Russian State Media Freak Out Over Joe Bidens Campaign Ressurection

[AntonToo]

Horseshit.

And to know it's horseshit you don't have to look further than what Trump got impeached for and the fact that his campaign and political allies have been spending millions on ads specifically against Biden in the early voting Democratic primary states.

If Trump really wanted to run against Biden the LAST thing he would be doing is spending his time pressuring Ukrainian president to announce investigation into Biden.

Trump got impeached for the crime of the House going Democrat in 2018. Had nothing to do with the Russians.

BTW, the President of Ukraine testified he wasn't pressured in the least.

President of Ukraine would never lie to get on the good side of a guy who can hold American military aid to Ukraine hostage - nope, NEVER

Why didn't the Democrats call President Zelensky as a witness when they had the impeachment trial?

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

EVERY prior impeachment trial (for presidents and other officials) included witness testimony in the Senate.

 

[Nostra]

Trump got impeached for the crime of the House going Democrat in 2018. Had nothing to do with the Russians.

BTW, the President of Ukraine testified he wasn't pressured in the least.

President of Ukraine would never lie to get on the good side of a guy who can hold American military aid to Ukraine hostage - nope, NEVER

Why didn't the Democrats call President Zelensky as a witness when they had the impeachment trial?

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[AntonToo]

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

The Republicans in the Senate weren't going to subpoena anyone, they were just there to hear the case, not do an investigation which is the sole responsibility of the House according to the Constitution.

Of course, the accused COULD HAVE asked that the subpoena be issued. However there was no need for it, as the Liberals totally and completely failed to prove the charges against the President beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember in our system, its up to the ACCUSERS to prove their case, not the Accused to prove their innocence.

Straight nonsense. There is right about nothing in the Constitution about how Senate is to conduct the trial.

huh?

Are you suggesting that defendants can be forced to prove their innocence in America?

Is that a liberal value?

Actually, the Bill of Rights outlines some of the rights of defendants, including the right of due process and the right not to be forced to testify against himself. Basic 5th Amendment stuff. I knew the libs had ongoing problems with the 1st and 2nd amendments. Now the 5th too?

Moron, Republicans are not the defendants they are THE JURY TASKED WITH GETTING TO THE IMPARTIAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

This supposedly impartial jury body kicked things off by declaring full co-ordination of the trial with the defendant.

Some trial.

Do juries call witnesses in Russia, Boris?

Thats right dumbass THEY DON'T, which is why comparing Senate trial to an ACTUAL trial where Trump would 100% get convicted is so laughable.

Democrats offered to let the Republican Supreme Court Judge administering the proceedings rule on relavancy of the witnesses. Republicans predictably refused. Obviously any sort of sembalance to a real trial did not interest them.

 

[AntonToo]

President of Ukraine would never lie to get on the good side of a guy who can hold American military aid to Ukraine hostage - nope, NEVER

Why didn't the Democrats call President Zelensky as a witness when they had the impeachment trial?

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

 

[Polishprince]

Why didn't the Democrats call President Zelensky as a witness when they had the impeachment trial?

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

The Senate felt they had enough information to vote on a verdict.

And they did. Innocent as a New Born Babe. The Libs failed to prove their case

 

[AntonToo]

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s Super Tuesday victories in 10 out of 14 state primaries caused shock waves not only in the United States, but in Russia. State media there have been confidently predicting the Democratic Party's nomination of Bernie Sanders, which would lead, they are sure, to the re-election of their favorite, President Donald J. Trump.

Reporting on the U.S. elections for Russian state TV channel Rossiya 24, Alyona Pivkina made a gesture of surprise and said: “Suddenly, Biden surged ahead.” The revelation was followed by an awkward moment of silence between Pivkina and the seemingly stunned host of the news broadcast.

Russian Media Freak Over Joe Biden’s Election Resurrection

Not saying the Russians are trying to reelect Trump or anything, but...

Actually, the rise in Biden is positive for The Donald. Mr. Trump has publicly stated that he like to compete against the Mentally challenged like VP Biden.

Crazy horseshit.

