Or your customers might purchase more because they were positively affected, either directly, or indirectly like the examples above.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 31, 2019)

Wapasha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Are you involved in any kind of business, Biff? If you were...you'd have a good idea how much time and money we waste in this country jumping through hoops set up by government.
> ...



What I'm trying to make both Faun and Super understand is how much time and money businesses in the US waste every year having to comply with governmental regulations.  Trump has addressed that by forcing departments to get rid of two regulations if they want to add another.  It's simplistic but effective.  It's counters the tendency of government  to constantly intrude more and more on the Private Sector.

Before the wails start up about how all this regulation is here to protect us and if we start doing away with them then we're all going to perish...let me state unequivocally...we're not doing away with OSHA or the EPA...but we are doing away with ridiculous regulations.  There are literally tens of thousands of regulations...we're drowning in them and it was getting worse with each passing year.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 1, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So post the links and inform us all.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 1, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That's what we are asking you to tell us specifically.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 1, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Which wages are going up?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 1, 2020)

You say all that and you have yet to explain what regulations that were cut raised wages.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 1, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


1.  The Impeachment has been stalled because Pelosi has not sent the Articles to the senate, a delaying tactic on the part of the Dems.

2.  McConnell is not refusing to call witnesses.  It hasn't reached that stage yet.

3.  Trump never said, "*I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden"   
READ: White House transcript of Trump call with Ukrainian president *Trump tells the Ukranian president that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Hunter Biden in the Ukraine.  Could you look into that?  It sounds awful to me.  Never a mention quid pro quo. 

4.  Of course McConnell is in lock step with the president.  It is the Senate's job to defend him.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 1, 2020)

Q: What do you call a trial with no witnesses and no documents where the judges are colluding with the defense and have already admitted that they wouldn't honor their oath to be fair and impartial? 

A: A FAKE Trial


----------



## hadit (Jan 1, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Q: What do you call a trial with no witnesses and no documents where the judges are colluding with the defense and have already admitted that they wouldn't honor their oath to be fair and impartial?
> 
> A: A FAKE Trial



Yes, it's terrible that we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt how most of the democrats are going to vote, before the first word is spoken. So the whole thing is fake and should be tossed in the fire.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 1, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> You say all that and you have yet to explain what regulations that were cut raised wages.



How do I "explain" something as obvious as this...
*
"Cutting Rules:* Baseball season is winding down and, as it does, so is another grueling annual event: The U.S. government's fiscal year. But this year, with just two months to go, something remarkable is happening: Regulations are being slashed at a record rate.

A new report by the American Action Forum (AAF) says that not only is President Trump meeting his deregulation goals, he's exceeding them — in some cases, by a large amount.

"Collectively, executive agencies subject to regulatory budget remain on pace to double the administration's overall saving goal," wrote the AAF's Dan Bosch. "On an individual basis, 12 of 22 agencies have already met or surpassed their savings target."

"The Department of Labor enjoys the largest total savings of covered agencies with $417.2 million," Bosch wrote. "The Department of Health and Human Services comes in second in savings ... at $285.6 million. The Department of Transportation ranks third in annualized savings, followed by the Department of Justice."

All told, the government aimed for savings of about $686.6 million from deregulation so far this year. Right now, the government has saved some $1.308 billion from 47 separate deregulation actions.

This might not sound like much, given the government's immense size. But it is. Because the economic impact is much larger than the mere dollar amount in regulations cut. And it's also important because President Trump has set a regulatory budget that limits the number of rules and their costs.

As the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted earlier this year in its "Ten Thousand Commandments" annual report, federal regulations cost a lot more than their stated dollar amount. As of last year, regulation and federal intervention in the economy cost Americans an estimated $1.9 trillion. And that's one of the lowball estimates out there.

How much is that? It's the equivalent of a $15,000-per-household tax levied each year in perpetuity. That's more than the average family spends on food, clothing or transportation. Only housing takes more of the family budget.

If regulation were a nation, and let's be thankful it's not, it would be the eighth-largest economy in the world. Regulation even exceeds the IRS' total take in corporate and individual income tax. That's how big it is.

Last year, Trump began cutting rules in earnest as soon as he entered office. He slashed the total number of pages in the Federal Register, the government's regulatory bible, from 95,894 in 2016 to 61,308 pages in 2017. That's a decline of 36% and the lowest since 1993. This year it will go even lower.

This is a big deal for businesses, which find themselves increasingly burdened by mandates, orders, rules and commands issued by Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about their companies.

The burden on small businesses is especially acute. A National Small Business Association survey found that small business owners spend more than 80 hours a year just dealing with regulations. In the first year alone, a small business will spend on average roughly $83,000 to comply with government rules. That can be the margin between staying open or going bankrupt.

*Deregulation's Impact*
"The impact of regulatory burden cannot be overstated," the NSBA noted. "More than one-third have held off on business investment due to uncertainty on a pending regulation, and more than half have held off on hiring a new employee due to regulatory burdens."

The record regulatory siege under President Obama goes a long way toward explaining his poor economic performance. With growth averaging below 2%, his was the worst administration for growth in postwar history.

The Trump economy, by contrast, is today growing at just a nick below 3% a year. Median annual household income stands at $62,175 currently, the highest level since 2000. Unemployment in June matched its lowest level in half a century. In short, the economy is operating on an entirely different level than during the Obama years.

It's made a huge difference in Americans' confidence, as shown in recent strong gains in our own IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index, which rose to 58.0 in August, its highest level since January of 2004. The economy is again growing robustly and creating jobs, thanks in large part to Trump's deregulation, which acts like a giant tax cut — one you didn't even know you got."
https://www.investors.com/politics/...sident-trump-cuts-regulations-at-record-rate/


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 1, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Q: What do you call a trial with no witnesses and no documents where the judges are colluding with the defense and have already admitted that they wouldn't honor their oath to be fair and impartial?
> 
> A: A FAKE Trial



What do you call a trial where none of the witnesses called by the prosecution had first hand knowledge of what happened?  The only people who did are Trump...who released the transcript of the call...and the President of the Ukraine who has steadfastly denied there was any quid pro quo in play!

Answer?  A trial that the judge would throw out for lack of evidence before it even went to trial!


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Q: What do you call a trial with no witnesses and no documents where the judges are colluding with the defense and have already admitted that they wouldn't honor their oath to be fair and impartial?
> ...



Where do you Trumpublicans (I'd call ya conservatives but ya ain't) get your news anyway? There were SEVERAL witnesses who were on these calls and smack-dab in the middle of Rudy and Donald's "drug deal". 

It should also be noted that Donnie didn't release a "transcript" - We got the Billy Barr SUMMARY which stated right up top that it wasn't a verbatim transcript. It was full of ellipses (dot dot dot) ... meaning paragraphs were cut short. The "transcript" got worm-holed away on a super-secret server. 

Learn something .. at SOME point - PLEASE


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I have read past years regulatory costs, and they approach the $2 trillion mark.  Here is a link to a PDF where the annual costs in 2010 were at around $1.75 trillion.

 Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms 

Regulations, rules and mandates are essentially a government tax. The federal, state or local government forces businesses to pay those regulatory costs, or expenditures of resources to achieve a desired outcome.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Dems should have called the witnesses to give evidence in the House before voting to impeach

now its too late to demand that the senate do pelosi’s job for her


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What are you babbling about? Dems called TONS of witnesses including the idiots who claimed "absolute immunity" and didn't show up. Waiting for Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest of them in court after court after court would have taken months if not years. 

We have a president who is openly asking foreign governments for dirt on his opponents and who has done NOTHING to stop Putin from meddling again. Ain't got that kind of time. 

In case you hadn't heard, another court just ruled that "absolute immunity" doesn't exist. Will Moscow Mitch McTurtle call Bolton or anyone else? Doubtful unless three or more Republicans demand it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



Items were redacted from the transcript as they almost always ARE when sensitive topics are being discussed between nations and leaders.  What's telling about the transcript is that it contradicts what Adam Schiff was claiming took place during the phone call and backs up both President Trump and the Ukrainian President's claims that no quid pro quo took place!  Schiff was shown once again to be a liar...something he's been caught at repeatedly...yet HE was the chosen to run the House investigation?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



Oh, so it's now a pressing issue again?  You liberals can't keep your stories straight!  You claim we need to impeach Trump immediately because he's a danger to national security...then Pelosi and the Democrats go on a three week vacation without sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate?  What happened to the emergency?  

Now you want to claim it's about Russian meddling in our elections?  AGAIN?  Funny how Russian meddling in our elections wasn't something Barack Obama did anything about (other than use it as a ruse to spy on the Trump campaign of course!) leading up to the 2016 elections but now it's a matter of life and death?


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



A trial wouldn't have happened until this month anyway. The clowns were doing what they do best - take vacations. What Pelosi did was brilliant strategy. Let Moscow Mitch and the Mango Menace stew a bit. Let more information come out. Let another favorable court decision on the phony claim of "absolute immunity" come through. Let Republican Senators hear from their constituents while on recess. 

Tribune Editorial: Sen. Mitt Romney’s mission: Trial first. Verdict afterwards.

Yep, brilliant.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You're not to be taken seriously. Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney all admitted it was a quid pro quo in broad daylight. Sondland admitted that it was a quid pro quo. Trump has openly said he'd illegally take dirt from a foreign government in a heartbeat. He even asked China to investigate the Bidens. 

Sensitive my ass. Only in the sense that it exposed this president's criminality. And again, THERE WAS NO "TRANSCRIPT".


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...




Zelensky said he wasn't pressured in the slightest.

Are you suggesting that the Ukrainian leader is a liar?

Would the libs be willing to get behind Putin and attack Ukraine?   Will the Democrats promise to eliminate aid to Ukraine, if Zelensky refuses to back their narrative?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


So in other words, you are not going to tell me which regulatory rule being removed resulted in you or your employees getting a raise... got it


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


I see answering my question is hard for you, but I'm used to it...…

So again, I am going to help you out.....I am going to give you an example of how a regulatory rule resulted in workers getting higher wages....

