"The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror?" Nadler said.
 |
| Murkowski specifically questioned Democrat's desire to rush things along and then demand that the Senate do the job that the House couldn't be bothered with. Murkowski & Collins were part of the effort to have Justice Roberts scold Nadler. |
“I mean, that’s an extraordinary thing to say on the floor of the United States Senate, the middle of the trial, and that’s what drew the rebuke and rightly so,” Hawley told reporters. “I can tell you, there was an open, open gasping on the Senate floor when Nadler was saying these things. I mean, it’s really, really extraordinary.” He added: “If the goal was to persuade, they took a huge step backward last night.”
Well if the Democrats were looking for media fawning from CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the liberal press, then they probably accomplished this. If they were looking to persuade fence sitting Senators that they are here in good faith, then they failed miserably. To the degree that it makes a difference, it would be much easier today (than it would have been had Democrats not been so damned snarky) for the moderates to vote to end this thing after questions, rather than call any additional witnesses.
If Nadler truly believes that it's Congress (not the President) on trial, then he should take a good hard look in the mirror, and ask himself how his own performance is being judged. The House ran a shit show (or a Schiff Show). It was by all measures, shoddy, incomplete, secretive, unfair, and ultimately accomplished nothing but them losing the support some of their own Congresspeople.
Right now there appears to be a much better chance that the Republicans and Trump will be able to pick off a Democrat or two in the Senate, then there will be that anyone on the GOP side will roll over and let themselves be bullied by Nadler and Schiff. Moreover, they may have lost their edge in terms of having additional witnesses called.
66 comments:
Please....Collins sounded like a wounded cunt trying to appease trump with her BS comments.....She is currently the most unpopular senator in the country and will soon be rewarded for her unabashed support of the liar......Maine voters are an independent lot and will not tolerate her much longer.....good.....Now to get rid of McSally and Cory and moscow mitch goes away!!!!!!!
Admittedly that was a mistake on the part of Nadler.
But Schiff's presentations have been so excellent, and the credulity which he and Zoe Lofgren bring with them just by their no-nonsense way of speaking, laying out the case impeccably with such an emphasis on objectivity (just the facts!) is wearing down those who want to deny that the Republican President has done all that he can to COVER UP his real intention and actions.
stance is to join in eis M
It's amazing, isn't it...
Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
How Trump has the audacity to use actual statements, actual fact, actual documents, and actual quotes from people with first hand involvement...
all in order to cover up the more evil "real intentions" that are being made up by Democrats in the House!
Gee... shouldn't he just admit that everything actually stated and known are part of a larger cover up... because we all know that lack of evidence of a conspiracy is just proof of a good cover up!
James sounds like the liberal media regarding schiff's rhetoric. You had me at hello. Accusations, opinions, stories having nothing to do with the charges. That's all we've gotten from dems. But the libs love it so.
Sorry guys, but everybody in that chamber is becoming more and more aware that even if they acquit Trump, the record will continue to speak for itself on into the coming election and down through the centuries.
The difference between Ch and me is this. There have been times in the past when I have gotten some things wrong and have admitted it. He never does that. He knows very well he has gotten a lot of this wrong, but continues to parrot totally discredited talking points as if they were facts.
Who's being over aggressive?
GOP Senators Warned by Trump Team
January 24, 2020 at 9:34 am EST
CBS News reports that Republican senators have been warned by President Trump team:
“Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.”
_____________
Now that doesn't sound like a call for the impartial consideration of the evidence which all the Senators took an oath to observe, does it.
Sorry guys, but everybody in that chamber is becoming more and more aware that even if they acquit Trump, the record will continue to speak for itself on into the coming election and down through the centuries.
Wow! That is so breathtakingly stupid I don't know where to begin.
I suppose we have to begin with the Clinton impeachment trial:
1. He was acquitted on a party line vote.
2. The record was effectively forgotten and memory hole. Clinton was actually guilty of the crimes (perjury and obstruction of justice) he was charged with.
3. In the following election in the voters punished the party who brought the impeachment charges.
Be careful what you wish for.
The last administration was absolutely corrupt and it's coming out
NYT Quashed Story About 2016 WH Meeting with ‘Whistleblower’ and Ukrainians on Burisma
Clinton lied about being an unfaithful husband. Voters said, "So what? If Hillary can stand him, so can we."
