Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is your argument that if there is no law against something (I don't know if there are laws concerning Slimy Rudy's behavior) it is perfectly alright to do it?Why did you crop my response?You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.I don’t have to explain.Never mind the fact you have not explained to yourself or anyone else how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues.He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of te private client, Donald Trump.
I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.
Unless you can explain how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, your accusation cannot hold water with rational, reasoned people.
Well?
Schumer has been reduced to the whiney little bitch that he is!
He was crying again in front of the Senate just this morning.
Is it any wonder why cryin' chuck is crying?
Just take a gander at his wife
View attachment 295384
Why did you crop my response?You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.I don’t have to explain.Never mind the fact you have not explained to yourself or anyone else how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues.He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of te private client, Donald Trump.
I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.
Unless you can explain how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, your accusation cannot hold water with rational, reasoned people.
Well?
Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.
it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.
Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.
What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?
(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)
You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?
An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".
Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.
You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.
.
Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?
Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?
Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?
Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?
.
What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?
Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.
.
That's a problem. No?
Derp....Zero called by Senators, you crayon eating simpleton.Cryin' Chucky is nothing more than 1 of 100 jurors.Schumer is planning on asking for a vote on whether the 4 major witnesses who Trump is blocking should testify during the Senate trial. He wants to hold Repubs accountable for being complicit in McTreason and Trump's scheme to obstruct the testimony of witnesses people who will either provide damning evidence or be forced to perjure themselves.
Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.How many witnesses were called in the Cinton trial, dope?Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.
Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?
Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?
Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?
Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?
.
What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?
Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.
.
That's a problem. No?
NO!
.
Then why are you whining and crying about needing more witnesses, Puddinhead?Well then, the Dimwingers should cancel today's vote, go thru the courts, and try to build a case. What they have now is zippo.I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lolWhy wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.
It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.
As I just said, dope. There is already sufficient evidence.
ROFL! So says the douchebag who defends the Dim Stalinist show trial impeachment inquiry.You've just unwittingly explained why McTreason (and Trump) has become so corrupt. He faces no consequences from his party for his duplicitous, unethical (for Trump illegal) actions.And the penalty is?“The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath,” Representative Val B. Demings, Democrat of Florida, said on Friday.
At the start of the trial, the Constitution requires the senators to take an oath. Current Senate rules say that oath includes: “I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”
Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.
it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.
Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.
What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?
(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)
You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?
An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".
Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.
The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.
Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.
What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?
(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)
You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?
An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".
Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.
The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.
SHM.
How low can you go?
Orange Man Bad is a "high crime"
This is how the Stalinists want to end their time as a political Party
It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lolThey can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?
Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.
It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.
Thank you for admitting you cannot explain how how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, and thusly demonstrating your accusation will not hold water with rational, reasoned people.Do rational people ignore information that is counter to their beliefs?Why did you crop my response?You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.I don’t have to explain.Never mind the fact you have not explained to yourself or anyone else how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues.
You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.
Unless you can explain how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, your accusation cannot hold water with rational, reasoned people.
Well?
Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?
An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".
Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.
The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.
SHM.
How low can you go?
Orange Man Bad is a "high crime"
This is how the Stalinists want to end their time as a political Party
"SHM"?
"Still have meth"?
Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".
Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.
The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.
SHM.
How low can you go?
Orange Man Bad is a "high crime"
This is how the Stalinists want to end their time as a political Party
"SHM"?
"Still have meth"?
Shake my head.
I warned you about going after Trump like this
Dude the investigation is over, now is the time for the trialEven if Trump is within he legal right to prevent witness testimony (which he isn't), he is still preventing information from being added to the record for the Senate trial. Information he implies exonerates him by stating he did nothing wrong. If that's true, why not let the witnesses testify?He ignored nothing. He challenged them in court, per our Constitution. Just because Dimwingere in a hurry to vote on their coup doesn't mean he is obstructing Congress.He's not invoking executive privilege either. He's not doing anything other than crumpling them up and throwing them in the shredder.Our justice system doesn't make it "easy" to find people guilty of crimes, Colfax...it requires proof be presented by the prosecution. You don't put people in jail because you don't like them! You put them in jail because you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime! Trump hasn't cooperated with Adam Schiff''s attempt to rail road him. For some reason you now think THAT is also an impeachable offence! It would be the same as finding someone guilty of "obstruction of justice" for invoking their 5th Amendment rights!
Trump isn’t invoking his 5th amendment rights. He is preventing a constitutional process.
It was an analogy, Colfax! Trump is invoking his Executive Privilege rights. You have no more right to impeach him for that then a prosecutor has to bring charges against a citizen for invoking any of THEIR rights!
Answer me one question please.
What do you think would happen to you if your ignored a subpoena?
Moron.
Maybe it's time to pay attention to Edward Snowden's warnings about FISA excess since the National Security State will be in existence long after Snowden and Trump are dead?There is currently a lot of u deniable evidence that Obama's DOJ & FBI abused the FISA Court, violated the Constitution, broke the law, & trampled American citizen's rights.
The FISA Court just issued an unprecedented rebuke of Rosenstein, Comey, the FBI, and others who engaged in this criminal behavior.
The FISA Court also made it clear that these criminals have endangered our national security as the FISA Court's existence is now in jeopardy thanks to anti-Trump traitors.
The Democrats, however, are continuing to ignore - even defend - this criminal behavior. Instead of addressing this national security damaging criminal.final behavior, the Democrats are pushing full-steam ahead with an unwarranted, crime-less, evidence-less, witness-less Impeachment they have called for since BEFORE THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION.
The Democrats continue to declare through their actions, "F* the Country and our National Security - for the good of the Democratic Party we have to Impeach the President!"
.
Thank you for admitting you cannot explain how how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, and thusly demonstrating your accusation will not hold water with rational, reasoned people.Do rational people ignore information that is counter to their beliefs?Why did you crop my response?You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.I don’t have to explain.
You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.
Unless you can explain how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues, your accusation cannot hold water with rational, reasoned people.
Well?
If that were true you wouldn't be crying about needing more evidence lol SMH rotflmaoayWell then, the Dimwingers should cancel today's vote, go thru the courts, and try to build a case. What they have now is zippo.I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lolThey can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.
Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.
It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.
As I just said, dope. There is already sufficient evidence.