Let's start with something simple like the Overtime Pay rule.....that "GOVERNMENT REGULATION" resulted in increased wages because it regulated that people working over 40 hrs were paid time and a half.....

Now, you tell me which regulation that was eliminated that resulted in a similar wage increase...

I'll wait while you pontificate and bloviate and speak in platitudes about non-sense because you can't answer a direct question....


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


_*"Zelensky said he wasn't pressured in the slightest."*_

Yes, because people typically admit they take bribes.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


He's not just suggesting the Ukrainian leader is a liar, he's flatout claiming it. The narrative is that of course he's lying, because we can't have the "victim" insisting he wasn't a victim.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Bribe = pressure? Not usually. Bribe = temptation, yes. Pressure = extortion, yes, as we saw from Crazy Uncle Joe. Now THAT'S pressure.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Trumpers are the type who say "Well the guy with the gun being held to his back should have told us he had a gun to his back"  


It's almost like they don't understand how coercion works......


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


They sure don't. It's like they think that after the gun is removed and guy is set free, the bad guy is still there.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Yeah, they're ALL lame but that one may be the lamest talking Trumpublican talking point of all.

If you believe it, then you believe that hostage videotapes are always the God's honest truth.

_My captors have been SO kind and they give me steak and lobster most nights._


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


But the bad guy is still there.....in fact, most of the people that the coerced guy thought would hold the bad guy accountable are in fact 1000% on the side of the bad guy.....

Leading the coerced guy to realize his best move is to not rock the boat...….

Besides, the coerced guy is the one who cancelled a TV appearance to announce what the bad guy wanted him to announce the minute the bad guy was forced to release the military aid....

Zelensky Nearly Announced The Investigations Trump Wanted -- Then Everything Changed


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Zelensky expressed interest in buying missiles from us and Trump asked for favors. That's a bribe.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


And now that everyone is watching, the bad guy can't put the gun in his back any more. It is far too easy to simply insist the "victim" is lying because it upsets the narrative, especially when the "victim" has come to no harm.

And interesting that the "victim" is so scared of Trump that he is willing to lie about being pressured, yet so UN-afraid of Trump that he's willing to defy his wishes by not announcing the investigation. Can't really have it both ways, you know.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Oh, so Zelensky was trying to bribe Trump? That's not pressure, though.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Actually yes the bad guy can...….because EVERYONE is not listening....

The entire Trump admin and GOP is still pretending there was never a gun being held to the back of the coerced guy in the first place...…

If I were the coerced guy, I would concede that the entire GOP are corrupt as shit...something that coerced guy knows something about...

and it is not the coerced guy's job to aid in the investigation of a US politician......something the bad guy and his sycophants (YOU) still haven't understood yet....


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


No, Zelensky accepted a bribe from Impeached Trump.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The "victim" in this case came to PLENTY of harm. They lost dozens of lives and vast amounts of land to Putin's thugs while Dotardo sat on 400 million for over 90 days because they were reluctant to lie for him and say they were investigating a nothingburger.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



What a crock.  Nobody has admitted there was quid pro quo!  It's been alleged by the Left but what the House "trial" made abundantly clear is that you have zero PROOF that the aid was contingent on the Ukrainian President investigating the Biden's!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's called negotiating...something that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON HAS DONE!!!  DUH?


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Sorry, a president negotiates in the interest of the country. Trump was negotiating in the interest of Donald Trump. DUH?


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Some of the most ill informed people on the planet post right here in USMB!


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


LOL 

And by "negotiating," you mean withholding financial aid to get him to investigate a political rival.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Will the Democrat Party negotiate with Zelensky and get his testimony to match their narrative, by withholding financial aid when they get back in?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



To investigate corruption in the Ukraine!  Where in that exchange did Mulvaney ever state there was a quid pro quo?


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




It was a quid pro quo, between America and Ukraine.

Not between the Trump campaign, or Donald J. Trump , personally.

The treaty between America and Ukraine binds our two nations to cooperate in purging out corruption.   And no, Sleepy Joe's declaration of Presidential candidacy doesn't exempt his ne'er-do-well son from being investigated.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I mean asking the President of the Ukraine to investigate corruption!  Why is that improper?  It's done all the time.

What's laughable is listening to them try to make the case that Trump is violating the emoluments clause by having a summit meeting at Doral...a property that he owns!  What part of the offer was to do that AT COST didn't they get?  Trump offers to give the taxpayers a break by having it at a property he owns but because it's Trump...those liberal mouthpieces in the media immediately declare that it's a violation of the emoluments clause!  News flash for you clueless wonders...when you do something "at cost" it means you're not taking a profit while doing it!!!!!  Duh?


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




I thought President Trump withdrew his offer to use Doral for the summit after the libs popped an aneurysm over his proposal?   So they are going to have the event at some dump instead.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Which will cost the taxpayers more than they would have paid to have it at Doral.  Gotta love the Left!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Meet nobody...

Its utterly pathetic the way people can get on national TV and say it was a quid pro quo -- and you sycophants still pretend it didnt happen....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


so you don't care if it was a violation of the Constitution right??

But you act like a bitch because Obama got a multimillion dollar Netflix deal 3 years after being in office....I swear you folks are pathetic....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



I repeat...where in any of THAT did Mulvaney admit there was quid pro quo!  I heard two different reporters try to put those words in his mouth and both times Mulvaney explained why there wasn't quid pro quo!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So libs have a "constitutional right" not to be perturbed?

The libs won this one, you should be happy.  They are going to have the meeting at a Motel Fucking Six.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



How is having a meeting at a property that ANYONE owns a violation of the emoluments clause when it's done at cost?  What you're claiming borders on farce!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




The Secret Service is already familiar with Trump's properties, and know what their security concerns are each of them, as well as have good strategies to deal with them.

Moving the summit to a Motel 6 in Fort Smith Arkansas might sound less expensive, but it really isn't.   The Secret Service as well as the bodyguards for other nations' leaders would have to visit and scope out the area, see where the blind spots are, consider the various routes to air strips they'll be using, all takes time and is expensive.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yeah, Micky walked it back the day AFTER because Donald and his people crapped in their pants over his quid pro quo admission.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Zelensky said he wasn't pressured in the slightest.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the Ukrainian leader is a liar?
> 
> Would the libs be willing to get behind Putin and attack Ukraine? Will the Democrats promise to eliminate aid to Ukraine, if Zelensky refuses to back their narrative?


According to Democrats, anyone who disagrees with their presumptions, conjecture or assumptions, is a liar. 

The defendant says "I didn't do that."
The so called victim says "He didn't do that." 
But both men are liars and Trump has been impeached.

No amount of statements by anyone will convince the dems to give up what they believe, even if they lack any evidence to prove their presumptions.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


You are going to play this stupidity to the very end, aren't you.

What are you looking for, proof of some kind of law  that was passed during the Trump admin which forced employers to pay you or me any kind of pay increase?


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Show me another president running for re-election asking for a foreign leader to investigate another candidate who's also running for president....


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL 

_"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. *And that’s why we held up the money*." ~ Mick Mulvaney_


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



So just be content that you're calling the "victim" a liar because he counters the narrative.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then it's not pressure.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



Attempting to talk to Trumptards is a losing cause. Sad


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



So they wouldn't lie for him then, but now they ARE lying for him? Talk about twisting logic into pretzel shapes.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


There's no pressure in violating U.S. law?


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're discounting the entertainment value.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag



Off topic, irrelevant and ludicrous.   A real trifecta of childish gibberish. But I digress, the Question posed in the OP is this:

Q.  Why is the GOP afraid of calling witnesses?

A.  The truth will cost the GOP the majority in the Senate and many State Legislatures, if the evidence provided by the witnesses is beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if Bolton and others who have been subpoenaed take the 5th Amendment, the GOP will lose  the credibility and confidence of the people.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Entertainment value is literally the ONLY reason we're here!


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag
> ...



Moscow Mitch had better figure out that 70% of the American people won't buy into his fake trial with no witnesses and no documents ... PRONTO.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Its not Sen. McConnell who will be presenting the case, that will be the House Manager who say they all ready have enough to proceed and prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

What question would liberals want to ask Ambassador Bolton or Mayor Giuliani, if they do take the stand?    Remember this is a trial, not an investigation


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



what you are babbling is that the house dems did not call all the witnesses they needed or wanted before rushing into impeachment 

and now you want the senate to do what the house was supposed to do but didnt


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


90% of the people already realize the House impeachment was a fucking clown parade.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



Yes they did. Kindly stop spouting your Trumptardian LIES. 

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump - Wikipedia


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



Did you pull that 90% figure outta yer butt? Put it back ... IMMEDIATELY!!


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


LOLOL 

That must explain why the polls taken since Impeached Trump was impeached show more people want him impeached and removed from office than those who don't.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...




That's certainly one way to put it.

But what I don't understand is what the House Managers and Nervous Nancy hope to prove by presenting "witnesses" that they haven't even interviewed and have no idea what- if anything- they know about the specific charges they intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sometimes prosecutors have late arriving witnesses that come forward during cases.   But they know what they intend to prove by calling them and know that they are actually witnesses.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



Can't make this shit up can ya?

A majority of Americans in a new poll support Trump's impeachment and removal from office


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...




Then what are you libs so freaking anxious about?     If the people are already convinced that Trump and Pence have got to go, they'll be gone soon enough, and you'll be able to impose all kinds of crazy shit on the people.


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


He’s going nowhere and all of this impeachment chicanery helps the GOP to take back the House and re-elect Trump.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


The democrats should have heard from all the witnesses they needed _BEFORE_ voting for impeachment 

not after


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


I’m sorry, 85% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans see it as partisan. Almost 90%. 49% and 49% of public split on impeach and remove or not. Where did you pull 70% out of your ass?


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Railroad job.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



Cool, for that nonsense to get through every court in the land would have only taken us deep into 2020 and possibly deep into 2021. 

Sorry man, TOO LATE.


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


This is what impeachment is all about...election night 2016
America people can see through the bullshit.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...




There are all kinds of fake polls out there.


