Pelosi and Schiff are About to Walk Into a Senate Trial Trap...Shhhh! Don't tell them!

[The Purge]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Here’s why it might now be advantageous for the Republicans to hold a long, full Senate trail if the Democrats, as expected, send over articles of impeachment:

In a Senate trial, the Republicans will control the process. They will control which witnesses get called, how the hearings are conducted, what will be considered relevant to the proceedings. They will be able to compel the fake whistleblower to testify, Hunter Biden to testify, and myriad others who Adam Schiff refused to allow into his circus process. If they chose to, Republicans would even be able to call Schiff himself, along with his staff, to testify as fact witnesses about their pre-coordination with Eric Ciaramella, and how they and their Lawfare lawyers actually participated in the drafting of the complaint that kicked off this whole clown show.

A long Senate trail would disrupt the Democrat primary season. Republicans would be able to force Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet to sit in the Senate chamber, day after day, six days a week for as long as they want to keep them there, off the campaign trail. It would be a major disruption to the Democrat nomination battle, and would pretty much ensure that their nominee would either be a 77 year-old buffoon who doesn’t know what state he’s in most days or a 37 year-old neophyte who would be easy pickings next Fall.

A long Senate trial would allow the Republicans to publicly litigate the whole DNC server fraud. Maybe most damaging for the Democrats, Republicans would be able to compel testimony from Christopher Steele and witnesses from Crowdstrike and get them on the record on national television, testifying under oath about their activities during the 2016 election campaign and who paid for it all. They could even compel testimony under oath from John Podesta and Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schulz (remember, Schulz and Brazile were heads of the DNC during that time) and even Hillary Clinton if they want to. If it turned out to be politically advantageous, they could also compel testimony from James Comey and Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan and James Clapper and all the other Obama-era coup plotters who are now employed by MSNBC and CNN.

Remember, when this impeachment scam first started, how President Trump and Giuliani and others said that Pelosi and Schiff had walked into a trap? Well, there it is.

------------

Its lose lose for the DemonRATS... if they only vote to censure ( ... the left wing base will go nuts ... if they vote to impeach there will be the unmasking of the full corruption of the Dem party.....but who is their radical base going to vote for if they censure...the Republicans?...LOLOLOL)

I like our chances ...

You are a idiot. The Republicans do not completely control the process. The chief justice will preside and Democrats can object to the relevancy. It would also make Republicans look bad Every crazy conspiracy theory on display. The whistleblower is protected by federal law.

You truly are one of the Dumbest commies in here....You think after all is done in the Senare you can get 67 senators to vote for removal?.....that is some mind bending drugs you are on!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

Only if he killed a progressive lying bitch....sound familiar?.....and WHAT DID YOUR TALKING POINTS LIE ABOUT ...HE HELD UP AID THAT iTHE SURRENDER MONKEY NEVER SENT EVEN WHEN THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED UKRAINE....THAT
AID?.... It really makes me wonder just how mentally Ill the left in this country is!!!

Not sure what exactly you are going on about here but delusional comes to mind.

What congressionally approved aid was never sent? The stuff Trump held up in an effort to extort Ukraine?

No, he didn't extort Ukraine and there is no proof. Delusional is a dem Congress calling people to testify about how they felt about what transpired. Delusional is a lib Congress MO from day one once trump was elected to "impeach that mother******.

There is plenty of proof. Mulvaney even admitted it.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

Only if he killed a progressive lying bitch....sound familiar?.....and WHAT DID YOUR TALKING POINTS LIE ABOUT ...HE HELD UP AID THAT iTHE SURRENDER MONKEY NEVER SENT EVEN WHEN THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED UKRAINE....THAT
AID?.... It really makes me wonder just how mentally Ill the left in this country is!!!

Not sure what exactly you are going on about here but delusional comes to mind.

What congressionally approved aid was never sent? The stuff Trump held up in an effort to extort Ukraine?

No, he didn't extort Ukraine and there is no proof. Delusional is a dem Congress calling people to testify about how they felt about what transpired. Delusional is a lib Congress MO from day one once trump was elected to "impeach that mother******.

There is plenty of proof. Mulvaney even admitted it.

No, actually there is not.

 

[francoHFW]

Not sure of everything that will come to pass, but you better believe the Senate will drag some Democrats into this that don't want to be outed. The Democrats are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

Yes yes, who needs evidence or courtrooms? Propaganda from bought off slime balls is plenty!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two??

