McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[colfax_m]

You guys say that about every Democrat. Years and years of these accusations and nothing to show for it. Do you think y’all have any credibility left?

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

 

[Zorro!]

ELIZABETH WARREN’S QUESTION

Former Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren posed a grandstanding question attacking Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump yesterday. Warren was shrieking for attention. Why might that be? It is a little difficult to follow the logic of the question. The patent stupidity of the question should embarrass her and her target audience. Chief Justice Roberts was visibly chagrined by her ridiculous antics, and it was at that moment that Lisa Murkowski had had enough of the Democrats Unconstitutional Farce being used to attack the foundations of our Federal system.

Ted Cruz thinks the Dems were hoping to set Chief Justice Roberts up so they could take a swipe at the legitimacy of the Supreme Court while they were at it.

Possibly.

The question was disgusting though - how dare she try and impugn the character of the SCOTUS because Roberts was not willing to drag it through the partisan bullshit in congress. Roberts not only did what was clearly expected - everyone knew going into this that Roberts was not going to get into this - but he did exactly as he should have. Not only that, he gave clear reasons for doing so.

Warren is a shithead for putting Roberts into that position. I think he should have flatly refused to read the question. It does make me wonder at what question he did throw out if he was willing to read that one.

Turley: How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment

Yeah. They last out at whatever institution doesn't deliver the results they want, and so she tore into Roberts. They were always facing failure, they never had the grounds to investigate him like they did, and when the investigation proved that, they ginned this silliness up. I shudder to think of them running the county.

And they run from one set of talking points that doesn't really fit, to the next that fits even worse. Still they ignore their own obvious and catastrophic decision to rush the impeachment vote by Christmas rather than complete the record against President Donald Trump. I think they know deep in their hearts that all of the investigation in the world will not deliver them what they want. This denial continues despite the fact that, after saying that they had no time to seek witnesses or favorable court orders, the House leadership then waited a month before released the articles of impeachment. But, recognizing their obvious blunders would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.

Now after 4 years of a blizzard of lies directed at President Trump, his supporters and the Nation, Fake News NBC host Chuck Todd recently asked guests on his show if supporters of President Trump just want to be lied to. The Fake News Media would never ask about Democrats, despite lying to them continually. After the Senate rejected witnesses and effectively ended the impeachment trial, the Fake News media ignored the primary reason for the defeat, which is the insistence of House leaders to impeach Trump by Christmas. Critics of the president simply do not want to hear that the blind rush to impeach guaranteed not only an acquittal but an easy case for acquittal. It is after all important for some members of the media to maintain that fools dwell only in Republican red states.

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Of course you are because you are a shill. No matter what the outcome was you would think it was a victory for the left.

It is sad to see someone so totally lost in their own delusions.

Yes, and more interestingly, they impute their own delusions, to us!

This was the shortest impeachment investigation in American history. It was also the narrowest grounds and thinnest record for trial. Witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton indicated that they were willing to testify if subpoenaed, and that a couple months would have likely secured more testimony and supportive court orders.

The impeachment case of President Nixon took only a few months to go all the way to the Supreme Court for the final decision. The rushed impeachment of Trump was guaranteed to fail, due to an incomplete and insufficient record of sufficient grounds. Yet the House insisted this was a “crime in progress” and there was no time to delay a submission to the Senate. It then immediately contradicted its rationale by waiting more than a month to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. The House simply could not have made it easier on the president and his legal team and more obvious to the American People.

The media ignored the obvious catastrophic blunder by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. The media also ignored the unexplained decision by the House to withdraw a subpoena for top Bolton aide Charles Kupperman, who went to court as a prerequisite for testimony, the same position taken by Bolton. Before the courts could even rule, the House mooted the case by withdrawing the subpoena. That made no sense, and the court dismissed the case after concluding that the House appeared to have no interest in the witness.

House manager Bug-eyed Schiff offered a facially dubious explanation that Kupperman had said he would litigate the issue. If Kupperman truly wanted to drag out litigation, he could have refused to appear before the House and waited for it to seek to compel his testimony. Instead, he said he just wanted a court order in favor of testifying for his own protection. Moreover, House Democrats continued to seek to compel the testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, despite his continued litigation. It won that case as the House was voting on impeachment.