But bettors aren't fooled.   The odds of President Trump schlonging the Dems this November are shortening.    He's a huge Odds-on Favorite


US Presidential Election 2020 Winner  Betting Odds | Politics


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



GHWB just spoke to me from the great beyond.
He politely requests that you remove his image from your avatar. 
He's spinning in his grave.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...




If you libs are unwilling to wait for the courts,  you can proceed without the witnesses.    And then, at a moment that the Republicans see it to their best advantage, they'll acquit, and every newspaper in the country will have the banner headline "TRUMP EXONERATED"  Innocent as newborn babe as Senate declares Liberal probe to be witch hunt


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



I said nothing about "70%". FIFTY TWO percent of the American people want your idiot REMOVED.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Because the Senate has already declared they will ignore the will of the people.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


I thought the same thing every time a rodent lawyer from the ACLU sued a trump policy the lefties didnt like and held up progress for months and sometimes years


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


I wonder if that unfortunate creature is a man or a woman

how sad


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


What kind of queer shit is that? We like it when you go after Trump because he beats the shit out of liberals every time. I post actual Hillary voter...you post some gay guy in Make-up. Sure.


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Bet it takes penis in it’s mouth.


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


ITS Dr. LOVE!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...




The "will of the people" is irrelevant.   The question is whether the Libs will prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.    And I just don't see where the evidence is.   Maybe its all secret or something.   But all of witnesses I saw on TV have never even spoken to Trump and only had hearsay and opinions to offer.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Thats considered a badge of honor in lib la la land


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



Again, Poppy Bush LOATHED Donnie Dumpster. All the Bushes loathe Donnie Dumpster.

They repeat their request of you to remove GHWB's image.

Poppy was a decent man - The Orange Anus is NOT.


----------



## Bush92 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


I don’t give a shit.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



Obviously not - And that is why you support President Poopstain!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...




HW Bush was attacked by Liberals and called a racist, fascist and homophobe.  The liberal media pointed out that George HW Bush was  "Literally Hitler" mainly because he allegedly made a deal with the ayatollah during the 1980 campaign and his racist ads about Dukakis and Willie Horton who was Dukakis' BFF.

Lastly, HW was ripped to shreds for not using a prophylactic when Dubya was conceived.

And now you say he was "decent"??


----------



## lantern2814 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the  House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


LOLOL 

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, _"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract."_ Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

_https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth 
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."_​


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Please tell me where anyone in the house who voted for the articles of impeachment said we don't need to hear from Pompeo, Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney??

I'll wait


I do remember you dic suckers saying "wait until it get to the Senate - that's when Trump's witnesses can testify and prove Trump did nothing wrong"  --- now yall are scared to death of any of those witnesses testifying...because you know them lies hit different under oath....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


That's not how American Judicial system works, Komrade.  Get a fucking clue!!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



Cool, because an impeachment trial in the senate isn't the American Judicial system you dunce....


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...






Actually, we the people thought you libs were going to present a prima facie case that would need to be rebutted.

Maybe some witnesses lying or something.

But instead, you just presented a bunch of folks with opinions who are butt hurt about being left out of the loop.

As it is, there is no reason to present any witnesses, as the libs have nothing at all.


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



It's amazing some of these people can actually function in any manner whatsoever in the real world.


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



That's not McConnell's problem. The failure on the part of the House does not constitute an emergency on his.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


So you thought there were going to be some witnesses that were lying or something?? those are your words, you do understand that, right??

Now lets delve into what those witnesses said....even the witnesses that the republicans called all substantiate the claim that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo......glad you admit that there were no witnesses lying.....thanks


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

hadit said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Only option is the Senate equivalent of a directed verdict of not guilty, the House failed to present a case. Thank the wisdom of the  Founding Fathers to set a high bar in the Senate so that a reed slim majority of Jihadists couldn't remove the President from office


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Cool, the house impeached.....

The Senate voted to acquit....life goes on...

And for time eternal -- you trumpers can claim how wrong Trump was treated and blah blah....


but I think you trumpers will only sing that tune up and until Trump is no longer in power....after that, your Trump sycophancy ends.....have to make room for the next demagogue to worship....

I am pulling for the Duck Dynasty guy myself.....or maybe Ted Nugent...he does hate pretty good


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...





The witnesses only gave their opinions that there was a quid pro quo, but they didn't hear anything or speak to the principals or even listen to the phone call.  I have to assume that these were their real opinions.  After all, they were really hurt about being left out of the loop while the President pursued his job without their help.

But opinions aren't admissible testimony and neither is hearsay, so the Senators will never hear it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You haven't seen Trump hit back yet.  This time next year you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who will admit to belonging to the traitorous, money laundering,  human trafficking,  pedophile, Stalinist democrat Party


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




The D's didn't even touch the President in this Fake Impeachment.   Trump doesn't have to hit back on this, unless he wants to.


I thought for sure that the Dems would have had some fool come forward and testify in no uncertain terms about a fake conversation they  had with the President.    Something which would NEED to be rebutted. But really there is nothing but a group of butthurt deep staters whining about have no influence at all in foreign policy


----------



## DrLove (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, the Trump Remorse is palpable - But best of luck on Donnie Dumpsters "hit back" !! 

Let’s call it Trump Remorse


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 2, 2020)

102 pages of comments ago - I said....the GOP are afraid to call witnesses.....

and 102 pages later......I am still right.......


----------



## hadit (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 102 pages of comments ago - I said....the GOP are afraid to call witnesses.....
> 
> and 102 pages later......I am still right.......



You weren't in the meeting, you don't know. Or were you hiding behind the plants again?


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 102 pages of comments ago - I said....the GOP are afraid to call witnesses.....
> 
> and 102 pages later......I am still right.......




102 pages ago, the Dems still don't have any evidence that would need to be rebutted by the President's witnesses.   

And here in America, its up to the persecution to prove its case, not the defendant who is entitled to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Show me another candidate that was using his office to enrich his family like Joe Biden was!


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*Translation: *_you can't name anyone other than Impeached Trump._ 

As far as Biden, you have zero proof Joe used to office to enrich his family. What else would a lying con tool say though, right?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


Trump said he's looking forward to fair trial that would show he did nothing wrong. Of course, McConnell will see to it that there is not a fair trial, just a kangaroo court filled with political rhetoric and a quick vote to dismiss all charges.  Trump may claim his innocence, but the court of public opinion and historians will see that he carries the brand of impeachment forever.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, Joe had nothing to do with Hunter making all that money doing a job he no clue how to do!  You keep telling yourself that, Faun!


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Bush92 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


The bush dynasty is grooming yet another blue blood to run for president

his name is George P Bush and he wants to turn the Alamo into a mexican Disneyland


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Prove Joe did something to get him that job....


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


The left hated every republican president when they were in office


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...




More than that , they hated the losing Republican candidates for President, at least until they were defeated.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


We (trumpsters) will complain about how the left tried to engineer a coup and nullify our 2016 vote


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


LOL

Oh? How'd we do that?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Liberals are praying to whatever graven image passes for their god that trump does not win reelection in 2020

if he does retribution will be swift and heavy


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

DrLove said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Lets call it what it really is

a lib illusion


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


True

libs hated mccain when he ran for president against obama


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Oh? What will this retribution entail?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Through the phony mueller witch-hunt and now through impeachment based on rumors


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Hopefully he will bring rogue agents in the Deep State to justice


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


The "Mueller witch-hunt??" That wasn't the left. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Mueller is a *Republican*. He was appointed special counsel by a *Republican* assistant Attorney General who was filling in for the *Republican* Attorney General who recused himself; who was appointed by a *Republican* president.

All the left did was sit back and enjoy the popcorn as we watched the show.

As far as the impeachment, Impeached Trump broke the law by soliciting a foreign national to help him with his campaign by looking for dirt with a political rival. That's not a rumor -- we have the White House memorandum.

_"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ..." ~ Impeached Trump_​


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


"Deep state" being career politicians in Washington?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The Deep State is neither left or right

It simply exists to wield power no matter who is elected president

but normally the president is a lifelong washington swamp rat who knows his place

which in no way describes trump


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Actually, that's just a spin-job on what happened.   President Trump was looking to eliminate corruption, the fact the Sleepy Joe and his son may have been caught up in corruption wasn't something that influenced him in the slightest and there is no proof that it did.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No

unelected career swamp rats who answer to no one - except maybe a bigger rat


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 102 pages of comments ago - I said....the GOP are afraid to call witnesses.....
> 
> and 102 pages later......I am still right.......


And I reminded you that trump does not need proof of his innocence

you have to prove him guilty

which dems failed to do before rushing to impeachment


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Oh? Sleepy Joe is no longer VP. His son no longer works for Burisma. Shokin is no longer Prosecutor General.  Poroshenko is no longer Ukraine's president an Zlochevsky's investigation was settled and closed.

So exactly what "corruption" was Impeached Trump asking the current president of Ukraine to look for?


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


You mean like FBI?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Why not?

do you think they are saints?

if so you better wake up


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 2, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Do you think the statute of limitations has expired on the bidens?


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Not saying they're saints, they'revlike any law enforcement.  I'm just not falling for that deep state nonsense. I thought when you said rogue agents, you were talking about FBI.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


It's not about statute of limitations. It's about there's no corruption there for Ukraine to look for. All the players are either gone or cleared. If the purpose is to clean up corruption, shouldn't Impeached Trump have asked them to look into ongoing corruption? Not events that occurred nearly 4 years ago and have since been settled?


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



“
*Schumer warns Trump: Intel officials 'have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you'*
*The new leader of Democrats in the Senate says Donald Trump is being "really dumb" for picking a fight with intelligence officials, suggesting they have ways to strike back, after the president-elect speculated Tuesday that his "so-called" briefing about Russian cyberattacks had been delayed in order to build a case. 