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

 

[Winco]

To be fair, the only people that support Trunp are those that support historically record high American employment, multi-decade high wage growth, destruction of the terrorist Caliphate, and increase in manufacturing jobs.

All of those trends are a continuation of the Great Obama years.
I know it hurts to admit that.

This JV terrorist team you speak of, you give trump credit for eliminating them?
He can tell you anything and you will suck it in as true.
Dude tells lies, and ONLY lies.
Why are you so gullible?

Manufacturing jobs? WTF!
How about clean coal? Laughable.

 

[2aguy]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Here’s why it might now be advantageous for the Republicans to hold a long, full Senate trail if the Democrats, as expected, send over articles of impeachment:

In a Senate trial, the Republicans will control the process. They will control which witnesses get called, how the hearings are conducted, what will be considered relevant to the proceedings. They will be able to compel the fake whistleblower to testify, Hunter Biden to testify, and myriad others who Adam Schiff refused to allow into his circus process. If they chose to, Republicans would even be able to call Schiff himself, along with his staff, to testify as fact witnesses about their pre-coordination with Eric Ciaramella, and how they and their Lawfare lawyers actually participated in the drafting of the complaint that kicked off this whole clown show.

A long Senate trail would disrupt the Democrat primary season. Republicans would be able to force Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet to sit in the Senate chamber, day after day, six days a week for as long as they want to keep them there, off the campaign trail. It would be a major disruption to the Democrat nomination battle, and would pretty much ensure that their nominee would either be a 77 year-old buffoon who doesn’t know what state he’s in most days or a 37 year-old neophyte who would be easy pickings next Fall.

A long Senate trial would allow the Republicans to publicly litigate the whole DNC server fraud. Maybe most damaging for the Democrats, Republicans would be able to compel testimony from Christopher Steele and witnesses from Crowdstrike and get them on the record on national television, testifying under oath about their activities during the 2016 election campaign and who paid for it all. They could even compel testimony under oath from John Podesta and Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schulz (remember, Schulz and Brazile were heads of the DNC during that time) and even Hillary Clinton if they want to. If it turned out to be politically advantageous, they could also compel testimony from James Comey and Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan and James Clapper and all the other Obama-era coup plotters who are now employed by MSNBC and CNN.

Remember, when this impeachment scam first started, how President Trump and Giuliani and others said that Pelosi and Schiff had walked into a trap? Well, there it is.

------------

Its lose lose for the DemonRATS... if they only vote to censure ( ... the left wing base will go nuts ... if they vote to impeach there will be the unmasking of the full corruption of the Dem party.....but who is their radical base going to vote for if they censure...the Republicans?...LOLOLOL)

I like our chances ...

See...I think this was their problem.....ruth buzzy ginsberg has pancreatic cancer......and they don't know how long she is going to last.....they wanted to hold these impeachment hearings closer to the election to smear Trump, but were forced to push the schedule up.....they don't want a trial in the Senate, they wanted the smear to be the only thing happening at election time......now they are stuck...

 

[Winco]

You truly are one of the Dumbest commies in here....You think after all is done in the Senare you can get 67 senators to vote for removal?.....that is some mind bending drugs you are on!

Of course not.
This is a process to expose the criminal trump.
How many honorable people need to testify to convince you otherwise?
Your answer.....tI never happened. BS.

The GOP is loaded with traitors and cowards.
All sticking together to protect their JOB.
Cowards.
Party over Country.

The GOP is now the POC.

 

[Coyote]

I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.

There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

people could delete 33k requested pieces of evidence and the left will cover for them.

when trump actually does this, holler. i'll go after him with you and demand he gets locked up. til then we have plenty of examples of what the left HAS IN FACT DONE that the left simply won't acknowledge as being "wrong".

Let me see. You are talking about Hillary Clinton. Is she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she investigated? Mmmn yes - to hell and back. Did she do something wrong? Yes. She was found to be careless but fortunately no classified material was found to be mishandled. Now. What of it? In the scope of things it was dumb. It was careless. No argument there. But it's not up there with rape, murder, corruption, or fraud. It was investigated and we are done with it. Except for the Trumpists.

There are plenty of examples of wrong doing by the left I can think of that are wrong....Weiner's weener comest to mind. But I like stick to facts not conjecture and I kind of think it's important not to make false equivalencies. When there is wrong doing by a president - it's significantly higher than that of a lesser appointed official IMO - and like Hillary Clinton, there are those in Trump's cabinet who have had to serious problems - but they aren't the POTUS.

we've got to get back to right/wrong being the same or we'll never bridge this ever growing divide.