The case against Trump is different, far more disturbing.
And that case has been made and will continue to be made, ever more and more convincingly.
So be careful what YOU wish for.
😊Existing-home sales soar to best pace in nearly 2 years
Ben Winck
Jan. 22, 2020, 11:42 AM😁
Where did The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT Recession/Depression go?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-s-senate-impeachment-trial-what-happened-day-three-n1121616
Perjury is a crime. Trump has committed no crime. Keep pounding that table.
Nadler really shit ther bed when he managed to piss off both susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
Clinton lied about being an unfaithful husband. Voters said, "So what? If Hillary can stand him, so can we."
The case against Trump is different, far more disturbing.
Really? He broke no law and he was within his rights to conduct foreign policy. Schiff lied when he said Trump withheld aid to Ukraine. Ukraine got their aid in the time specified by the law. There was no extortion, bribery, or quid pro quo.
When Trump said "can you help us (not the me in Schiff's lie), he was speaking country not himself.
The only thing disturbing is the slow motion coup the Democrats are engineering using the House's impeachment power.
Jane, Your President is going to be the first President to Speak at March for Life.
You support him and pro life?
Jane does not exist.
The case against Trump is different, far more disturbing.
And far more made up!
COMMENSA SAID:
Trump broke no law and he was within his rights to conduct foreign policy. Schiff lied when he said Trump withheld aid to Ukraine. Ukraine got their aid in the time specified by the law. There was no extortion, bribery, or quid pro quo.
I will let Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano answer you AND CH:
Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?
THE JUDGE:
I don't blame President Trump for his angst and bitterness over his impeachment by the House of Representatives. In his mind, he has done "nothing wrong" and not acted outside the constitutional powers vested in him and so his impeachment should not have come to pass. He believes that the president can legally extract personal concessions from the recipients of foreign aid, and he also believes that he can legally order his subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas.
Hence, his public denunciations of his Senate trial as a charade, a joke and a hoax. His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms.
The House of Representatives -- in proceedings in which the president chose not to participate -- impeached Trump for abuse of power and contempt of Congress. The abuse consists of his efforts to extract a personal political "favor" from the president of Ukraine as a precondition to the delivery of $391 million in military aid. The favor he wanted was an announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden and his son Hunter.
The Government Accountability Office -- a nonpartisan entity in the federal government that monitors how the feds spend tax revenue -- has concluded that Trump's request for a favor was a violation of law because only Congress can impose conditions on government expenditures. So, when the president did that, he usurped Congress' role and acted unlawfully.
But, did he act criminally? Is it constitutionally necessary for the House to point to a specific federal crime committed by the president in order to impeach him and trigger a Senate trial?
The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.
For example, as others have suggested, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch from there, or if he announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable because, when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.
In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse the president of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.
_______________
That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.
This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.
If the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of the Department of Justice?
When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's folks threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions were lawful and that they imposed a burden on the House to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.
Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." The House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.
We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.
Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?
It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
SO, Commensa and Ch and Cowardly and Caliphate and Balls,
give us a rational reply to Neopolitano.
History will inherently understand that impeachment articles should only be brought when the charges are such that there is no disagreement about:
1) Whether the allegations (if true) are impeachable
2) Whether or not the allegations are true
In this case we have literally a Party line disagreement on the first suggestion... largely because Democrats quite literally want to treat Donald Trump differently than any other President has ever been treated. This not only holds true for impeachment, but for many other issues. They literally demand "oversight" of the executive branch where no oversight has ever previously been conducted and in areas where the constitution provides that authority to the executive branch.
It's simply a fact that other Presidents have asked foreign leaders to become involved in sensitive political investigations. It happened DURING the 2016 election for Christ sakes! It's also part of the law regarding foreign aid, that the executive branch can set terms and conditions. Moreover, every single Administration has at one time or another fought Congressional subpoenas... and yet not one official (prior to Trump) was ever impeached over it.
So no matter how you look at it... other Presidents have done exactly what Trump has done, and no Congress ever even "thought" about an impeachment. (What does that tell you?)