"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Tuesday evening on MSNBC after host Rachel Maddow informed him that intelligence sources told NBC news that the briefing had not been delayed.”*

that sounds like a description of the Deep State to me


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You may prefer to look the other way but I dont

Corruption goes on in Washington because no one is ever held acountable


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


And he proved to be wrong.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


LOLOL 

You say that as you pull for the Senate to not hold Impeached Trump accountable for soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Trump fucked them by releasing the transcript, they never thought he'd do that. Instead of stopping, the Stalinist democrats decided to double down on a losing bet


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The best thing to come out of this is the exposure of how Soros and his democrat Party turned foreign aid into the worlds biggest money  laundering Operation. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Romney and other career politicians are all up to their ears in it. This is going to make a FANTASTIC  commercial for Trump 2020


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




No

schumer was having a rare lucid and truthful moment


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The senate will consider any evidence the dem presenters offer

but the investigation is over


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Uhh, there is the same kind of "proof" you guys use to claim Trump tried to use Ukraine to benefit himself. There is, for example, no way that Biden's son could have gotten that very lucrative job if Biden was not VP.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Biden was far more corrupt than Burisma and if he has nothing to hide he should release all his Ukrainian emails and testify, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Riiiiight, because laundering taxpayer money through Burisma isnt a crime


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You really think someone with zero experience with either the Ukraine or the natural gas industry...someone with a history of drug abuse...get's hired at that pay rate for that job if his father ISN'T the Vice President?  

IT'S PATENTLY OBVIOUS WHY HUNTER BIDEN GOT THAT JOB!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So if the corruption happened yesterday but isn't happening now it shouldn't be looked at?  That's an amazing take on things, Faun!  You don't deny it looks sleazy as hell...but you think it's OK because it's not happening now?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


And he was wrong. Had he been right, intelligence officials would have struck back. They didn't.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Witnesses appear in trials, not just investigations. Republicans are circling the Impeached Trump's wagon abs are simply protecting him. If they really cared and the truth, which is the purpose of a trial, they wouldn't fear the truth.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Schumer was right 

But from the standpoint of liberal Deep Staters wrong to say it in public


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him. There is zero evidence of the latter which is what lying con tools are claiming with nothing to back that up.

And the there certainly is evidence Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national for campaign help. It's revealed in his phone call with Zelensky where he asked the Ukrainian president to look into his political rival.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The cops usually dont say “we think he’s guilty but dont have time to gather the evidence.  So just take him to court and we’ll  wing it”


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Let me know when you have proof of this purported corruption.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


If that occurred, that would be on Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden. That still doesn't grant  Impeached Trump access to violate the law which states he can't solicit a foreign national to help him with his own campaign by digging for dirt with his political rival.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Stop lying, ya lying con tool. You insinuated his father got  him that job. Not that Hunter got it himself because of who his father was.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Try answering the question I actually asked, lying con tool.

what "corruption" was Impeached Trump asking the current president of Ukraine to look for since all of what he asked about ended years ago?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Great, so show what the intelligence community did to "strike back" at Impeached Trump...


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


They concocted a phony russia collusion witchhunt


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration.  Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.


----------



## xyz (Jan 3, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Schumer is guilty of being a Fascist scumbag


Link? And especially link to Italians, since you used a capital F.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I didn't "insinuate" anything!  I stated quite clearly that the only reason Hunter Biden got THAT job among many of his jobs was because of who his father is.  Your claim that Hunter Biden "got it himself" is laughable!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Hunter Biden resigned from the Burisma board years ago?  Really?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Brennan, Clapper and Comey did exactly that as was revealed in the IG report!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





No one is "refusing" to honor a a subpoena.  The President is just challenging the subpoenas in court, as anyone used to have the right to do.   BTW, Congress isn't "law enforcement" at all.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.



Comrade Fawn, which branch of government is in charge of the DOJ, the ONLY law enforcement of the federal government? Shall Marshalls be sent to explain it to your commie ass?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I said he got the job himself because his father was VP.

You lied and said his father got him the job.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.
> 
> b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration.  Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.



Comrade faw, WHAT do you think the IG report revealed? 

I know the little Goebbels lied about it out of the gate, then had to walk back the lies. I think they do that so low life scum like you can point to the Antisemitic New York Times and say "see, they reported it," without acknowledging that the Times lied and retracted later.

{
The memo from the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee reported:


A salacious and unverified dossier formed an essential part of the application to secure a warrant against a Trump campaign affiliate named Carter Page. This application failed to reveal that the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
The application cited a Yahoo News article extensively. The story did not corroborate the dossier, and the FBI wrongly claimed Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was not a source for the story.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of a high-ranking Justice Department official, also worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign effort. Her husband Bruce Ohr funneled her research into the Department of Justice. Although he admitted that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” this and the Ohrs’ relationship with the Clinton campaign was concealed from the secret court that grants surveillance warrants.
The dossier was “only minimally corroborated” and unverified, according to FBI officials.
All of these things were found to be true by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his December 9 report. In fact, Horowitz detailed rampant abuse that went far beyond these four items.

The Democratic minority on the committee, then led by Rep. Adam Schiff, put out a response memo with competing claims:


FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
The DOJ “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Steele’s reporting.
The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect “valuable intelligence.”
“Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”
The FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
Steele’s prior reporting was used in “criminal proceedings.”
Each of these claims were found by Horowitz to be false.


Horowitz found that FBI and DOJ officials did in fact omit critical material information from the FISA warrant, including several items exculpatory to Page. Material facts were not just omitted but willfully hidden through doctoring of evidence.}

IG Report Confirms Schiff Memo Media Praised Was Riddled With Lies


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, the corruption you're crying about was purportedly from years ago.

Still no answer from you....

what "corruption" was Impeached Trump asking the current president of Ukraine to look for since all of what he asked about ended years ago?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


The IG report stated the reasons to investigate potential collusion were "justified."


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Great, post a link to this court case so I can look it up.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hunter was put in the position as a mule, a conduit for kickbacks to Quid Pro Joe Biden. The entire Burisma affair, where $1.8 BILLION in US Taxpayer money vanished without a trace, was an embezzlement scheme that many top democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, and it appears Mitch McConnell as well, were involved in. Trump exposed a major spot of corruption, which is why you scum went after him.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Comrade Fawn, the Stalinist faction of the House of Representatives has no authority to subpoena the coequal Executive branch. Any submission  to such subpoenas is a courtesy, one that the scofflaw scum in the house don't deserve.

I mean, you can prove me wrong by citing the article or amendment that shows the executive to be an inferior branch, but failing that, well....


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




All anyone knows is that Hunter Biden got the job, got paid big bucks, and didn't pay his taxes on it.

Maybe we should investigate Burisma and the Bidens to actually find out what the arrangement exactly was?   Hunter Biden, as you may know, is involved in the cocaine and prostitution rackets and is due in court next week for being a dead beat dad.  A real piece of poop


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


We know the intel rats did concoct


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The AG and special criminal investigator durham disagreed


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


If Hunter didn't pay taxes, then Hunter should be investigated for that. That would be done by our own IRS. That doesn't give Impeached Trump authority to violate the law to solicit a foreign national to investigate hid dad who also happens to be one of Impeached Trump's rivals.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Oh? What did they "concoct" after Schumer said what he said?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


If you have evidence someone else got him they job, prove it...


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Then you have nothing to complain about


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You are right, there isn't evidence about this yet.  And that's why we need to get to the bottom of this, and find out exactly why Burisma hired Biden for the job.   And that is going to require an investigation, on both sides of the Atlantic.  Fortunately, America and Ukraine have a treaty to ensure cooperation and our nations' presidents have gotten to together on the phone to arrange an appropriate investigation.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The trump-russia collusion hoax


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


I'm not complaining.  Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I can't believe THAT'S what you're going with, Faun!  Let me ask you this then...do you think Joe Biden knew that his son was getting that position on the board of Burisma?  Because if he did...then Joe Biden knew EXACTLY what was going on!  His son was being paid off in the hope that it would influence him.  Now the only question that needs to be answered is whether or not Burisma received anything for all of that money that they paid to the Biden family which is one of the things that Donald Trump asked that the Ukrainian President look into!


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Unfortunately, Impeached Trump circumvented the treaty rather than use it. Had he used the treaty, he likely wouldn't have gotten impeached.

That aside, Impeached Trump's defense is that he was simply trying to get a corrupt country to show they're cracking down on corruption. How is looking into a matter that occurred 6 years ago dealing with current corruption?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


That wasn't a hoax according to the IG report and even what you speak of happened before Schumer said what he said.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So some of Trump's staff is subpoenaed...he claims Executive Privilege...but rather than let the courts decide who is right and who is wrong...the Left moves to impeach immediately before the courts can rule on that?  

Who's the real threat to the Constitution here?  A President invoking something that other Presidents before him have invoked...or Democrats in Congress that have decided that THEY are the ones who will decide what is legal and what is a criminal act?  So who changed the Constitution to exclude the Supreme Court?  Not Trump.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


There was no court involved, lying con tool.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Joe says he didn't get his son that job.  Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Zelensky expressed interest in buying missiles from us and Trump asked for favors. That's a bribe.


Trump never attached conditions for "buying missiles from us" with his favor. So no, not a bribe.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Meet another mr quid pro quo. Mulvaney wasn't the only person to tell the world yes there was a quid pro quo. 

Sondland clearly says yes there was a quid pro quo. 

Just denying that there was a quid pro quo doesn't make that true.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.


And you never seek to investigate anything, which is why all these corrupt politicians feel comfortable with using their positions in high government office to swing all kinds of high paying no-show jobs for their friends, family members and campaign donors.

When did people like you become sellouts to government corruption and crony capitalism?


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Zelensky expressed interest in buying missiles from us and Trump asked for favors. That's a bribe.
> ...


Conditions are irrelevant in terms of the law. The law simply states one cannot solicit campaign help from a foreign national.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 3, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> Meet another mr quid pro quo. Mulvaney wasn't the only person to tell the world yes there was a quid pro quo.
> 
> Sondland clearly says yes there was a quid pro quo.
> 
> Just denying that there was a quid pro quo doesn't make that true.


Sondland??? The man who was made a fool of, when he had to admit he made assertions of events which never took place all based upon his own presumptions, which he alone falsely assumed to be fact? The man is a freaking idiot, a fool, and a moron.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Trump did nothing wrong and the Derp State knew it

that made it a hoax


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.
> ...


