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

[eagle1462010]

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.

Do not believe the talking heads...................and never forget the Establishment is from both sides............

The RINO's are still there.

 

[eagle1462010]

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?

The Benghazi investigations were a joke.................Obama and the Dems screwed up royally in Libya........another Obama Failure LEGACY................

They lied about how the men died............a video did it...........Wasn't under Oath..........just PURE POLITICAL BS..................

If they WANTED RESPECT..............they should have told the truth and NOT DISHONOR THOSE THAT DIED THERE............

Reagan lost people in the middle east...........HE MANNED THE FUCK UP and said SORRY.....didn't lie about how Americans died...............That is what HONORABLE PEOPLE DO.............

Hillary isn't HONORABLE...........She's a LIAR TO THE CORE............Benghazi investigation were NEVER GONNA BE CRIMINAL............because POLICY STUPIDITY IS NOT A CRIME..................

DON'T LIE ABOUT HOW OUR PEOPLE DIE.........

Obama replaced the DOJ with his Cronies...........and they COVERED FOR HILLARIES CRIMES........In a real court of law she is guilty as hell of over a 100 counts of the Espionage Act............but when you own the courts you don't get prosecuted............

The Establishment portect their own both sides.............They are career politicians who have gotten rich off being in office............their children get rich off connections.............and Political Pacs are nothing more than SLUSH FUNDS from where Business and orgs BUY FAVOR..............

Until all the establishment types and their cronies are removed from gov;t...........NOTHING WILL CHANGE......

This is a staged show...............Graham will never take down one of his own.......because they all have dirt on each other..............

 

[iceberg]

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?

I am after equal justice. now you are on attack.

if you want to investigate, go ahead. it's all we do anymore.

just add Obama money laundering to the list. we actually have a paper trail there and not just a phone call.

and I'm in Tokyo this week and don't have the same time to post as usual due to work. apologies it's not up to your satisfaction.

 

[iceberg]

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?

And where have I said I oppose the incestigation? 8 think it's stupid. I think the left will keep making up shit to investigate.

the question is why do you NEVER also want to investigate the money laundering OF WHICH we have a lot more proof of.

 

[edward37]

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?

And where have I said I oppose the incestigation? 8 think it's stupid. I think the left will keep making up shit to investigate.

the question is why do you NEVER also want to investigate the money laundering OF WHICH we have a lot more proof of.

Because trump will sue if we look into his bank records?

 

[DBA]

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!

Exactly! Evidence is not necessary according to the Democrats. Hearsay and innuendo are plenty good enough.

 

[CWayne]

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 ...

Won't happen. The GOP doesn't have the balls to do this.

 

[The Purge]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

Hey, Coyote....is this STILL a conspiracy theory?

 

[CWayne]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

No, it was expressed opinion by people who claimed to have heard it first hand.

The fact of the matter is, what they heard was not criminal in nature and they are stretching the boundaries of credibility with their "Opinions" of what it Trump meant when they heard him say what was released in the transcript.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

If only Trump would release the transcript of the call!

 

[iceberg]

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?

BTW I also gave a long answer in many parts with links and that didn't even get a reply so ease up on that route of attacks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Quid pro quo

No, bribery!

Ukraine

No, Russia!

The best thing about this is it's the last act of the Stalinist democrats. Adios! Buhbye!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

So Comrade, do YOU think the Soviet Star Chamber and Stalinist Show Trial went well for you Communists? Do you think the Communist party is in a better position to retain the house than you were two weeks ago?

 

[Vel]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

 

[AntonToo]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

LOL. After the 6th alteration to his testimony? Was this the call on an unsecured line in the restaurant? Does he have it recorded? Can he show the record of the call? What? No and no?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

 

[AntonToo]

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

Look maybe you are fucking dumb, but not everyone is and thats why Trump will get impeached for trading our foreign policy for personal political favors.

Trump "didn't want anything" as soon Congress learned of the whistleblower complaint and three congressional panels opened investigations. That sort of thing can make a President to no longer want to squeeze out political favors from Ukraine by holding up military aid.

Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and most of all Juliani are all encouraged to come to the Congress and "set the record straight" if they feel ANYTHING is being mis-represented. But they don't, because truth under Trump will set them free from their political aspirations in his administration and Republican party.

Just look at Sondland, at the end of the day his reward for donating a million dollars to Trump campaing is going to be a t-shirt reading: I lied to Congress and didn't even end up in jail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yours is .....

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.

And yours is .....

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

Look maybe you are fucking dumb, but not everyone is and thats why Trump will get impeached for trading our foreign policy for personal political favors.

Trump "didn't want anything" as soon Congress learned of the whistleblower complaint and three congressional panels opened investigations. That sort of thing can make a President to no longer want to squeeze out political favors from Ukraine by holding up military aid.

Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and most of all Juliani are all encouraged to come to the Congress and "set the record straight" if they feel ANYTHING is being mis-represented. But they don't, because truth under Trump will set them free from their political aspirations in his administration and Republican party.

Just look at Sondland, at the end of the day his reward for donating a million dollars to Trump campaing is going to be a t-shirt reading: I lied to Congress and didn't even end up in jail.

Sucks to be a Stalinist democrat today. You tried your anti American best.

I think most of the democrat leadership will get either a Participation Trophy or a "I was in on the failed coup against Trump and all I got was 6 life sentences for treason and sedition and this lousy Tshirt "

 

[AntonToo]

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.

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.

Which one of your firsthand witnesses did Trump tell to condition receiving aid to a Biden corruption investigation?

Sondland.

Look maybe you are fucking dumb, but not everyone is and thats why Trump will get impeached for trading our foreign policy for personal political favors.

Trump "didn't want anything" as soon Congress learned of the whistleblower complaint and three congressional panels opened investigations. That sort of thing can make a President to no longer want to squeeze out political favors from Ukraine by holding up military aid.

Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and most of all Juliani are all encouraged to come to the Congress and "set the record straight" if they feel ANYTHING is being mis-represented. But they don't, because truth under Trump will set them free from their political aspirations in his administration and Republican party.

Just look at Sondland, at the end of the day his reward for donating a million dollars to Trump campaing is going to be a t-shirt reading: I lied to Congress and didn't even end up in jail.

Sucks to be a Stalinist democrat today. You tried your anti American best.

I think most of the democrat leadership will get either a Participation Trophy or a "I was in on the failed coup against Trump and all I got was 6 life sentences for treason and sedition and this lousy Tshirt "

I'll make it real easy on you moron, just watch some FOX news: