In sum, the House’s chief prosecutor represented to the American people that President Trump had asked his Ukrainian counterpart to fabricate a false case against Biden. In any court in America, that would open the door to the Trump defense team to show that this was not the president’s intention at all; he was simply asking Zelensky to look into a situation that cried out for an inquiry.
 |
| Legal Expert Andrew McCarthy - Gets things correct! |
In light of Schiff’s explicit allegation, the president is entitled to an opportunity to show that there was reason for him to believe that a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company had retained Hunter Biden and paid him a fortune despite his lack of qualifications; and that later, despite the blatant conflict of interest, then–vice president Biden extorted Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, threatening to withhold $1 billion in desperately needed funds.
Schiff insists that Trump’s claims in this regard are false. But his mere say-so does not prove falsity, no more than his mere say-so proves that Trump wanted Ukraine to “make up dirt” on Biden. Figuring out who has the better of a factual dispute is what a trial is about. If a litigant does not want to create a dispute, it’s up to the litigant to steer clear of the issue.
Adam Schiff steered his case straight into the Bidens. The Trump team may have their political reasons for highlighting Biden’s involvement. But it was Schiff’s strategy that made the Bidens relevant. If one or both of them ends up in the witness box, they have Schiff to thank.
Andrew McCarthy is one of those guys who doesn't just tell you what you might want to hear, but he tells you the truth (as he sees it) and he has been remarkably accurate in this sort of thing. In fact, of everyone, he might have the best track record. This appears entirely to be because he doesn't just agree or disagree with an argument based on the knee jerk determination of which political side is making the argument.
So here McCarthy makes a similar argument that I have been making for some time. Which is that you cannot accuse the President of demanding an illegal or unethical politically motivated investigation without also proving that the investigation in question is illegitimate. To put it bluntly, if there is a reasonable reason to believe that there was something "fishy" about the Hunter and Joe Biden situation in Ukraine, then the fact that Slow Joe is running for President becomes moot.
Moreover, as McCarthy points out, the prosecution (or Schiff in this case) does not have any legal standing or authority to "declare" such an investigation illegitimate. He would be required to prove as much. But how can you possibly prove that there is nothing worth investigating, unless you at least ask a few questions and get a few answers.
The bigger problem for Schiff and the Democrats (and ultimately the Bidens) is that the situation seems more than just a little bit fishy. Hunter earns several hundred thousand dollars a year working for a Ukrainian energy company, with neither any energy or international Ukrainian experience... and it's just coincidence that his dad is the Vice President who is overseeing Ukrainian foreign policy?
Demanding that there is nothing there, is a pretty bad argument to make when push comes to shove. Very few would see that situation as out of the boundaries of something that we might want to take a closer look at. If that hurts Joe Biden's chances of being President. Well then so be it. The entire impeachment fiasco is specifically designed to hurt the President and GOP chances in the 2020 election. There is nothing illegal about investigations that might hurt someone politically. That holds true EVEN if it (gasp) harms a Democrat.
160 comments:
Sen Murkowski was offended by Nadler. Well done dems.
Now here is a cut and paste that matters.
It has Trump bouncing off the walls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izkONjZM9zI
"How dare mini Mike say those things."
"Er.... Mr. President, part of it were things you said."
So the Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
Just got burned on the other thread!
Apparently Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty is not even informed enough on this entire matter to know that not only does Ukrainian President Zelensky deny EVER talking Quid Pro Quo with the President
“I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. I don’t want us to look like beggars."
But that even their chief prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka is on record as never having been asked by anyone from the United States (including William Barr) to investigate anything.
So even though Zelensky has denied that Trump made any threats or demands and the person who would have lead any such investigation denies ever even being asked about it by anyone...
The Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty apparently believes the opposite... that they in fact are on the Democrat's side and are also claiming that Trump demanded Quid Pro Quo and that they demanded a fake investigation into Biden!
How misinformed can one person be?
Obviously the Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty is very misinformed, and continues to prove it time and time again!
In fact, he even denied that Trump was under investigation by the Obama administration during the 2016 election... claiming he knew "nothing about it"...
I mean seriously... you cannot make this stuff up!
(as he sees it) from a strong political bias.
You obviously failed to act watch the 3 hour long statement by Congressman Schiff.
He laid a complete timeline of the President's actions and proof of a high crime and misdemeanors case against the President.
I have been watching the hearings and don't rely on the journalists to tell you what he said.
Your perseverance in defending the President is not Thecoldheartedtruth. Your political bias against liberals has blinded you to Thecoldheartedtruth
"C.H. TruthJanuary 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM
So the Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
Just got burned on the other thread!"
Bingo
Roger, when you cheated on your wife, you decided to be dishonest.
Even your 2nd wife walked on you.
She somehow removed all the money you had and empovished you.
CNN said we were in WW3, Roger was sure they were right he wet his pants afraid of what Iran would do.
Sure Rog...
You mean the lame excuse for an impeachment argument he had, or the fact that he added information from Lev Parnas (which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law) as well as a non-binding and non-official ruling by the GOA (which has no legal authority as they are not a legal entity and would not be admissible in a court of law)?