Then impeached Trump should have followed legal protocol to have him investigated. Instead, he abused the power of his office by violating a law which prohibits soliciting a foreign national to investigate political rivals.

Hysterically, it will be you people freaking out over this is if it's allowed to stand and a Democrat president running for re-election some day starts getting foreign leaders to investigate all of their Republican competitors.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


They knew Russia was hacking Democrats and they had reason to believe some in Impeached Trump's campaign had Russisn connections. Thd investigation was warranted. The IG report confirms this.


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And of course all the democrats now freaking out over it defending it with all their might.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Conditions are irrelevant in terms of the law. The law simply states one cannot solicit campaign help from a foreign national.


Nowhere did Trump even hint at Biden's primary campaign, much less did Trump make it a point to solicit any help in the matter from Zelensky. This is simply a false assumption on your part.

Joe Biden has always run for public office in some political campaign, during every election cycle. Biden has done so since he was first elected to public office in 1973. So, to try and claim 2019 was significant, is silly; running for office is all Biden does.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


_*"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."*_

Liar.

I posted...


Faun said:


> Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.


... and you cut out all but...


hadit said:


> He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege.  The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

_On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”_​


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Joe's full of shit and Joe KNOWS he's full of shit!


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


Of course they are. As anyone should. No president running for re-election should be allowed to engage foreign leaders to help them get re-elected. Our Founding Fathers even spoke of the inherent dangers in exactly that. Now we have a rogue president doing it with the right defending him. If you've learned nothing from politics you should have at least learned that no turn gets left undone. What one party does, the other party does. If this is allowed to stand, I guarantee the day will come when a Democrat pulls a stunt like this. I also guarantee the right will flip out.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You just cited the decision in Federal Court, you buffoon!  Now you claim no court was involved?  You're amazing...


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Conditions are irrelevant in terms of the law. The law simply states one cannot solicit campaign help from a foreign national.
> ...


It matters not if Zelensky was aware that Biden was also running for president. Impeached Trump knew it when he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Seriously?  Did you miss the whole part where the Democrats paid huge money to foreign agents to smear their opponent with made up scandals?  The day will come?  That day came four years ago, you blinders wearing hack!


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL 

So you say but you're a lying con tool.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




They are still fighting the executive privilege question for Bolton et al in the courts of law, and the matter is still under appeal.

But more important than this, for a Senate trial, there is no reason to think that Mr. Bolton or Mulvaney or McGahn have any first hand knowledge about this offensive phone call.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's obvious that Joe Biden knew what was going on between his son and Burisma.  It's also obvious Joe chose to let it go until it became the focus point for a Democratic attempt to impeach Trump!  Only then did Hunter Biden resign his seat on that board.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately.  I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January.  Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

2 weeks later and the trumpers are still afraid to call witnesses ……#sad


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 2 weeks later and the trumpers are still afraid to call witnesses ……#sad



Ah, Biff...Congress is on break.  Hard to call witnesses when there's nobody there for them to testify TO!  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


*"**U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims** of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas. *

*"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."*
*
Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed*


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!


But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why??  Because those lies hit different when you are under oath


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I hate to point out the inconvenient, Biff but even Obama appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't reject Executive Privilege...she ruled that McGahn needed to invoke it in person.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


She also didn't say that whatever Trump claims is executive privilege is executive privilege...….Thus the whole thing about "*the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas."
*
Don't like it,  rewrite the Constitution...….but something tells me you will want to rewrite it again when a Dem is back in office....the rest of us are content with having co-equal branches of government and not a dictatorship....sorry Trumpers...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!
> ...



If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings.  If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome.  You liberals didn't DO that though...did you?  Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation!  It's laughable...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



How can it be "co-equal" branches of government when you liberals don't wait for a ruling on Executive Privilege to be rendered by the Supreme Court but forge ahead with impeachment citing obstruction of justice as one of the things you're impeaching over?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



With all due respect, Biff...holding Hillary Clinton up as your example of cooperation with a committee is amusing!  She lied to Congressional investigators about emails she had in her possession that they were seeking...telling them she'd released EVERYTHING related to their investigation...then she destroyed tens of thousands of emails that she knew Congress wanted.  Trump hasn't done ANYTHING like that!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



As for Obama?  He asserted Executive Privilege in the Fast & Furious investigation.  His Attorney General was found to be in contempt of Congress over it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 3, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Remember those 9 different Benghazi investigations?? What did all of them come up with??  ZERO.....

Remember how one single investigation into Trump produced 80 indictments??

Remember how Trump's own personal lawyer named Trump a co-conspirator in a felony conviction??

If Trump testified under oath for 10 minutes, you Trumpers would piss yourselves...

Thus is the reason Trumpers are so scared to death of ANYONE in the Trump admin testifying under oath...


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.


----------



## hadit (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The FF also warned us about the dangers of partisan impeachment, which we seeing right now, and I guarantee the day will come when a democrat president faces an equally partisan impeachment now that the door is open, and the left will go absolutely bonkers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



The investigations into Benghazi didn't come up with anything?  LOL  Wow, how soon they forget!  

Let me remind you, Biff what the Benghazi investigations DID come up with!  They uncovered the pay for play scheme that Hillary Clinton was employing at the State Department.  They uncovered her use of two private servers hidden in her private residence to run that scheme.  They uncovered that Hillary Clinton paid to have those servers wiped clean...destroying over 30,000 emails.  The Benghazi investigations kept Hillary Clinton from becoming President!  Didn't come up with anything...now THAT is amusing!


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


All they were doing was spying on trump to try and get him out of office


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


A lower court decision can be appealed

and if its reversed the lower court judge should be removed from the bench


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone


----------



## lantern2814 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Poor baby. The years include  Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I think this may be what you are looking for
The Don McGahn Ruling Has Big Consequences for Impeachment


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 3, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Trump is entitled to conduct his office without the democrats looking over his shoulder


----------



## lennypartiv (Jan 3, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> All they were doing was spying on trump to try and get him out of office


And the Dems are still in denial.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, _he "get the job on his own,"_ and then you commented on just that portion, saying, _okay, that's a stretch._

When in fact I said he got that job on his own *because his father was VP,* which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Then you still have nothing but opinion since there is no other report on the matter.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2020)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


So what if their study covered part of Obama's time in office? The study covered the years from 2005 to 2015. Good luck showing that a majority of those jobs were attained after the recession and not while Bush was president. Oh wait, look at that, the increase occurred under Bush and decreased under Obama...

part time jobs 2005-2015​

​


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 5, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Nothing says you have to agree with me

and obviously you dont


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Well I'm citing a report following 2 years of investigation while you're citing opinions.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 5, 2020)

Faun said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The IG was investigating his homeboys

durham has less to fear from the Deep State


----------



## hadit (Jan 5, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, get over yourself.  I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I would prefer if you would be honest.


----------



## hadit (Jan 5, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?


----------



## lantern2814 (Jan 5, 2020)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh so now it doesn’t matter if Obozo has to take the blame for his failures. What q quick backpedal there by a little yellow coward. Decreased under Obozo? Of course, since more people actually dropped out of the work force under Obozo. Lowest participation rate since the 1970’s. Try again.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


Fucking moron, why should Obama take the blame for Bush's failures? As I showed you, that increase of part time jobs between 2005-2015 occurred while Bush was president. It's not Obama's fault you're too rightarded to read a graph.


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


So investigate it. Who cares?


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Anyone who wants to be sure politicians are not using their offices to benefit themselves. You know, like the democrats have been pretending is a big issue.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

hadit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Never said I had any. It's still a stretch.


----------



## lantern2814 (Jan 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Making you cry is so easy. So Obozo is blameless despite the study that INCLUDES years he was president. Your utter stupidity is rivaled only by your cowardice. Noting your total dodge of that pesky fact of work force participation rate. Not my fault you’re  too uneducated, illiterate, and cowardly to face facts. Try again lifelong loser.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2020)

lantern2814 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > lantern2814 said:
> ...


LOLOLOL

Exactly how fucking nuts are ya, rightard? I even showed you where part time jobs skyrocketed during those study years under Bush and how part time jobs decreased under Obama; and you still don't get it.

Keep coming back for more, cretin, I don't mind bitch-slapping you senseless with the back side of my pimp hand.


----------



## playtime (Jan 13, 2020)

someone with nothing to hide...

_*hides nothing.*_

that says it all.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 13, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> The investigations into Benghazi didn't come up with anything? LOL Wow, how soon they forget!
> 
> Let me remind you, Biff what the Benghazi investigations DID come up with! They uncovered the pay for play scheme that Hillary Clinton was employing at the State Department. They uncovered her use of two private servers hidden in her private residence to run that scheme. They uncovered that Hillary Clinton paid to have those servers wiped clean...destroying over 30,000 emails. The Benghazi investigations kept Hillary Clinton from becoming President! Didn't come up with anything...now THAT is amusing!


No kidding, what else do we need to know, Hilary was a freaking major screw up.

Don't forget that Hilary's own ARB report unanimously decided that Hilary was incompetent, and I'll add that she was dangerously incompetent:

*Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place*.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 13, 2020)

Faun said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Biden is always running for political office, ever since he first entered into politics in 1975. When hasn't he tried to run for president?

It's not as if him trying to run for political office this time around was any different. You folks act as if Biden running for election in the Democratic Party primary was something unusual or  unexpected, and something Trump went out of his way to exploit.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 13, 2020)

Faun said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Biden will not be Trump's political rival unless, or until, he wins the Democratic primary, which history has shown us he will never accomplish.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 13, 2020)

Faun said:


> Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.


Yup, it's just a coincidence that Hunter's daddy is the vice president, and the new, unproven, tiny little firm, Rosemont Seneca, takes off like a rocket in 2010, able to secure meetings with largest and most powerful government-fund leaders in China. In 2013 hunter is scoring a $1.5 billion deal, after riding with daddy on Air Force Two.

It's also another freak coincidence that a year later, no talent Hunter lands a sweet job with Burisma.