The second part is almost entirely a matter of semantics and degree. It's flat out a fact that the Ukrainians got the Military Aid. It's a flat out fact that no agreement transpired to provide either an investigation or a statement from the Ukrainians that they were starting an investigation.
The issue is "entirely" that Democrats are arguing that (in spite of it never happening) that Trump "wanted" it to happen and therefore we should all treat it as if it actually "did" happen.
Moreover, ALL of their evidence is circumstantial and second hand... and pretty much all of their witnesses are flat out Trump haters. It is an undeniable FACT that a vast majority of the witnesses Democrats relied on, would not even be allowed to take the stand in an actual criminal trial.
Now, there can be some honest "disagreement" about what we all believe Trump wanted or exactly how far things went in terms of pushing for an investigation. But there is literally NO first hand evidence from anyone at the executive level (Trump, Zelensky, etc) that any agreement was ever made and we know FOR A FACT that such an agreement never came to fruition.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
It's amazing, isn't it...
Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!! So says the old white trump water boy who has lost his way!!!!!!!!!!! Too funny. Lil Scotty, another epic failure on your part!!!!!
Clinton lied about being an unfaithful husband
I guess this is another one of your mistakes, eh pederast. Clinton was not impeached for getting BJs from a chubby intern. The perjury was committed in connection with Paula Jones
Well James, a president can legally extract concessions from a foreign government. We do it all the time, especially in trade negotiations.
And a president and legally order subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas and go to court to have them quashed.
It's called executive privilege.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-charges-lack-indictable-offense/
Something is missing from the charges against Trump: An impeachable offense.
If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: “Sure, you can have your lawyers here, and call whatever witnesses you want.” There would be a bipartisan sense that the president had done profound wrong. There would be a sense of history, not contest. Congressional leaders would want to be remembered as statesmen, not apparatchiks.
If there were a real impeachable offense, there would be no fretting about witnesses at the trial. Senate leaders would be contemplating that, after hearing the case extensively presented by both sides, there might well be enough votes to convict without witnesses. But if there were an appetite for witnesses, witnesses would be called . . . as they were in Watergate. And just as in Watergate, if the president withheld vital evidence of appalling lawlessness, the public would not be broadly indifferent to administration stonewalling.
If there were an obviously impeachable offense, the garrisons of Fort Knox could not have stopped Nancy Pelosi from personally marching impeachment articles into the Senate the second the House had adopted them — in what would have been an overwhelming bipartisan vote (of the kind that Pelosi, not long ago, said would be imperative for a legitimate impeachment effort).
The Framers expected presidents to abuse their powers from time to time. And not just presidents. Our Constitution’s theory of the human condition, and thus of governance, is that power is apt to corrupt anyone. It needs to be divided, and the peer components need to be incentivized to check each other. The operating assumption is that, otherwise, one component would accumulate too much power and inevitably fall prey to the tyrannical temptation. But as Madison observed, men are not angels. Separation of powers arms us against inevitable abuse, it does not prevent abuse from happening. Abuse is a given: Congress uses lawmaking power to encroach on the other branches’ prerogatives; judges legislate from the bench, presidents leverage their awesome powers for political advantage. The expectation is not that government officials will never overreach; it is that when one branch does overreach, the others will bring it into line.
503
That is the norm: corrective action or inaction, political pressure, naming and shaming, power of the purse, and so on. We expect to criticize, inveigh, even censure. We don’t leap from abuse to expulsion. We don’t expect routinely to expel members of Congress or impeach presidents and judges. That is reserved for historically extraordinary wrongs.
On Ukraine, nothing of consequence came of President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop excesses. Sure, they ought to be a 2020 campaign issue. Democrats, instead, would have us exaggerate them into historically extraordinary wrongs. For that, you need gamesmanship. If there were real impeachable misconduct, there would be no time or place for games.
This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.
Which wasn't charged for the very good reason that if you applied such an expansive definition to conducting foreign policy then all negotiations with foreign powers is bribery.
Re: Clinton lied about being an unfaithful husband. Voters said, "So what? If Hillary can stand him, so can we."
The case against Trump is different, far more disturbing.
That is exactly how it was seen in the public mind.