As all these blunders by the House became more and more obvious, all the efforts to excuse them became more and more absurd. One main defense heard in the Fake News media was that it did not matter, given the Senate Republican majority. Yet if the House was certain to lose on that record, why go forward with a case that would be so easy to defeat? Without impeachable grounds, House Democrats surrendered control of the record to the opposing party and adopted a ridiculous strategy of demanding concessions to drag out the trial without purpose, a strategy failed miserably.

Turley: How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You guys say that about every Democrat. Years and years of these accusations and nothing to show for it. Do you think y’all have any credibility left?

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

It's unfortunate how much the media controls much of our electorate.

Trump formed an opinion on the Central park 5 based on news reports at the time. The government made a failed attempt at a discrimination case at the Trump apartments that never happened. The government tries to do that all the time. I'm a landlord, I've been through it.

In the Trump case, it was settled out of court, but part of the deal is the Trump's admit to no wrongdoing whatsoever. The government would never make a settlement like that unless they were shooting blanks from the beginning. If they had anything, they would have prosecuted fully.

 

[iceberg]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

you keep going back to CIRCUMSTANTIAL but have yet to provide ONE SINGLE COURT CASE where this was used to find someone guilty.

you ever get tired of lying and being a douche for your side?

 

[iceberg]

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

 

[Billiejeens]

Or we're not going to any lengths, and he and the other Dems are so corrupt it bubbles to the surface like a fart in a bathtub.

Only a leftist could be brain-damaged and delusional enough to come out of the last few months thinking it's the REPUBLICANS putting out huge efforts to destroy their opponents.

You guys say that about every Democrat. Years and years of these accusations and nothing to show for it. Do you think y’all have any credibility left?

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

Trump had an investigation into his racist practices in leasing apartments. He settled but the report is very damning. Also the Central Park 5 was really bad. There’s evidence if you want to find it.

That said, I don’t think he’s like a David Duke racist or anything. He’s pretty deplorable for a lot of reasons but that’s not chief among them for me.

Every Major Landlord in NYC was investigated for Not wanting to rent to Colored People during that time frame.
It was an early Phase of the Social Justice nonsense that we see today.

The Central Park 5 is nothing - nothing.

 

[Billiejeens]

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

The Investigations started quite some time before Biden announced.
He had not ran in 2016
No reason to suspect that he would come out of retirement until he did.
He was a private citizen in political retirement when the investigations began.

 

[Billiejeens]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

you keep going back to CIRCUMSTANTIAL but have yet to provide ONE SINGLE COURT CASE where this was used to find someone guilty.

you ever get tired of lying and being a douche for your side?

Doesn't seem like it.

 

[iceberg]

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

you keep going back to CIRCUMSTANTIAL but have yet to provide ONE SINGLE COURT CASE where this was used to find someone guilty.

you ever get tired of lying and being a douche for your side?

Doesn't seem like it.

yea, now he's blaming me for not being able or willing to put together a sourced post for his assertions.

JUST BELIEVE ME seems to be his mantra.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

If what a president does is positive for the country, what does it matter if it's also positive for him?

Important qualifier here, this does NOT involve breaking the law.

One would certainly hope that doing what's best for the country would be politically advantageous.

 

[iceberg]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

If what a president does is positive for the country, what does it matter if it's also positive for him?

Important qualifier here, this does NOT involve breaking the law.

One would certainly hope that doing what's best for the country would be politically advantageous.

i would also hope if good for the country it WOULD be good for him too. should a president ONLY push for things that will have zero positive impact on himself?

lord the stupid can get thick.

 

[The Original Tree]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

If what a president does is positive for the country, what does it matter if it's also positive for him?

Important qualifier here, this does NOT involve breaking the law.

One would certainly hope that doing what's best for the country would be politically advantageous.

i would also hope if good for the country it WOULD be good for him too. should a president ONLY push for things that will have zero positive impact on himself?

lord the stupid can get thick.

 

[iceberg]

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

If what a president does is positive for the country, what does it matter if it's also positive for him?