Imagine that, the two nations where President Obama appointed Joe Biden as the US point man for US foreign relations, and his lands these sweet deals.

I know, you want proof.... except when Trump is the subject of speculations and knee-jerk assumptions, then speculation and presumption is good enough to impeach a president with.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 13, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...




Ordinarily, when witnesses are called for a trial, the Defense has the right to talk with the witnesses before hand, find out what they are going to say.

Would you have a problem with that?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 13, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one??  Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
> ...



Nope not as long as their testimony is not blocked or distorted.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



What disaster ?

That you missed the toilet bowl ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Your's is no better...being parked up Pelosi's.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 13, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Agree, plus the prosecutors should also have the same time to question them before testifying, on witnesses that have not previously testified....

Though I am not certain it works that way in a real trial.... usually the defense does not get to question the prosecutor's witnesses, until the trial, they can cross examine them there, on the stand, same with defense witnesses, prosecutors cross examine them in the trial.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 13, 2020)

playtime said:


> someone with nothing to hide...
> 
> _*hides nothing.*_
> 
> that says it all.



Is that like "guilty unless you prove you're innocent", Playtime?  This is the United States where under our system of justice you're presumed innocent until PROVEN GUILTY!  Trump has no duty to prove anything.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 13, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



The questioning in an impeachment is supposed to be done by the House...the Senate then takes what's been shown by the House and rules on it.  It's akin to a jury deliberation in an actual trial.  You don't get to send additional witnesses into a jury room to affect the ruling...they can ask for testimony to be read back to them but the questioning part is over.  The jury...which is the Senate in this case...is there to do one thing and one thing alone...rule on the evidence or lack thereof...that's been presented by the House!


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


It matters not if Biden is always running for something. Biden never before ran for the same office as Impeached Trump. That means Impeached Trump could not solicit a foreign national to investigate Biden.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 13, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Nope.  Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.

The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


He's already Impeached Trump's rival as they're both running for the office of the president.


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.
> ...


Nice conjecture.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Laws broken, abuses of power




Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.

Bribery/extortion,  govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.

 The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 -  holding back the military aid  passed by congress was illegal

Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.

Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law

Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.

Both, obstruction of congress.

Harassing the whistleblower, illegal

Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic


All above need witnesses and evidenc


----------



## The Purge (Jan 14, 2020)

If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son  for FULL INTERROGATION!


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

The Purge said:


> If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son  for FULL INTERROGATION!


Have your own impeachment t trial to do it....  Joe can still be impeached I think, and voted to not allow him to ever serve again... can't run for president....

Or get the DOJ to investigate and charge him with a crime.....  surely Trump can have Barr make up something...


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

These Russian-esque tactics of Trump using his govt position to hurt or harm, charge or jail his political rival is what he was impeached for.....


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



This Senate is only there to cover for Trump.


----------



## The Purge (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > If we play by the party of INFANTICIDES rules, We get to call this jerk and his son  for FULL INTERROGATION!
> ...



Why make up the truth that is right before your eyes. For the life of me I don't understand what is taking so long with the Biden investigation, unless it is like Mueller ...take almost 3 years and over $35 million in salaries to prove nothing, OR as I suspect all this crap will hit the fan AFTER the party of INFANTICIDE finally KNOWS which clown will be their nominee and drop indictments on them just a week prior to the DNC convention to really screw up the CommieRAT party....guess we will have to wait to find out!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

The Purge said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Or maybe it is just more of the right wing deflection bullshit.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




Why is there so much anxiety about the Libs losing control?   Are the Lib Leaders afraid that the teeming masses of POV's under Obama will like the idea of working and earning their own way?   Or is it from the POV's who are missing the Obamaphones they got instead of jobs during Obamunist rule?


----------



## The Purge (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


You wouldn't  know the TRUTH, even if it hit you between the eyes with a 2x4....you mind manipulated dolt...or perhaps you are also getting a DNC check for disinformation!...but even the DNC realizes a black thug doing it isn't  worth the money spent!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Evidence and witnesses are what the HOUSE is supposed to provide, Care!  The Senate is supposed to rule on the evidence and the witness testimony that the House provides.  No impeachment trial in US history has had new witnesses called to testify in a Senate "do over"!  The reason the Pelosi is reluctant to send articles of impeachment to the Senate is that she knows only too well that Democrats didn't come close to PROVING what they've charged Trump with!  A President sets foreign policy.  A President is well within his rights asking that corruption involving a US politician taking place in a foreign nation asking for foreign aid be investigated before that aid is granted.  The "obstruction" charge is laughable and always has been.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Just more of the same Trump Humpin excuse making.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




That's the Republicans job in this effort.    To defend their President, and they will.   Just like the D's defended the sad excuses for President that served under their label


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Laws broken, abuses of power
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Velensky has repeatedly said that no "quid pro quo" took place!  Trump has asserted the same.  Do you think the Ukrainian President is a liar?

A US President is wholly within his rights to hold up foreign aid if he suspects that corruption in another nation is a problem.  Asking for an investigation into something that appears to be a blatant example of buying influence over a sitting Vice President by giving a family member a high paying no show job that even the most casual observer can see he really has no qualifications for isn't illegal!  Calling asking for an investigation into alleged Democratic improper activity in the last election illegal is an amazing double standard after what the left has done to Trump for the past five YEARS!  Your side has been investigating imaginary improper activity between the Trump campaign and Russia non stop for all that time based on the lies that the Clinton campaign BOUGHT and PAID for!

As for your claim that invoking Executive Privilege is now "illegal"!  That's something the courts decide...not Congress!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Asking that the exact same process that was used in the Clinton impeachment be used in the Trump impeachment is somehow wrong now?  How does that work exactly?  The only "excuse making" that's taking place is by Democrats because they KNOW that they don't have impeachable offenses to remove Trump from office and they KNOW that their political "show trial" is doomed to fail in the Senate!


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...


Let Trump call Joe and Hunter Biden. I am all for it.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No their job is to serve their country and uphold the law.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

WillowTree said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> ...



Yep right along with Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and Guiliani.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

Faun said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's all we have, since none of you people can connect the dots, or even think it looks a bit suspicious when Hunter Biden lands all these multi-million jobs in foreign countries his father has diplomatic oversight of. Even though Hunter has no experience in those industries and doesn't speak the language.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Laws broken, abuses of power
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.

We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Nope. Every impeachment trial in our history, has had witnesses and evidence presented in the trial.
> 
> The jury, does NOT DELIBERATE until all evidence and witnesses are heard, from both sides, and both sides have given their closing arguments....it's the last thing that happens in any trial or impeachment, the jury's deliberation, and their verdict.


Except that in the Senate trial, the defendant can call witnesses to defend against the charges made against him by the House.

Especially when the House engages in a partisan inquiry like we just saw,  and refuses to allow the President enough time to prepare, refuses requests to call witnesses, and refuses cross examination of witnesses and evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

It isn't their job?  Why do they need to call witnesses?  That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation?  Hmmmmmm?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Laws broken, abuses of power
> ...


we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> It isn't their job?  Why do they need to call witnesses?  That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation?  Hmmmmmm?



They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to.  Now what?


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't their job?  Why do they need to call witnesses?  That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation?  Hmmmmmm?
> ...




There is a legal dispute as to whether they have to comply with the Witch Hunt.

Traditionally,that means they battle it out in the courts to determine their responsibilities.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!


Nah, just speculate on what you think is in the bill, and assume it as fact.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

Polishprince said:


> There is a legal dispute as to whether they have to comply with the Witch Hunt.
> 
> Traditionally,that means they battle it out in the courts to determine their responsibilities.


It's only common sense, just because the House starts an impeachment inquiry does not mean the president is suddenly subservient to the whims of the Speaker and her appointed lackeys

They keep telling us that impeachment is political. Which means their is no legal basis for the president to help the opposition party in control of the House to impeach him. Especially if the president feels their subpoenas are overreaching House authority, and undermining the separations of power with the executive branch.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 14, 2020)

House calls witnesses. 

Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?


----------



## Faun (Jan 14, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> House calls witnesses.
> 
> Senate = Jury. When does a Jury ever call witnesses?


The Senate is more than just a jury.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 14, 2020)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > House calls witnesses.
> ...



Per Alan Dershowitz, you are incorrect. They look at the evidence on why the impeachment happened and decide if a conviction is warranted. Since this is all political theater the point is moot but if Trump say overly said "No missiles if you don't make up lies about Biden and slander him so I can win reelection easier" then the impeachment would have certainly been justified and Pelosi & Co., would have subpoenaed more witnesses. But since the impeachment was based on opinion and political motivations, it was rushed to impact the 2020 election and will likely be tossed out by the GOP dominant Senate.


----------



## Faun (Jan 14, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


They also question witnesses. Jurors do that?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 14, 2020)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They can (Senate) but do not have to and sometimes Jurors may ask questions.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


but usually it is witnesses that have already testified the juries look for clarification from.  they don't request new witnesses to help them.

It is quite telling that our politicians don't even know our constitution.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct! BINGO!


----------



## Faun (Jan 14, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Not in federal cases, they can't.  Not in most states either. 

Also, unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, the jury can't overrule the judge.

The Senate is more than just a jury in this trial.


----------



## Faun (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The witnesses testify in front of the jury. Prosecutors (House managers in this case) call witnesses.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 14, 2020)

Faun said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...




I've never heard of a case where the prosecutors don't have a clue as to what a witness will testify to, or even have a clue as to whether the supposed witness even witnessed anything.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 14, 2020)

Faun said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Take it up with Alan Dershowitz. I am parroting what he said.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super!  That's not settled.  Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts.  If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't their job?  Why do they need to call witnesses?  That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation?  Hmmmmmm?
> ...



It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!  

If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want.  What then?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Wapasha said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


how so?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

X


Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wapasha said:
> ...


put it in context then. We’re all ears.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]





Superbadbrutha said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...



If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super!  That's not settled.  Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts.  If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime![/QUOTE]

^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

WillowTree said:


> X
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> ...


the irony of his post is awesome.

telling me I was lied to by the GOP while he got his talking points from the left.  too fking hilarious.