There you go Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
Explain to us all how well respected and nearly always correct Andrew McCarthy got it wrong? Because EVERYTHING he wrote is inherently proven by what has happened... he is providing an explanation for current events...
Rather than an lecture from an idiot who thinks he knows better than everyone else.
Reality is exactly as McCarthy states it!
What the hack Neopolitano states is simply "his opinion".
A majority of Americans want there to be more witnesses.
Let the witnesses witness!
I'm sure Ch and the rest of you would have no objection to allowing further witnesses who could pin this down even more decisively. (It has already been pinned down decisively enough, according to Neopolitano.)
So there you have it Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
Neopolitano is providing his anti-Trump opinion as an anti-Trump media guy who has been anti-Trump ever since Trump decided that Neopolitano was not USSC material. He quite literally has an "ax to grind". If he was correct in his opinion, then it would be so obvious that everyone could see it. But they don't don't.
McCarthy offers an alternative opinion, but also offers his opinion within the scope of what is actually happening. Reality actually reinforces McCarthy's opinion and undercuts Neopolitano's opinion.
Sorry Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
But once again... you have an opinion.
I have facts and reality!!!
Neopolitano does not sound like a "hack" to me. Rather, a principled jurist.
Ch, you showed a poor respect for "facts and reality" in previous postings.
Well so far Neopolitano has been wrong on just about everything.
Neopolitano does not sound like a "hack" to me. Rather, a principled jurist.
That's an opinion...
The fact is that this is a purely partisan impeachment that has not convinced any sort of overwhelming amount of Americans that Trump needs to be removed, and likely hasn't convinced a single GOP Senator.
So the fact that YOU AND I disagree
PROVES MY POINT!!!!
Nearly everyone agreed that Nixon had to go. Because what he did was provable, obvious, clearly against the law, and it undermined the office he was holding.
In spite of "admitting" to his crime, there was never enough public support for impeachment of Clinton that Senators (of his Party) were ever going to vote him out... because there were "questions" about whether that crime "rose to the level" of impeachment.
The Trump situation AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT is not the Nixon impeachment, but rather the Clinton impeachment with the added variable that he hasn't admitted to and Democrats cannot prove that he even did what is alleged (which is still not an impeachment offense even if it was committed).
Jane losses basic Debate
"
KansasDemocrat January 24, 2020 at 9:57 AM
Jane, Your President is going to be the first President to Speak at March for Life.
You support him and pro life?
ReplyDelete
James January 24, 2020 at 10:05 AM
Jane does not exist"
Blogger Commonsense said...
Well so far Neopolitano has been wrong on just about everything.
Just like the pederast
During the trial, legal expert Jonathan Turley opposed the White House argument that impeachment requires a criminal allegation. Turley wrote in the Washington Post that "If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one."
That last is also true of Ch and many here.
COMMENSA SAID: ...if you applied such an expansive definition to conducting foreign policy then all negotiations with foreign powers is bribery.
lol I'm not aware of any negotiations with a foreign power that requests a "favor" except one.
Pentagon Confirms 34 Soldiers Hurt In Iran Attack
The Pentagon has confirmed that 34 U.S. service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after the Iranian missile strike in Iraq. Eight of them were flown back to the United States for medical treatment, CNN reports.
President Trump originally said there were no casualties.
_____________
When asked about that more recently he said, "I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things," Trump said. "But I would say, and I can report: It is not very serious."
________
Yet another lie. Impeach this self-centered egotist.
O BOY Another "witness"
Trump Caught on Recording Ordering Ambassador Fired
January 24, 2020 at 11:53 am EST
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — two former business associates of Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted.
The recording appears to contradict statements by Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days.
Said Trump: “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.”
________
The Daily Beast says the recording was made by Fruman.
Clinton was not impeached for getting BJs from a chubby intern. The perjury was committed in connection with Paula Jones
actually, there was a lewinski to the perjury charges against clinton. he had attempted to suborn perjury from her regarding the blow job and subsequent splooge on the blue dress.
the clinton's are natural born liars to begin, with and bill lied to everyone who would listen about both jones AND lewinski.
No new witnesses, don't do Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff job.
Trump Caught on Recording Ordering Ambassador Fired
that's nice, pederast.