You don't have to look further than what Trump got impeached for and the fact that his campaign and political allies have been spending millions on ads specifically against Biden in the early voting Democratic primary states.

If Trump really wanted to run against Biden the LAST thing he would be doing before the general election is spending his time pressuring Ukrainian president to announce investigation into Biden. The LAST thing his campaign would be doing is running anti-Biden ads.

You seem to have an active imagination. Joe isn't all there kid, you're in trouble again.

I don't need prime Joe, I need a president I can trust to do what is right for America.

Trump you can only trust to do what is right for Trump.

But tell me, does Trump's re-election campaign and his backers also have an active imagination when they spend millions running anti-Biden ads in Democrat primary states?

Don't really care. Is it illegal?

You said I have an active imagination...but now that I point out that Trump campaign and allies put alot of money behind these "imaginations" you say you don't care.

I guess you also don't really care for making coherent arguments.

 

[AntonToo]

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

The Senate felt they had enough information to vote on a verdict.

And they did. Innocent as a New Born Babe. The Libs failed to prove their case

8 Senate Republicans say you are full of shit. All of them except one did say they had enough information - but far from "innocence", they admited Trump is guilty as Article I charged.

 

[Nostra]

The Republicans in the Senate weren't going to subpoena anyone, they were just there to hear the case, not do an investigation which is the sole responsibility of the House according to the Constitution.

Of course, the accused COULD HAVE asked that the subpoena be issued. However there was no need for it, as the Liberals totally and completely failed to prove the charges against the President beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember in our system, its up to the ACCUSERS to prove their case, not the Accused to prove their innocence.

Straight nonsense. There is right about nothing in the Constitution about how Senate is to conduct the trial.

huh?

Are you suggesting that defendants can be forced to prove their innocence in America?

Is that a liberal value?

Actually, the Bill of Rights outlines some of the rights of defendants, including the right of due process and the right not to be forced to testify against himself. Basic 5th Amendment stuff. I knew the libs had ongoing problems with the 1st and 2nd amendments. Now the 5th too?

Moron, Republicans are not the defendants they are THE JURY TASKED WITH GETTING TO THE IMPARTIAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

This supposedly impartial jury body kicked things off by declaring full co-ordination of the trial with the defendant.

Some trial.

Do juries call witnesses in Russia, Boris?

Thats right dumbass THEY DON'T, which is why comparing Senate trial to an ACTUAL trial where Trump would 100% get convicted is so laughable.

Democrats offered to let the Republican Supreme Court Judge administering the proceedings rule on relavancy of the witnesses. Republicans predictably refused. Obviously any sort of sembalance to a real trial did not interest them.

Thanks for admitting you have been full of shit.

 

[Polishprince]

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

The Senate felt they had enough information to vote on a verdict.

And they did. Innocent as a New Born Babe. The Libs failed to prove their case

8 Senate Republicans say you are full of shit.

Actually, the only Senate Republican to vote for conviction was Mitt Romney, a Pathetic Loser of a man who is jealous as hell of Donald J. Trump.

 

[Nostra]

Why didn't the Democrats call President Zelensky as a witness when they had the impeachment trial?

REPUBLICANS had the impeachment trial, because that happens in the SENATE.

And with their majority they could have subpoenaed ANYONE THEIR LITTLE HEART DESIRES....except of course a President of another soverign country.

But as it turned out, their heart did not desire to hear ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. mmmk dumbass?

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

Um, the Constitution says the Senate hears the case the House brings, and renders a verdict.

Thanks for once again confirming you are a moron.

 

[Nostra]

Um, hey idiot..........the HOUSE is who conducts the investigation and subpoenas witnesses.

The Senate is charged, BY THE CONSTITUTION, with listening to the case the House brings, and rendering a verdict, Moron.

Pure bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in Constitution preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony after the indictment (impeachment) in the House, just as there routinely added witnesses in courtroom trials across America.

Thanks for confirming your complete and total ignorance of how the impeachment process is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Well then go ahead and put evidence where your idiot mouth is.

Quote where in Constitution there is a provision preventing the Senate from hearing additional relavant testimony during an impeachment trial.

The Senate felt they had enough information to vote on a verdict.

