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.
the irony of his post is awesome.X
put it in context then. We’re all ears.You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.Laws broken, abuses of power
Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.
Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal
Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.
Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law
Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.
Both, obstruction of congress.
Harassing the whistleblower, illegal
Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic
All above need witnesses and evidenc
We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.
I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts.... which may help Trump, who knows?It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?
They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?
It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!
If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?
I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts.... which may help Trump, who knows?It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?
They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?
It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!
If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?
what about the whistleblower?I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts.... which may help Trump, who knows?It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?
They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?
It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!
If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?
BTW, the reason they didn't want to go to the courts is because they didn't have a crime to justify a testimony. They knew it.I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts.... which may help Trump, who knows?It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?
They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?
It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!
If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?
I don't think ANY of those witnesses are going to help Democrats impeach a Republican President, Care! You've been sold a pig in a poke. Democrats like Adan Schiff and Jerry Nadler failed miserably trying to prove Trump did anything wrong with the Ukrainian situation with Joe and Hunter Biden and so they've gone to "Plan B" which is to claim that the "proof" exists but is being hidden from you! It's a political theatre and Democratic leadership thinks you're naïve enough to buy it!
it's why there will be no handing over of the articles.Let's be realistic here, Kiddies...who do you think is going to hurt more by calling for additional witnesses...Trump by having Bolton and some of the others on his Staff testify...or Joe Biden if Hunter Biden and he get sworn in and have to start testifying about Burisma and how Hunter landed that cushy position with no experience with either the Ukraine or the energy sector?
and they were right.I think Bolton may not help, but the other witnesses like Mulveyny, the OMB asst director and other firsthand witnesses will help clarify... And get to the facts.... which may help Trump, who knows?It isn't their job? Why do they need to call witnesses? That's a House responsibility per the constitution. Why didn't the House call all the witnesses when they had their investigation? Hmmmmmm?
They did, the ones whom they needed didn't comply or were told not to. Now what?
It's not that they "needed" testimony from Trump's Staff...it's that the testimony they got from the rest of their so called witnesses was SO bad that they're pretending people like Bolton is going to give them something they couldn't find on their own!
If you ever DO get Bolton or the others to testify, my guess is that they don't give you what you want. What then?
I don't think ANY of those witnesses are going to help Democrats impeach a Republican President, Care! You've been sold a pig in a poke. Democrats like Adan Schiff and Jerry Nadler failed miserably trying to prove Trump did anything wrong with the Ukrainian situation with Joe and Hunter Biden and so they've gone to "Plan B" which is to claim that the "proof" exists but is being hidden from you! It's a political theatre and Democratic leadership thinks you're naïve enough to buy it!
X
put it in context then. We’re all ears.You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.Laws broken, abuses of power
Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.
Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal
Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.
Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law
Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.
Both, obstruction of congress.
Harassing the whistleblower, illegal
Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic
All above need witnesses and evidenc
We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.
Do you think that is even legally, in another person's trial, and not done by the DOJ in private, by investigators?If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!
X
put it in context then. We’re all ears.You know that right wing mantra is ALL A LIE and completely taken out of context, of what she fully said, don't you?we have to pass the bill to learn what's in the bill!And we didn't land on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and GW Bush planned the invasion of Iraq from his ranch in Texas, years before he ran for president.Laws broken, abuses of power
Campaign finance laws on foreign gvt help.
Bribery/extortion, govt corruption.... soliciting help from Velensky, to make an announcement on CNN that the Ukraine was opening an investigation in to the Biden's, in order for the Ukraine to get their congressionally passed military aid, and a coveted white house meeting.... quid pro quo.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - holding back the military aid passed by congress was illegal
Hiding the IG urgent designated whistleblower complaint from congress was illegal.
Refusing to turn over any subpoena documents, breaks the law
Refusing to allow admin witnesses to testify, on this made up "absolute immunity claim" is illegal.
Both, obstruction of congress.
Harassing the whistleblower, illegal
Sending Giuliani and thugs, to the Ukraine is also problematic
All above need witnesses and evidenc
We do not need evidence if we just make speculative assumptions and call them fact evidence.
Context,
Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.
We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Although the point was not made clearly or explicitly, the sense of Pelosi’s remarks was that the benefits (in her view) of the bill — rather than the contents of the bill — would only be fully revealed to the public after the legislation was passed and implemented.
This was also left out
away from the fog of the controversy.
Do you think that is even legally, in another person's trial, and not done by the DOJ in private, by investigators?If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!
I don't.
Do you think that is even legally, in another person's trial, and not done by the DOJ in private, by investigators?If you think Biden's numbers are dropping now...just watch the cliff he falls off politically if he gets grilled under oath on his family's cashing in on his political position!
I don't.
QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]Let Trump call Joe and Hunter Biden. I am all for it.Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....
View attachment 295699
And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??
"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”
For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --
Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
Yep right along with Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and Guiliani.
If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super! That's not settled. Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts. If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime!
I keep telling you democrats are dumbasses.So you are in search of a crime? Lol is this serious? You impeach a president because you think you have a crime? HahaWow, in America, they investigate crimes & charge only when there is sufficient evidence. Part of that is discovered through the use of warrants.In America you can’t accuse someone of murder with no evidence,, this is why Americans think democrats are nazis ,, you are accusing a man with no evidence of wrong doing.. your sickSo you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQDemocrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....
View attachment 295699
And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??
"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”
For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --
Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?
So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.
If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.
The SC has already ruled on it, in the Nixon impeachment inquiry..... precedent is set.... the President has to turn over relevant evidence and witnesses to the impeachment,QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 23864560, member: 31215"]Let Trump call Joe and Hunter Biden. I am all for it.Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses
Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....
"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....
View attachment 295699
And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??
"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”
For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --
Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...
Yep right along with Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and Guiliani.
If you want to call members of the President's Staff...then you should have waited for the Courts to rule on Executive Privilege, Super! That's not settled. Instead of waiting...Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff rammed through impeachment based on second and third hand accounts. If this were a case being heard by a judge in a criminal court it would tossed with a stern admonition from said judge not to waste the court's time if you didn't have real evidence of a crime!
^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