0linsky fired every fucking ambassador on the planet at once as was his right to do.
ambassador's serve exclusively at the pleasure of the president.
if pencil neck and golden corral are going down THIS path it's more evidence that their case is a fucking joke.
Turley is still "against" impeachment and he still believes that the House is bringing a case that doesn't prove what it claims. I agree that the argument that there has to be an actual "statutory law" broken is a bit over the top, but that is only because there are actually things that a President could do that are not defined crimes.
But like Turley also argues... the Democrats are trying to lower the bar way too far to include normal Presidential behavior that is simply "unliked" by Democrats, liberals, and deep state actors who would prefer things being done differently. Or in the case of "abuse of Congress" Turley still insists that the abuse is coming from the House for attempting to shut down the ability to go to Court.
For instance... Some Democrats and liberals are now apparently trying to suggest that firing an Ambassador is somehow an impeachable offense. Ironically nobody denies that she was "fired" yet certain idiots are still trying to "prove it" as if that makes any difference in the world.
This impeachment has drained many liberals of their much needed brain cells...
if pencil neck and golden corral are going down THIS path it's more evidence that their case is a fucking joke.
you gotta love the fact Nadless voted against the aid to Ukraine in the first place
lol I'm not aware of any negotiations with a foreign power that requests a "favor" except one.
As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time - “particularly with missile defense” - until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
The United States and NATO have offered Russia a role in the project to create an anti-ballistic shield which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain.
But Moscow says it fears the system could weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent.
It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system and joint control of how it is used.
The White House, initially caught off-guard by questions about the leaders’ exchange, later released a statement recommitting to implementing missile defense “which we’ve repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia” but also acknowledging election-year obstacles on the issue.
“Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough,” White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.
“Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev/obama-tells-russias-medvedev-more-flexibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326
you gotta love the fact Nadless voted against the aid to Ukraine in the first place
i fully expect that to be brought up by the trump team.
they need to make a complete fool of that fat greasy piece of shit.
This impeachment has drained many liberals of their much needed brain cells...
i beg to differ.
we're in the midst of this bullshit precisely they have few brain cells to begin with. couple that with their chronic dishonesty and propensity to lie and you can see why a leftist should never be put in charge of anything more complicated than pushing a broom or emptying a trash can.
Re: 12:04
I'm sure Ch will agree that Turley may wish to reconsider his impeachment opinion if, as most Americans want, more witnesses with more information is forthcoming.
Trump.again proven right on the criminally corrupt politicians in Porto Rico.
"U.S. authorities have unsealed a corruption indictment against two former top officials in Puerto Rico for directing some $15.5 million in contracts to favored businesses, allegedly edging out other firms for the lucrative government work despite allegations of being unqualified.
The two former Puerto Rico leaders — Julia Keleher, who was the secretary of the island's department of education before stepping down in April, and Ángela Ávila-Marrero, who led Puerto Rico's Health Insurance Administration until last month — were arrested by FBI agents on Wednesday."
When do you haters stop.hating Trump?
I invite you all to go and look at my last post on the 'Now here is a cut and paste that matters' thread.
When was Schitt put in charge of the outcome of 2020 Presidental Election?
When he said the US Voter can Bevin trusted with securing the out come he wants.
I'm sure Ch will agree that Turley may wish to reconsider his impeachment opinion if, as most Americans want, more witnesses with more information is forthcoming.
wrong again, pederast. you dumb fuck.
turley is one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars. he's crystal clear on the fact that the house compiles the evidence and presents the indictment and the senate judges the case based upon the facts in evidence.
the senate, per the letter of the constitution, is under no obligation to accommodate any requests for additional witnesses or testimony.
the indictment, as presented by the house, is COMPLETE.
stop asking the senate for a do-over. they don't owe you one.
oh, and go fuck yourself.
Thank you for your polite suggestion. Of course if the GOP Senators want to ignore the public's majority desire for more information from more witnesses, they are free to do that.
We don't run this country via polls anymore.
Reverend Hypocrite!
The country has scant interest in impeachment, based on the dismal ratings the hearings and trial have received. A recent poll of "swing voters" suggest that impeachment isn't even on the radar of what is important to them.
IOW... they could barely care less.