And they did. Innocent as a New Born Babe. The Libs failed to prove their case

8 Senate Republicans say you are full of shit. All of them except one did say they had enough information - but far from "innocence", they admited Trump is guilty as Article I charged.

Link?

 

[Lesh]

GOP senators label Trump's behavior 'shameful' but not impeachable

 

[Polishprince]

GOP senators label Trump's behavior 'shameful' but not impeachable

That's the key right there. Its not impeachable, its not a crime at all, much less than a High Crime.

People aren't thrown out of office for being "shameful", they have to commit a High Crime and the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And that just wasn't done in the Fake Impeachment which so dramatically failed in February, when BTW, Congress should have been working on coronavirus instead of the Fake Impeachment. BTW, talking about "shameful" that describes the kind of beating that Trump and his lawyers administered to the disgraced House Managers.

 

[AntonToo]

GOP senators label Trump's behavior 'shameful' but not impeachable

That's the key right there. Its not impeachable, its not a crime at all, much less than a High Crime.

Romney - Trump guilty as charged in Article I, conduct impeachable, voted to impeach.
Rubio - Trump guilty as charged, conduct impeachable but I'd rather voters descide in November to remove him or not.
Colins - Trump guilty as charged, but immediate impeachment not warranted, let voters descide.
Potman - Trump guilty as charged, but wrongdoing is not enough for impeachment.
Alexander - Trump guilty as charged, but wrongdoing is not enough for impeachment.
Murkowski - Trump guilty as charged, but wrongdoing is not enough for impeachment.

Your stories about how they didn't want to hear from witnesses because they thought there was enough evidence Trump was innocent is pure bullshit like I said it was.

 

[Lesh]

That's the key right there. Its not impeachable, its not a crime at all, much less than a High Crime.

According to sycophant GOP Senators.

And it's High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Of note...there WERE no Federal crimes when that was written but bribery was specifically mentioned

 

[Polishprince]

That's the key right there. Its not impeachable, its not a crime at all, much less than a High Crime.

According to sycophant GOP Senators.

And it's High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Of note...there WERE no Federal crimes when that was written but bribery was specifically mentioned

There were no article of impeachment which alleged Bribery at all. The two "crimes" in the articles of impeachment were "obstruction of congress" and "abuse of power".

Neither is a crime at all, much less a "high" crime which the Constitution requires

 

[beagle9]

Looks like it was written by mascale...Think I'll invest heavily in tin foil stocks.

Russians, Republicans, You can't tell them apart these days.

View attachment 311105

No they're all in the article with actual quotes from them.

Your a cult follower with very limited capacity, that only drinks from cups you're directed to, so it's quite understandable you willfully ignored them.

The problem you have, is the normal people in the world saw them very clearly.

How about those numbers of moderate Republicans casting their votes for Biden in the Primaries?

Not making predictions, but I would start warming up on your new memes of denial and projection.

Ok, so what made Russia choose the Republicans to support as in according to the leftist ??

Republican support for Trump, who always had nothing but nice things to say about Putin due to his bussiness entaglements (Miss Universe and trying to build Trump towers in Moscow). While Trump ran for president he predictably opposed sanctions on Russia that a Democrat President named Obama led the effort on after Russia's 2014 misadventures in Ukraine. He also went on TV and publicly defended Putin's murdering of journalists and sqaushing political opposition.

Trump defends Putin: 'You think our country's so innocent?' - CNNPolitics

Hillary on the other hand was on Putin's shit list since 2012 after she voiced support for anti-Putin demostrations. Her firm support for sanctions against Russia made her public enemy #1 there.

When Trump won Russians who are fed daily dose of Putin-vision were publicly celebrating like it was New Years eve.

And then of course the American inteligence high confidence finding that Russians conducted electioneering operations to help Trump get elected and 20 something Russian operatives directly indicted for it in the Mueller probe.

To deny to this day that Russia is pulling for Trump is not know up from down.

You still don't get it do you ? Either you support someone for their core ideologies and character to be found in the chosen representative of a nation or you don't, otherwise it allows for the opening of doors and such in the relationship/business world or beyond that world to take place.