Yes ... but you also can't say all wrong doing is equal, and I don't mean by party I mean in terms of the act and the position of the person who committed it. The more powerful the position, the greater the power they can wield, the effect they can have, the audience they can reach and - the greater responsibility they have.

"With great power comes great responsibility" - is very very true. We seem to have forgotten it. People are not "equal" in that sense.

Consider too, the POTUS is somewhat protected from the consequences of his actions (it is now decided a sitting president can not be indicted). That is certainly not equal. So how do things like that square in terms of basic rights and wrongs? Wrong is still wrong but justice is meted out very differently. IMO doesn't that confer a greater responsibility on the powerful person?

How do you square all this?

you want trump impeached cause he said look into bidens activities but i've never heard you once dive into "said activities" and justify billions that went to the urkraine and back home to them.

Incorrect. I don't know if I want him impeached - imo, that is determined by Congress and personally I would rather let the electorate decide at this point.

What is wrong - and this gets to the point you made above on right/wrong is that using the power of the presidency to coerce another country to ANNOUNCE an investigation into a political rival (apparently they didn't even really have to do it, they just had to make a public announcement) - is an abuse of power, there is no other way to put it. If any other president did it, we would be outraged.

He did NOT use normal channels - channels that were aware of and concerned with national security and diplomatic initiatives in regards to Ukraine.

He did NOT use normal law enforcement channels to conduct an investigation.

Why?

The only answer I keep hearing is "...but Biden"....but what about Biden?

The military CLEARED Ukraine for the release of the promised aid - stating that they had made significant steps towards cleaning up corruption. So...why then withhold said aid?

IF there is actual evidence to support an investigation into Biden (and thus far the only argument I have heard is that they have gotten rich from Ukraine) - then why not use our law enforcement agencies to look into it? The only reason I can think of is there likely isn't any real evidence to support an investigation and that is why he sent Guilliani.

If there is real evidence- then do it. Otherwise - there is little difference between the Bidens and frankly the Trumps who have gotten rich from investments in foreign countries, including Ukraine.

Corruption is serious, but you need more than circumstantial evidence when you are the most powerful man in the world going after your most threatening political rival in an election year, promoting a debunked conspiracy theory in the process - that looks really bad.

if trump did it, again - i'd join you in locking him up. i'd demand it. i don't care he's on MY SIDE. it's illegal and wrong. so at this point i could say "obama and biden could bilk the taxpayers for billions and the left won't care" and at least i correlate what i say to actions done. not play "what if" games.

But here is the thing...

I GET that you want equality on both sides - I feel that too. But are you not attenpting to FORCE it through a false equivalency? At this point in time there is no evidence either Obama or Biden have done anything wrong. No testimony, nothing. At this point in time - the bad behavior really is on Trump - what he did is, imo - not necessarily a crime, but a terrible abuse of power. I see it like saw it with Nixon. It isn't good.

There are many presidents on the right who I have disliked their policies, but I never saw this failing of character - Bush, Reagan come to mind. So imo - it's not a partisan view, but a matter of right or wrong.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You truly are one of the Dumbest commies in here....You think after all is done in the Senare you can get 67 senators to vote for removal?.....that is some mind bending drugs you are on!

Of course not.
This is a process to expose the criminal trump.
How many honorable people need to testify to convince you otherwise?
Your answer.....tI never happened. BS.

The GOP is loaded with traitors and cowards.
All sticking together to protect their JOB.
Cowards.
Party over Country.

The GOP is now the POC.

The dems are now the POC.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Senate may very well dismiss this from the onset..............Lack of evidence............quick vote and bye bye

The Swamp creatures don't want a no holds bar attack.............as the other side of the Swamp will throw others under a Greyhound bus.

They'' have to talk the President out of a trial, but they probably could do that.

Only need 51 votes to dismiss and it would be bipartisan. (Manchin and Testa would vote to dismiss).

There's a lot of politics in this either way.

The Dems are probably looking for a way out of this right now. The swing states are polling 53-40 against impeachment right
now. The Dems are getting real pressure right now from not passing USMCA, and it doesn't look like that will happen this year.