EVERYONE already knows that the outcome is predetermined. It's not going to change anyone's votes, and if nobody cares now, certainly nobody is going to really care about the "number of witnesses" in November.
I would guess if you actually asked the question... that about 90% of American would want impeachment "over" before the Iowa Caucus and the State of the Union Address.
And The Super Bowl.
Reverend Hypocrite!
NOBODY CARES The country has scant interest in impeachment, based on the dismal ratings the hearings and trial have received. NOBODY CARES A recent poll of "swing voters" suggest that impeachment isn't even on the radar of what is important to them. NOBODY CARES
IOW... they could barely care less. NOBODY CARES
EVERYONE already knows that the outcome is predetermined. NOBODY CARES It's not going to change anyone's votes, SO NOBODY CARES and if nobody cares now, certainly nobody is going to really care about the "number of witnesses" in November.
_______________________
THEN IF NOBODY CARES, WHY IS IT THAT
A Big Majority Wants Impeachment Witnesses
January 23, 2020
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 72% of Americans agreed that the Senate impeachment trial “should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify,” including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans.
A Big Majority Wants Impeachment Witnesses
EXCELLENT, both Bidens are central to the corruption charges the president was concerned about, the Whistleblower started this and worked with Atkinson and Schiff to apparently change forms and whistleblower requirements.
All should be required to testify. And also bring in the transcribers, Perry, Bolton and Vindman for full questioning under oath by the presidents council, not limited by Schiff.
We may actually get to the bottom of this. Of course Barr/Durham are already working on other pieces of this puzzle. keep Obama/Comey/Rice/Clapper/Brennan/McCabe,/Page/Strzok etc close by. They will most likely get turns too.
A Big Majority Wants Impeachment Witnesses
Several GOP Senators are opposed to going there, however.
EXCELLENT, both Bidens are central to the corruption charges the president was concerned about,NOT TRUE the Whistleblower started this TRUE and worked with Atkinson and Schiff UNTRUE, DEBUNKED to apparently change forms UNTRUE, DEBUNKED and whistleblower requirements UNTRUE, DEBUNKED.
All should be required to testify. FINE And also bring in the transcribers, Perry, Bolton and Vindman for full questioning under oath by the presidents council, not limited by Schiff. FINE, WILL CHANGE LITTLE IF ANYTHING
We may actually get to the bottom of this. YOU BETTER HOPE NOT Of course Barr/Durham are already working on other pieces of this puzzle. keep Obama/Comey/Rice/Clapper/Brennan/McCabe,/Page/Strzok etc close by. They will most likely get turns too.BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
NADLER AIN'T BACKING DOWN
Nadler Says Trump Is a Dictator
(Wish he'd tell us what he really thinks!)
House manager Jerry Nadler closed out his remarks at the impeachment trial with some of the most fiery language that’s been heard so far directed at President Trump, calling him “a dictator,” CNN reports.
Nadler said Trump is the “first and only president ever to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by the Constitution’s impeachment power.”
He continued: “If he is not removed from office, if he is permitted to defy the Congress entirely, categorically, to say the subpoenas from Congress in the impeachment inquiry are nonsense, then we will have lost, the House will have lost, the Senate certainly will have lost all power to hold any president accountable."
James said...
EXCELLENT, both Bidens are central to the corruption charges the president was concerned about,NOT TRUE the Whistleblower started this TRUE and worked with Atkinson and Schiff UNTRUE, DEBUNKED to apparently change forms UNTRUE, DEBUNKED and whistleblower requirements UNTRUE, DEBUNKED.
You are showing how many "mistakes" you are believing. Your "debunked's" are all full of bunk. Or FAKE NEWS. Or Schiff Lies. or whatever. They are all true, despite your mistaken claims.
But glad you want all those to testify, SO DO I. BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. I suspect a lot of that testifying will come in different venues than the impeachment hearing, I don't think the dem's can survive letting them testify, even if they would, and will pull back. We shall see.
John Hayward
@Doc_0
"Trump must prove he had absolutely pure motives for investigating Biden corruption in Ukraine!" scream the people who have no problem with the FBI and FISA courts corruptly targeting the Trump campaign in 2016.
Post a Comment