BTW, and he won't provide what it is I and we were lied to about, because his talking points were only to say what I heard from the GOP was a lie.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts....  which may help Trump, who knows?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...



I don't think ANY of those witnesses are going to help Democrats impeach a Republican President, Care!  You've been sold a pig in a poke.  Democrats like Adan Schiff and Jerry Nadler failed miserably trying to prove Trump did anything wrong with the Ukrainian situation with Joe and Hunter Biden and so they've gone to "Plan B" which is to claim that the "proof" exists but is being hidden from you!  It's a political theatre and Democratic leadership thinks you're naïve enough to buy it!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


what about the whistleblower?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


BTW, the reason they didn't want to go to the courts is because they didn't have a crime to justify a testimony.  They knew it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Let's be realistic here, Kiddies...who do you think is going to hurt more by calling for additional witnesses...Trump by having Bolton and some of the others on his Staff testify...or Joe Biden if Hunter Biden and he get sworn in and have to start testifying about Burisma and how Hunter landed that cushy position with no experience with either the Ukraine or the energy sector?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Let's be realistic here, Kiddies...who do you think is going to hurt more by calling for additional witnesses...Trump by having Bolton and some of the others on his Staff testify...or Joe Biden if Hunter Biden and he get sworn in and have to start testifying about Burisma and how Hunter landed that cushy position with no experience with either the Ukraine or the energy sector?


it's why there will be no handing over of the articles.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


and they were right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

WillowTree said:


> X
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> ...



Context, 



I_magine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,* away from the fog of the controversy.*

Although the point was not made clearly or explicitly, the sense of Pelosi’s remarks was that the benefits (in her view) of the bill — rather than the contents of the bill — would only be fully revealed to the public after the legislation was passed and implemented.


_
This was also left out
_
away from the fog of the controversy._


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!


Do you think that is even legally, in another person's trial, and not done by the DOJ in private, by investigators?

I don't.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > X
> ...



Do you really think adding "away from the fog of the controversy" changes the complete lunacy of what Pelosi said?  The real "fog" was provided BY Pelosi because she wouldn't explain what was in the bill!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!
> ...



I didn't understand what any of that meant, Care...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!
> ...



Trump has been accused of withholding aid to get the Ukraine to accuse Biden of corruption and doing so for purely political reasons.  If it's shown that the Biden's actions were highly inappropriate if not indictable then it's proof that what Trump was asking for was an investigation into corruption that EXISTED...not asking for an investigation into corruption that didn't exist!

I'm amusing by your belief that any investigation into the Biden's should have been done in secret when multiple investigations into Trump were done in about as public a fashion as you can imagine!


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/QUOTE]
The SC has already ruled on it, in the Nixon impeachment inquiry.....  precedent is set....  the President has to turn over relevant evidence and witnesses to the impeachment, 

There is no executive privilege on related to the impeachment material...as Nixon argued there was exec privilege, 

Nixon had to turn over the tapes of his private conversations recorded, with his admin and cabinet.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


I keep telling you democrats are dumbasses.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]
> ...


The SC has already ruled on it, in the Nixon impeachment inquiry.....  precedent is set....  the President has to turn over relevant evidence and witnesses to the impeachment,

There is no executive privilege on related to the impeachment material...as Nixon argued there was exec privilege,

Nixon had to turn over the tapes of his private conversations recorded, with his admin and cabinet.[/QUOTE]

Yet somehow Barack Obama claimed Executive Privilege during the Fast & Furious investigation and Eric Holder refused a subpoena issued by Congress?  Which "precedent" is it that you're going with, Care?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

The reason that Obama was able to use Executive Privilege in Fast & Furious is that no crime was alleged to have been committed by the Administration.


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 14, 2020)

I’m going to watch because a it’s on at 9 PM but they are all white and I want to see them all Denounce their whiteness, they will attack each other and the mods will try to make them look good ha


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


the whole thing by McConnell with this impeachment is a mafioso, the FIX IS IN, SHAM....

AND a complete disgrace, and slap in the face, to our fore fathers of the constitution.

FIRST SHAM, in all history's impeachments done in the USA!

of COURSE!  Trump would be in the middle of that history black mark!  Shameful!


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




McConnell isn't the one who came up with an idea of a Fake Impeachment and secret hearings in the capitol subbasement.


----------



## Crixus (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
> 
> Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
> 
> ...




Why are new witnesses needed? They allegedly already made their case and impeached the presidant so they already made there case. If you retards are so confidant then no new witnesses need be called. No matter what Hakim Jefferies says. You morons team blue looks dumb. Own that shit.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]
> ...


The SC has already ruled on it, in the Nixon impeachment inquiry.....  precedent is set....  the President has to turn over relevant evidence and witnesses to the impeachment,

There is no executive privilege on related to the impeachment material...as Nixon argued there was exec privilege,

Nixon had to turn over the tapes of his private conversations recorded, with his admin and cabinet.[/QUOTE]
Nixon committed an actual crime. What crime has Trump committed?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

The Purge said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


its ILLEGAL to use a government office for political purposes, and holding off, to do what you said closer to an election, BREAKS THE LAW

ya lawless Trump minion!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So let me see if I've got this straight, Care...

The Democrats hold hearings in the House where Republicans aren't allowed to call witnesses...where Democrats totally fail to provide any proof whatsoever that a crime was committed by Trump and their own witnesses are savaged by the GOP under questioning...yet when Democratic leadership decides to go ahead with impeachment purely for political reasons...it's "SHAM" because the GOP led Senate refuses to call MORE witnesses?

The House hearings were the complete disgrace...what's about to happen in the Senate is a return to sanity!  You want to impeach a sitting President?  Find some high crimes and misdemeanors!  What you have now borders on farce!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Yet somehow Barack Obama claimed Executive Privilege during the Fast & Furious investigation and Eric Holder refused a subpoena issued by Congress?  Which "precedent" is it that you're going with, Care?


You mean when Eric Holder testified before Congress for hours at a non-impeachment trial??


When did Mulvaney, Pompeo or Bolton testify before Congress regarding information related to articles of impeachment??

By the way, when Holder was charged with contempt of Congress, what did he do?? Well, after turning over 7600 documents, republicans demanded even more and Holder refused...….just imagine how triggered you would be if Obama prevented Holder from testifying or handing over any documents....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You mean like Democrats used the IRS for political purposes?  Or were you referring to how they used the FBI and our FISA court for political purposes?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

The Purge said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


the DOJ is not even investigating them Purge...  that MEANS there is not even a probable cause to investigate....  Giuliani and the two thugs and other Russian Ukrainian criminals are doing the investigation...  

you all have been played like a violin....

he knows his supporters well....


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



If this were a case being heard in a Court of Law Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and Guiliani would be in court.  Not being hid by Trump to keep his corruption from being discovered.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

wait until the House Dems say they're not going to hand over the articles.  I will be laughing my ass off.  And you heard it from me since day one.  The Dems are the devil's band.  they congregate to be evil.  Anyone?  Tell me what's in it for them?  they know that trump will win in this, and they will not give him that.  Also, they can't have creepy sleepy Joe under fire for illegal activity while VP.  It's hilarious that anyone thinks that will happen.  It goes against who they are.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


or, they are being investigated and won't you look the fool?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


there was no one involved in the so called conspiracy, but Lois Lerner, herself, making the decision on how to reduce the potential audits, down to a manageable amount...  she made a mistake....  was wrong..

the administration, nor the president, nor the vice president or anyone, had anything to do, with what Lois Lerner did....

AND you've got several million in republican investigation costs, to PROVE IT!


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Did that make sense to you when you typed it?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


they could have been when the House was doing the investigation.  they declined  their testimony by not waiting for the courts to hear their reasons for why they needed to testify.  So, you are WRONG!!!!


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


If this were a criminal case it would be thrown out of court


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


You mean when Eric Holder testified before Congress for hours at a non-impeachment trial??
View attachment 300247

When did Mulvaney, Pompeo or Bolton testify before Congress regarding information related to articles of impeachment??

By the way, when Holder was charged with contempt of Congress, what did he do?? Well, after turning over 7600 documents, republicans demanded even more and Holder refused...….just imagine how triggered you would be if Obama prevented Holder from testifying or handing over any documents??[/QUOTE]

Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


sure.  Those folks were subpoena'd by the dems, they refused, the Dems therefore had to to go to court to justify their subpoenas, they knew they wouldn't win.  so they declined going forward.  Did you get that?


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!



Take off the blinders Trump Humper, you don't want to see what has been done.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.


Remember the part about Obama not being impeached and Obama not preventing his cabinet from testifying??

And isn't Trump far more superior and honest than the Obama admin?? Why do you defend everything he does by saying "but but but Obama did it" -- and still getting that part wrong


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


if they are being investigated by the DOJ, then Giuliani would not be there, with his thug friends, still trying to find or conjure up dirt...  he would have had to butt out...


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Superbadbrutha said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Actually they didn't want to be tied up in court for the next 2yrs waiting on a ruling.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Holder and the Obama Administration only claimed Executive Privilege when it became apparent that people in the Obama Administration knew about Fast & Furious long before they had claimed.  THAT was when Holder refused to answer any more questions.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > X
> ...


summarize that for us


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.


By the way.....those documents and everything else is available now....guess what it still found??

Fast & Furious was another manufactured scandal just like the IRS scandal, Benghazi, etc etc etc.....


Trump however, he is impeached......


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jan 14, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.


It does hear testimony though, right? View evidence? Interview experts on the validity of said evidence? Whatever this preceding is..and I include the House in this as well...a fair and impartial weighing of all the evidence..is what it is NOT!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


naw, they knew they didn't have justification because they didn't have a crime.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.
> ...



Why do you get offended when I point out that the things you accuse Trump of without proof...Obama actually DID!  I'm amused at the Left's blatant hypocrisy!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.
> ...


nope, not until a trial.  and that ain't gonna happen.  so it will be dismissed in 22 days.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


why not, is there a law that says he can't go to Ukraine?  if so, give me the law.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jan 14, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...