They have no candidate that excites anybody right now, thus the Presidency isn't going to change. They really have to fight
to hang onto the House. At the moment, with those swing states opposed to Impeachment, they have a real problem on their
hands. Do they cave in to public opinion and then scramble to win it back over the course of a year.

The adage is..."Take your losses now." Will they do that? Probably not.

Pelosi couldn't calm the Far Left.........she warned them............they had to appease the beast........

Now they are screwed politically over it.........LOL

 

[iceberg]

There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

people could delete 33k requested pieces of evidence and the left will cover for them.

when trump actually does this, holler. i'll go after him with you and demand he gets locked up. til then we have plenty of examples of what the left HAS IN FACT DONE that the left simply won't acknowledge as being "wrong".

Let me see. You are talking about Hillary Clinton. Is she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she investigated? Mmmn yes - to hell and back. Did she do something wrong? Yes. She was found to be careless but fortunately no classified material was found to be mishandled. Now. What of it? In the scope of things it was dumb. It was careless. No argument there. But it's not up there with rape, murder, corruption, or fraud. It was investigated and we are done with it. Except for the Trumpists.

There are plenty of examples of wrong doing by the left I can think of that are wrong....Weiner's weener comest to mind. But I like stick to facts not conjecture and I kind of think it's important not to make false equivalencies. When there is wrong doing by a president - it's significantly higher than that of a lesser appointed official IMO - and like Hillary Clinton, there are those in Trump's cabinet who have had to serious problems - but they aren't the POTUS.

we've got to get back to right/wrong being the same or we'll never bridge this ever growing divide.

Yes ... but you also can't say all wrong doing is equal, and I don't mean by party I mean in terms of the act and the position of the person who committed it. The more powerful the position, the greater the power they can wield, the effect they can have, the audience they can reach and - the greater responsibility they have.

"With great power comes great responsibility" - is very very true. We seem to have forgotten it. People are not "equal" in that sense.

Consider too, the POTUS is somewhat protected from the consequences of his actions (it is now decided a sitting president can not be indicted). That is certainly not equal. So how do things like that square in terms of basic rights and wrongs? Wrong is still wrong but justice is meted out very differently. IMO doesn't that confer a greater responsibility on the powerful person?

How do you square all this?

you want trump impeached cause he said look into bidens activities but i've never heard you once dive into "said activities" and justify billions that went to the urkraine and back home to them.

Incorrect. I don't know if I want him impeached - imo, that is determined by Congress and personally I would rather let the electorate decide at this point.

What is wrong - and this gets to the point you made above on right/wrong is that using the power of the presidency to coerce another country to ANNOUNCE an investigation into a political rival (apparently they didn't even really have to do it, they just had to make a public announcement) - is an abuse of power, there is no other way to put it. If any other president did it, we would be outraged.

He did NOT use normal channels - channels that were aware of and concerned with national security and diplomatic initiatives in regards to Ukraine.

He did NOT use normal law enforcement channels to conduct an investigation.

Why?

The only answer I keep hearing is "...but Biden"....but what about Biden?

The military CLEARED Ukraine for the release of the promised aid - stating that they had made significant steps towards cleaning up corruption. So...why then withhold said aid?

IF there is actual evidence to support an investigation into Biden (and thus far the only argument I have heard is that they have gotten rich from Ukraine) - then why not use our law enforcement agencies to look into it? The only reason I can think of is there likely isn't any real evidence to support an investigation and that is why he sent Guilliani.

If there is real evidence- then do it. Otherwise - there is little difference between the Bidens and frankly the Trumps who have gotten rich from investments in foreign countries, including Ukraine.

Corruption is serious, but you need more than circumstantial evidence when you are the most powerful man in the world going after your most threatening political rival in an election year, promoting a debunked conspiracy theory in the process - that looks really bad.

if trump did it, again - i'd join you in locking him up. i'd demand it. i don't care he's on MY SIDE. it's illegal and wrong. so at this point i could say "obama and biden could bilk the taxpayers for billions and the left won't care" and at least i correlate what i say to actions done. not play "what if" games.

But here is the thing...

I GET that you want equality on both sides - I feel that too. But are you not attenpting to FORCE it through a false equivalency? At this point in time there is no evidence either Obama or Biden have done anything wrong. No testimony, nothing. At this point in time - the bad behavior really is on Trump - what he did is, imo - not necessarily a crime, but a terrible abuse of power. I see it like saw it with Nixon. It isn't good.