Important qualifier here, this does NOT involve breaking the law.

One would certainly hope that doing what's best for the country would be politically advantageous.

i would also hope if good for the country it WOULD be good for him too. should a president ONLY push for things that will have zero positive impact on himself?

lord the stupid can get thick.

yea, ok.

 

[Billiejeens]

Ted Cruz thinks the Dems were hoping to set Chief Justice Roberts up so they could take a swipe at the legitimacy of the Supreme Court while they were at it.

Whether it's our Electoral System, the US Senate, Elections or the Supreme Court, if they don't get the results they want, they declare it illegitimate.

Face it Zorro you and your ilk have brought our great country to its knees You've shat on our constitution and like pigs you love getting dirty

No. We have defended the Constituion against the House's attempt to place themselves above the Law.

A trial without witnesses Why get to the real truth ?

then why did the left reject up to 16 of them?

my answer is they didn't want the real truth. i'm sure yours is "they would have lied" or some bullshit like this.

My eyes have really been opened since 2016

I had no idea that half the country did not understand how we elected Presidents in this country.
For weeks, on another site, one semi Intelligent member fought for the idea that a President had to be
Dually elected - as in the dual wins of the Popular vote and the EC or they weren't really President.
No matter how many times I stated that it was "duly" - she could not get it.

Now they don't know how trials are done - or what the word "additional" means.

As in, the vote was not to add ADDITIONAL witnesses.

 

[iceberg]

Whether it's our Electoral System, the US Senate, Elections or the Supreme Court, if they don't get the results they want, they declare it illegitimate.

Face it Zorro you and your ilk have brought our great country to its knees You've shat on our constitution and like pigs you love getting dirty

No. We have defended the Constituion against the House's attempt to place themselves above the Law.

A trial without witnesses Why get to the real truth ?

then why did the left reject up to 16 of them?

my answer is they didn't want the real truth. i'm sure yours is "they would have lied" or some bullshit like this.

My eyes have really been opened since 2016

I had no idea that half the country did not understand how we elected Presidents in this country.
For weeks, on another site, one semi Intelligent member fought for the idea that a President had to be
Dually elected - as in the dual wins of the Popular vote and the EC or they weren't really President.
No matter how many times I stated that it was "duly" - she could not get it.

Now they don't know how trials are done - or what the word "additional" means.

As it the vote was not to add ADDITIONAL witnesses.

bottom line is if you don't give them want they want NOW you're denying them something they "deserve".

so tired of that mindset.

 

[hadit]

What now libtards. The vote is done no more witnesses. Take that and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your losers and will continue to be losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry longo It's not over till I say it's over The liar trumps tax returns bs will be in SC soon and a vote before election day is coming Lets find out just how big a crook your king is

Right, like tax returns would make a difference to a voter.

Plus the tax returns are none of your business. Eddie asshole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eddie has some fantasy that he - or, more accurately, his political masters - are going to magically find some egregious tax crime that the Internal Revenue Service never noticed.

They're going about this backwards. You're supposed to have evidence of a crime before you're allowed to dig into someone's private papers. These guys insist on digging into a person's private papers trying to find a crime that they don't even know exists.

That's not how America does things.

 

[iceberg]

What now libtards. The vote is done no more witnesses. Take that and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your losers and will continue to be losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry longo It's not over till I say it's over The liar trumps tax returns bs will be in SC soon and a vote before election day is coming Lets find out just how big a crook your king is

Right, like tax returns would make a difference to a voter.

Plus the tax returns are none of your business. Eddie asshole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eddie has some fantasy that he - or, more accurately, his political masters - are going to magically find some egregious tax crime that the Internal Revenue Service never noticed.

They're going about this backwards. You're supposed to have evidence of a crime before you're allowed to dig into someone's private papers. These guys insist on digging into a person's private papers trying to find a crime that they don't even know exists.

That's not how America does things.

it sure seems how the extreme left want things done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

here is where things fall quickly apart.

he can assume trump was corrupt
we can't assume biden or anyone else is w/o specific proof

where the hell DOES that divide come from anyway?

The answer is, "Whatever means the left wins!"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.