Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who says it’s been settled?No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.Good luck getting a court to force Trump to do anything in a situation that's already over. They don't want to get involved in fishing expeditions.
What’s over? Impeachment? There’s still oversight. Oversight doesn’t end just because the trial is over.
Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.
If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.
No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.
The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.
It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.So he's being impeached for doing his job.this is your speculation.
but for shits and grins, who decides foreign policy again?
The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.
Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.
Got it.
Next up we will go over why this is stupid.
That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
Name the cases.It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.So he's being impeached for doing his job.The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.
Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.
Got it.
Next up we will go over why this is stupid.
That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
No, I didn't say that. What I said is Trump was Hillary's opponent, and a Hillary win would have protected DumBama's legacy. That's what I said.
So were they political opponents or not? How is it any different than Trump/Biden?
You really don’t have to die on this hill. It’s okay to admit if you’re wrong.
How am I wrong? DumBama had a reason to see Trump defeated. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he was instrumental in that goal.
Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.
If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.
But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.
It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.So he's being impeached for doing his job.The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.
Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.
Got it.
Next up we will go over why this is stupid.
That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's. A story is not evidence.
So were they political opponents or not? How is it any different than Trump/Biden?
You really don’t have to die on this hill. It’s okay to admit if you’re wrong.
How am I wrong? DumBama had a reason to see Trump defeated. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he was instrumental in that goal.
Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.
If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.
But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.
Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.
Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.Who says it’s been settled?No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.What’s over? Impeachment? There’s still oversight. Oversight doesn’t end just because the trial is over.
Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.
If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.
No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.
The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.
Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.
...as supported by all the evidence.This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.
Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.Who says it’s been settled?No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.
If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.
No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.
The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.
Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.
Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.
...as supported by all the evidence.This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.
Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.
Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.
Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.
Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.
Glad you're happy, because so are we.
Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.Who says it’s been settled?No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.
No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.
The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.
Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.
Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.
Moving the goal posts again? I thought they were going to fight this to prove Trump had something to do with a quid pro quo. Congress knows how every dollar is spent because they pass the spending.
Gonna jump in here.Tell you what, prove it to that degree and I'm in.Who gets to set foreign policy?So he's being impeached for doing his job.
Got it.
Next up we will go over why this is stupid.
That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
I thought we had that one covered.
As for the rest, you FEELING IT isn't factual. If there were proof I'd be against it. But instead we have a shit show from some dems who've been after Impeach 45 since day 1. I said long ago that you cry wolf often enough people just tune you out.
And witnesses decide not to show up.
If we proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Trump team has it covered because apparently even if he is using foreign policy to hurt his political opponents, that’s not impeachable.
So do you want to hear from all the witnesses then?
Court cases where this happened please.Name the cases.It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.So he's being impeached for doing his job.
Got it.
Next up we will go over why this is stupid.
That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.
Which evidence proves intent?...as supported by all the evidence.This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.
Court cases where this happened please.Name the cases.It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.
So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.
McConnell says he doesn't have the votes.
Three Democrat presidential candidates may be neutered.
Which is embarrassing, peak Trump cultism on your part. Let's demonstrate:Then it's supported by nothing because there is no evidence.