There are many presidents on the right who I have disliked their policies, but I never saw this failing of character - Bush, Reagan come to mind. So imo - it's not a partisan view, but a matter of right or wrong.

false equiv, to me, means you put more stock into 1 comment of a phone call than you do someone deleting potential evidence and attempting to destroy the trail.

also I'm after equal justice for all. this "she's not POTUS", while music to my ears, doesn't mean Trump is help to a different set of laws.

I get you hate Trump. I get you'll defend Hillary and the actions of the left to the death.

I also get that's why we are divided as we are.

 

[kyzr]

Lindsey Graham is scaring Joe Biden because Lindsey is requesting documents regarding Ukraine. That bodes well for the senate trial when they can call the witnesses that Schiff wouldn't allow: Schiff, Ciaramella (WB), Chalupa, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Komrads Brennan and Clapper, and the rest of the deep state conspirators spying and lying on Trump as an "insurance policy" against Trump's presidency.

 

[AntonToo]

If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two??

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Sondland said that Homes’ recollection of the restaurant call with Trump, and Sondland’s statement that Trump doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine were true.

Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

 

[007]

If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two??

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

 

[AntonToo]

If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two??

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

No moron, Trump asked about Zelensky being ready to do investigations on the call with Sondlland. What fucking “assumption”??

How many fucking members of this administration, including Trump himself, have to tell you that Trump wanted investigations, for you to get a clue?

 

[007]

If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two??

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

No moron, Trump asked about Zelensky being ready to do investigations on the call with Sondlland. What fucking “assumption”??

I'm sorry... I didn't know I was responding to a retarded person.

 

[AntonToo]

Hey dummy, Sondland (they guy on the phone with Trump) fully CONFIRMED IT.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

No moron, Trump asked about Zelensky being ready to do investigations on the call with Sondlland. What fucking “assumption”??

I'm sorry... I didn't know I was responding to a retarded person.

Yea yea put that tail between your legs and run along dummy.

 

[007]

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

No moron, Trump asked about Zelensky being ready to do investigations on the call with Sondlland. What fucking “assumption”??

I'm sorry... I didn't know I was responding to a retarded person.

Yea yea put that tail between your legs and run along dummy.

Tell another lie, you little pussy leftist idiot.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes he did ignoramus. Go read the testimony and stop bothering people with your nonsense.

Please, spare the board with STUPID LIES... we ALL HEARD IT, Sondland from his own mouth, admitted he ASSUMED.

Now shut up, until you can say something that's truthful.

No moron, Trump asked about Zelensky being ready to do investigations on the call with Sondlland. What fucking “assumption”??

I'm sorry... I didn't know I was responding to a retarded person.

Yea yea put that tail between your legs and run along dummy.

Tell another lie, you little pussy leftist idiot.

Charity for the helpless assholes:

Sondland confirms David Holmes testimony on Trump call

 

[Coyote]

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

people could delete 33k requested pieces of evidence and the left will cover for them.

when trump actually does this, holler. i'll go after him with you and demand he gets locked up. til then we have plenty of examples of what the left HAS IN FACT DONE that the left simply won't acknowledge as being "wrong".

Let me see. You are talking about Hillary Clinton. Is she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she investigated? Mmmn yes - to hell and back. Did she do something wrong? Yes. She was found to be careless but fortunately no classified material was found to be mishandled. Now. What of it? In the scope of things it was dumb. It was careless. No argument there. But it's not up there with rape, murder, corruption, or fraud. It was investigated and we are done with it. Except for the Trumpists.

There are plenty of examples of wrong doing by the left I can think of that are wrong....Weiner's weener comest to mind. But I like stick to facts not conjecture and I kind of think it's important not to make false equivalencies. When there is wrong doing by a president - it's significantly higher than that of a lesser appointed official IMO - and like Hillary Clinton, there are those in Trump's cabinet who have had to serious problems - but they aren't the POTUS.

we've got to get back to right/wrong being the same or we'll never bridge this ever growing divide.

Yes ... but you also can't say all wrong doing is equal, and I don't mean by party I mean in terms of the act and the position of the person who committed it. The more powerful the position, the greater the power they can wield, the effect they can have, the audience they can reach and - the greater responsibility they have.

"With great power comes great responsibility" - is very very true. We seem to have forgotten it. People are not "equal" in that sense.