Should the Senate decide to call witnesses, I have no particular problem with it, because the witnesses who will be called will be the witnesses disallowed by the House during the Shiff/Nadler nonsense.

It would be my advice to the Democrats to avoid this at all costs.  Fortunately, they don't much listen to me.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


When did Obama prevent any of his cabinet members from testifying in an impeachment trial??

I'll keep waiting while you continue to fail...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!
> ...


which is what?  right now, nothing.  Trump is still president and will be reelected.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


don't worry, the articles will not be sent over, so no one else will be testifying.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


both of them


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Please...have you ever heard of a document dump?  It's when defendants provide thousands of documents to "prove" that they are cooperating with an investigation while they withhold documents that are harmful to them.  Hillary Clinton provided lots of documents to the Benghazi investigators too but that doesn't mean she REALLY cooperated with the investigation!  At the same time as she was promising to turn over everything related to Benghazi she was having tens of thousands of emails scrubbed from her secret servers to keep Congressional investigators from seeing them!  What Holder did with Fast & Furious is no different...he provided 7,600 documents that didn't hurt the Obama Administration but when he was pressed for more he claimed Executive Privilege.
> ...



Fast & Furious was a "manufactured" scandal?  Did the Obama Administration not OK a gun running operation across the Mexican border?  Did the Obama Administration not use the IRS against it's political opponents?  Did the Obama Administration not run it's State Department through hidden servers to evade oversight by Congress?  Those are all REAL things that happened!

The Trump "impeachment" is a political maneuver done by Democratic leaders because they're scared shitless he's going to win reelection!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yes, it was a manufactured scandal..

Can you tell me the number of indictments that was handed out because of fast and furious.....I'll wait....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The House needs to present a complete and valid case.  They are the prosecutors.  The Senate is the jury.  A jury does not investigate.
> ...


well the three prosecutors present the articles and answer the jury's questions.  What else is needed?  the house ran the investigation and are supposed to question all witnesses ahead of the trial.  what is it you believe they missed? Obviously you believe they didn't do their jobs otherwise why would you need more witnesses?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, Obama didn't use the IRS to target political opponents...but don't just take my word, take the word of Trump's DOJ...

DOJ denies GOP request to reopen case against former IRS official Lois Lerner

Were there any indictments handed out because of the fake ass IRS scandal?? Nope.....

The Trump admin racked up tons of indictments tho...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


how many indictments against trump?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


are there any indictments against trump?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


The Senate trial starts next week....

Did you mean to type this comment last week??


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 14, 2020)

4 is the magic number.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


without the articles then.  are they there yet?  LOL


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, sitting presidents cant be indicted...but they can be named as co-conspirators in other indictments tho…..like the kind when their long time lawyers get convicted...

Cohen Plea Deal Makes Trump 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator,' Watergate Prosecutor Says

Can you tell me if so much as Obama's gardener been indicted with anything?? let alone his personal lawyer...

Keep failing tho...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


none were, so I'm still waiting.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> 4 is the magic number.


for what?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!


HOGWASH!!!  

here are just some of the alleged crimes, for the second reposting

Laws broken, abuses of power




Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.

Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal

Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.

Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law

Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.

(Both, obstruction of congress.)

Harassing the whistleblower, illegal

Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic


All above need witnesses and evidence

----------------------

no one is looking for more crimes, there are enough alleged crimes already

they want to bring first hand witnesses forward who are directly involved with the president's actions in these specific Trump Articles of Impeachment...  no one is fishing for other crimes

Trump's whining claims, and Republican regurgitation of them, is that there have been no first hand witnesses, it's all conjecture, a 'heard or was told' thing,

but that don't fly!

Because Trump has prevented first hand witnesses from even showing up, some stupid, and recently rejected by the courts,  illegal thing he is calling Absolute Immunity, not even executive privilege...

So, now is the time to call the first hand witnesses and subpoenaed documentary evidence, that Trump has been holding back, that he's claimed, the other side needs....


THIS IS A COVER-UP, above and beyond Nixon's cover up!.... is what is going on here...  wish so much, that you could see it or admit you see it, but you are OK with it....?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!
> ...


hahahaahahahahahahaha, no crime in the articles of the supposed impeachment thingy.  what is it?  you got nothing jack.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Me..I'm offended by the procedure...I've been against removal..from the start...but this shyte is so egregious....that it does make one wonder....what is REALLY behind the curtain?

Anyhow..looks like we gunna have some sort of a trial..Pelosi is presenting the articles.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...nesday-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


the house will not approve it.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> Holder and the Obama Administration only claimed Executive Privilege when it became apparent that people in the Obama Administration knew about Fast & Furious long before they had claimed.  THAT was when Holder refused to answer any more questions.


nope!

the republican lead investigations ended up proving NEITHER Obama or Holder knew about Fast and Furious, until afterwards.

AND a court SUIT, MADE HOLDER turn over all the executive privileged document he previously held back....

Republicans in Congress GOT everything!  Another precedent imo, of the Court's ruling, we the people, through Congress.. our only representation in our govt and with their Congressional oversight power, have a RIGHT TO KNOW what's going on in the govt we pay for, over and above, executive privilege!


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!
> ...


Horse shit!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOL! Just sayin'...you have a lousy track record as a prophet!

Yes, they will--they really have no choice--history is rushing to a conclusion....leading to big ***yawn***


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

WillowTree said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


and that's the truth.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


no they won't.  there is no upside to.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 14, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


Why did Obama claim executive privilege and seal the fast and furious documents?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


there were not Criminal Statutes allegedly broken listed because the House did not have special prosecutors investigating, like COX, JAWORSKY, STARR in other impeachment cases... a DOJ prosecutor can state, after investigation, alleged criminal offenses and with a criminal statute associated.

Congress critters can't.  IF a president is impeached from office, after he leaves, prosecutors will open their own investigations and press charges if need be, in the case of not having Special Prosecutors ahead of time, is my understanding of it....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

WillowTree said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


shhhhhhhhhhh you'll educate the fool.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


they had Mueller as i recall, you've lost your nuts.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

clinton was not formally charged with perjury under criminal statute, he was told he would be, the day he left office by the Starr prosecutors, so the day before he left office, he reached a plea deal with the Starr prosecutor handling the charges to be...  if memory serves from reading up on it a couple of months ago...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> clinton was not formally charged with perjury under criminal statute, he was told he would be, the day he left office by the Starr prosecutors, so the day before he left office, he reached a plea deal with the Starr prosecutor handling the charges to be...  if memory serves from reading up on it a couple of months ago...


and, he admitted his guilt.


----------



## The Purge (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Pelosi has held the articles of impeachment FOR OVER 30 DAYS....and you were saying?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

The Purge said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


and will never send them to the senate, evah!!!!! and we' will find that out tomorrow.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


this impeachment, is about the Ukraine

the Mueller Investigation on the obstruction, congress has been stalled by Trump's actions in the courts, preventing Don McGhan, a first hand witness, from testifying...  for 9 or 10 montrhs so far....  all rulings up to the Circuit court of Appeals,  have ruled in Congress's favor, and now trump is appealing it, and asking the SC to rule....  stall tactics by trump..  delayed justice is denied justice....   

So the Mueller special Counsel stuff, is still on the table, only stalled because of Trump's tactics of tying the case, up in court.


----------



## The Purge (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Why do you LIE, or is Cornym lying....He should know. You have wishful thinking...known as a lir!

Cornyn makes waves with tweet about Justice investigating Biden

Oct 4, 2019 · wrote in the tweet that “ the Trump Justice Department is investigating foreign government influence, VP Biden conflicts of interest,


----------



## Care4all (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > clinton was not formally charged with perjury under criminal statute, he was told he would be, the day he left office by the Starr prosecutors, so the day before he left office, he reached a plea deal with the Starr prosecutor handling the charges to be...  if memory serves from reading up on it a couple of months ago...
> ...


yep!  on ALL plea deals, the defendant has to admit to their guilt!!


----------



## hadit (Jan 14, 2020)

Superbadbrutha said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Superbadbrutha said:
> ...


Well it certainly is a shame about all those democrats that we knew long before impeachment started would vote to convict, no matter what.


----------



## Wapasha (Jan 14, 2020)

Oldstyle said:


> In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!


They are impeaching Trump for what they think Trump's motivations were, when he asked Zenelsky if he could "look into" the circumstances surrounding Biden's braggadocios public comments where he essentially blackmailed Ukraine into firing Shokin.

The House Democrats have never proven what Trump's inner thoughts and motivations were. They have only speculated on what they think , and they think Trump was motivated to look into the matter, simply because he thought it might dig up dirt to tarnish Biden's presidential primary campaign with.

A person is not guilty simply because his accusers think they know the inner thoughts and intentions of that person. In reality, there is no way Trump will ever be able to convince his accusers that he is innocent of their presumptions of his guilt.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha. And there’s nothing there !


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Wapasha said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of Nixon...there was an actual crime...followed by an actual cover up of the crime!  The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon couldn't hold back any material related to those criminal acts!  That is totally different from what is taking place now, Care!  You liberals want to subpoena Trump Administration Staff members in the hopes of finding a crime to impeach Trump on when you haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place!
> ...


They drank some liquor did lines of coke and puked all over themselves


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Yep


----------



## Oldstyle (Jan 14, 2020)

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Holder and the Obama Administration only claimed Executive Privilege when it became apparent that people in the Obama Administration knew about Fast & Furious long before they had claimed.  THAT was when Holder refused to answer any more questions.
> ...



I wonder sometimes Care if you're just not aware or if you're simply such a partisan that you won't allow yourself to see the things that the Obama Administration was doing!

Holder CLAIMED to have only known about Fast & Furious for only "a few weeks" when testifying to Congressional investigators in May of 2011 only to change that timeline when documentation was revealed that showed he was briefed on Fast & Furious in July of 2010!  It was at that point that Obama invoked Executive Privilege because it was at that point that questions were being asked about when HE and Eric Holder were made aware of the gunrunning program!  To be quite blunt...Holder lied through his teeth while under oath.


----------