Undoubtedly you haven't ever operated in a position where you have to represent your company to it's customers, and to their management when dealing with their companies who are doing business with you.

It can be easy or it can be very hard. If can't figure out a healthy balance between the relationship's, and therefore strive to have a likeable personality, character, and yet firm stance that is respected by your customers rep, then you fail, and your company loses a customer and/or huge account. It's no different in the leadership world of nations, either you bring respect to your position or you are laughed at in your position.

So the question has become, who is respected, and who was laughed at in the rolls of leadership in the world. For example, what do you think of Kim thug moon of N.Korea ? Do you respect him over our representative Trump ? That basketball player sure liked him it seemed.

Think about the players the Democrat leadership meets with, their message, their attempt at a relationship etc. Who are they, and what do they represent ??

Our core values, just like a corporations core message is broadcast to the world for business, is it a good one or a bad one ? Be fair in your comparison's throughout the years.

Trump has been a great representative for this nation, and that's a good thing. Like he said, we want to have a good relationship with these major players in the world, but the undermining of Trump back here puts this nation in grave danger, because Democrats would bring on nuclear war if they have to, otherwise in order to take back power at any cost. Not good.

 

[AntonToo]

Russians, Republicans, You can't tell them apart these days.

View attachment 311105

No they're all in the article with actual quotes from them.

Your a cult follower with very limited capacity, that only drinks from cups you're directed to, so it's quite understandable you willfully ignored them.

The problem you have, is the normal people in the world saw them very clearly.

How about those numbers of moderate Republicans casting their votes for Biden in the Primaries?

Not making predictions, but I would start warming up on your new memes of denial and projection.

Ok, so what made Russia choose the Republicans to support as in according to the leftist ??

Republican support for Trump, who always had nothing but nice things to say about Putin due to his bussiness entaglements (Miss Universe and trying to build Trump towers in Moscow). While Trump ran for president he predictably opposed sanctions on Russia that a Democrat President named Obama led the effort on after Russia's 2014 misadventures in Ukraine. He also went on TV and publicly defended Putin's murdering of journalists and sqaushing political opposition.

Trump defends Putin: 'You think our country's so innocent?' - CNNPolitics

Hillary on the other hand was on Putin's shit list since 2012 after she voiced support for anti-Putin demostrations. Her firm support for sanctions against Russia made her public enemy #1 there.

When Trump won Russians who are fed daily dose of Putin-vision were publicly celebrating like it was New Years eve.

And then of course the American inteligence high confidence finding that Russians conducted electioneering operations to help Trump get elected and 20 something Russian operatives directly indicted for it in the Mueller probe.

To deny to this day that Russia is pulling for Trump is not know up from down.

You still don't get it do you ? Either you support someone for their core ideologies and character to be found in the chosen representative of a nation or you don't, otherwise it allows for the opening of doors and such in the relationship/business world or beyond that world to take place.

Undoubtedly you haven't ever operated in a position where you have to represent your company to it's customers, and to their management when dealing with their companies who are doing business with you.

It can be easy or it can be very hard. If can't figure out a healthy balance between the relationship's, and therefore strive to have a likeable personality, character, and yet firm stance that is respected by your customers rep, then you fail, and your company loses a customer and/or huge account. It's no different in the leadership world of nations, either you bring respect to your position or you are laughed at in your position.

So the question has become, who is respected, and who was laughed at in the rolls of leadership in the world. For example, what do you think of Kim thug moon of N.Korea ? Do you respect him over our representative Trump ? That basketball player sure liked him it seemed.

Think about the players the Democrat leadership meets with, their message, their attempt at a relationship etc. Who are they, and what do they represent ??

Our core values, just like a corporations core message is broadcast to the world for business, is it a good one or a bad one ? Be fair in your comparison's throughout the years.

Trump has been a great representative for this nation, and that's a good thing. Like he said, we want to have a good relationship with these major players in the world, but the undermining of Trump back here puts this nation in grave danger, because Democrats would bring on nuclear war if they have to, otherwise in order to take back power at any cost. Not good.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the question of Russians backing Trump?

When you get evened out from skipping meds, do try to post something relavant.