Consider too, the POTUS is somewhat protected from the consequences of his actions (it is now decided a sitting president can not be indicted). That is certainly not equal. So how do things like that square in terms of basic rights and wrongs? Wrong is still wrong but justice is meted out very differently. IMO doesn't that confer a greater responsibility on the powerful person?

How do you square all this?

you want trump impeached cause he said look into bidens activities but i've never heard you once dive into "said activities" and justify billions that went to the urkraine and back home to them.

Incorrect. I don't know if I want him impeached - imo, that is determined by Congress and personally I would rather let the electorate decide at this point.

What is wrong - and this gets to the point you made above on right/wrong is that using the power of the presidency to coerce another country to ANNOUNCE an investigation into a political rival (apparently they didn't even really have to do it, they just had to make a public announcement) - is an abuse of power, there is no other way to put it. If any other president did it, we would be outraged.

He did NOT use normal channels - channels that were aware of and concerned with national security and diplomatic initiatives in regards to Ukraine.

He did NOT use normal law enforcement channels to conduct an investigation.

Why?

The only answer I keep hearing is "...but Biden"....but what about Biden?

The military CLEARED Ukraine for the release of the promised aid - stating that they had made significant steps towards cleaning up corruption. So...why then withhold said aid?

IF there is actual evidence to support an investigation into Biden (and thus far the only argument I have heard is that they have gotten rich from Ukraine) - then why not use our law enforcement agencies to look into it? The only reason I can think of is there likely isn't any real evidence to support an investigation and that is why he sent Guilliani.

If there is real evidence- then do it. Otherwise - there is little difference between the Bidens and frankly the Trumps who have gotten rich from investments in foreign countries, including Ukraine.

Corruption is serious, but you need more than circumstantial evidence when you are the most powerful man in the world going after your most threatening political rival in an election year, promoting a debunked conspiracy theory in the process - that looks really bad.

if trump did it, again - i'd join you in locking him up. i'd demand it. i don't care he's on MY SIDE. it's illegal and wrong. so at this point i could say "obama and biden could bilk the taxpayers for billions and the left won't care" and at least i correlate what i say to actions done. not play "what if" games.

But here is the thing...

I GET that you want equality on both sides - I feel that too. But are you not attenpting to FORCE it through a false equivalency? At this point in time there is no evidence either Obama or Biden have done anything wrong. No testimony, nothing. At this point in time - the bad behavior really is on Trump - what he did is, imo - not necessarily a crime, but a terrible abuse of power. I see it like saw it with Nixon. It isn't good.

There are many presidents on the right who I have disliked their policies, but I never saw this failing of character - Bush, Reagan come to mind. So imo - it's not a partisan view, but a matter of right or wrong.

false equiv, to me, means you put more stock into 1 comment of a phone call than you do someone deleting potential evidence and attempting to destroy the trail.

also I'm after equal justice for all. this "she's not POTUS", while music to my ears, doesn't mean Trump is help to a different set of laws.

I get you hate Trump. I get you'll defend Hillary and the actions of the left to the death.

I also get that's why we are divided as we are.

No. You don't get it, Not at all.

You aren't after equal justice if you choose to characterize the two issues the way you are. My immediate response is: "I get you hate Hillary. I get you'll defend Trump and the actions of the right to death."

I tried to provide a serious thoughtful post and that's the reply I get?

First, Trump is not being judged on ONE PHONE CALL. That's the false narrative the right is spreading. There is multiple testimony given UNDER OATH - on multiple situations surrounding these events - several phone calls, and a series of actions taken over time. When you boil it down to "you hate Trump" and "the actions of one phone call" you are being dishonest, blatantly so - or deliberately ignoring the larger picture which includes using US resources to pursue a debunked conspiracy theory at the risk of our national security interests vis a vis Ukraine.

Clinton was investigated to hell and back, multiple times - and you on the right are still yammering after her. I honestly don't get it. She's done for politically, she lost the election, the investigation concluded that she was careless but no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for it, and you are still yammering for "justice" - well, that is "justice".

Let me ask you this: is there any difference between you, refusing to accept the results of the investigation over Hillary's emails - and the left, refusing to accept the results of the Mueller investigation and clamoring for "justice" on collusion? Any difference?

In the meantime - what different set of laws is Trump being held to? Be specific.

Clinton was investigated. She testified UNDER OATH.
Trump is being investigated. But you (the right) are opposing even that investigation! Trump has not testified UNDER OATH.

So...hmmm....who exactly is being granted more favorable treatment here?