You mean that lame piece of nonsense?
RE: 1:28 PM and let's see who gets burned.
I'm not going to bother with you, Ch. You have your mind made up to believe certain talking points no matter what the evidence is, no matter what you see.
Want the truth?
No. But the truth is here in this Business Insider article (it's a bit long: it's not simplistic):
"Ukraine's President Zelensky said he didn't feel pressured by Trump. Here's why that's bogus."
https://www.businessinsider.com/zelensky-didnt-feel-pressured-by-trump-bogus-defense-impeachment-2019-11
This is only part of the article, the ending:
'The Ukrainians Were Very Concerned about the Security Assistance'
The efforts to pressure Zelensky into launching investigations went well beyond the July 25 phone call, including evidence that Trump used a White House meeting as leverage in addition to the security assistance.
Multiple witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, including Trump's handpicked US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, have testified under oath...
Sondland testified that he indicated to a top aide to Zelensky that the release of military aid was conditioned on such an announcement. He also said there was an explicit quid pro quo linking the White House meeting Zelensky wanted with the investigations.
"I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo'?" Sondland said. "With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes."
With that said, the security assistance to Ukraine was eventually released, which Republicans have also pointed to as a sign Zelensky was not pressured.
But David Holmes, a top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine, offered testimony undercutting this argument.
"Although the hold on the security assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they wanted that they weren't getting, including a meeting with the president in the Oval Office," Holmes said of Ukraine.
He added: "Whether the hold, the security assistance hold, continued or not, Ukrainians understood that that's something the president wanted and they still wanted important things from the president. So I think that continues to this day. I think they're being very careful. They still need us now going forward."
Taylor also testified that it would be viewed as a sign of weakness in Ukraine and damaging politically for Zelensky to admit to pressure from Trump.
The career diplomat and decorated US Army veteran said: "[Zelensky] cannot afford to be seen to be deferring to any — any foreign leader ... He knows that the Ukrainian people expect him to — to be clear and defend Ukrainian interests."
In another sign that Zelensky felt pressured, Taylor testified that Zelensky planned to announce the investigations on CNN, but pulled back AFTER the security assistance was released.
Taylor, who also served as the US ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, said: "I know that the Ukrainians were very concerned about the security assistance, and I know that they were prepared or preparing to do — to make a public statement that is with a CNN interview, that that was being planned."
'Zelensky Was Indeed Feeling the Pressure'
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with Zelensky in September.
In a letter to House investigators, Murphy detailed a conversation he had with the Ukrainian president regarding his concerns over efforts from Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and others to urge him to become involved in domestic US politics.
Murphy wrote: "President Zelensky said he understood, and represented to us that he had no desire to interfere in a US election. I interpreted Zelensky's answer to my question as a concession of the premise of my question—that he was receiving improper overtures from Giuliani to interfere in the 2020 election."
The Democratic senator further said Zelensky "did not contradict the facts I laid out in my question, and instead simply relayed his desire to say clear of becoming enmeshed in American politics." Murphy added that he interpreted this as "confirmation that Zelensky was indeed feeling the pressure I described."
So now we can expect the usual irrational horse trotting from Ch.
Sorry the Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
But I will repeat what I wrote on the other thread!
The facts are not in dispute!
NOBODY FROM UKRAINE HAS MADE ANY PUBLIC CLAIM THAT ANY INVESTIGATIONS OR QUID PRO QUO TOOK PLACE! NOT THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR! NOBODY IN AUTHORITY HAS BACKED UP ANY OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY DEMOCRATS.
Nobody... not a one!
The fact is that a newspaper article or speculation by a anti-Trumper demanding something different is irrelevant to the FACT AT HAND!
In the United States, people accused of crimes or put on trial are innocent until proven guilty, and unless there is actual first hand evidence of that crime, they remain innocent. Our courts do not accept people's opinions, speculation, rumors, or the ability of someone to come up with some plausible explanation for why such speculation "might" be true!
BS. Future revelations will make it clear that the article is correct. Business Insider is a well respected blog.
Btw... Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
But did you read your own article?
"I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo'?" Sondland said. "With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes."
With that said, the security assistance to Ukraine was eventually released, which Republicans have also pointed to as a sign Zelensky was not pressured.
In other words, Sondland testified that he "believed" that there was conditions placed on a possible White House meeting... but he denied that there was any specific quid pro quo regarding the Aid.
So to the relevance to the Democratic allegations, even Sondland stated "nope" there was never any quid pro quo attached to the release of Aid.
So James...
You are back to square one!
No public acknowledgement by our President, their President, or DOJ or their Prosecutors office... of any agreement or any talk of an agreement or any suggestion of any agreement for any investigations of any sort... much less any agreement for investigation that was tied to Aid!
You do realize that you actually need real proof... not speculation by newspaper authors telling us why he believes that they all lied?
BS. Future revelations will make it clear that the article is correct. Business Insider is a well respected blog.
Which as an acknowledgement that as of today... there are no real revelations that back up any of this article's speculation.
But we should still assume it is all true and remove the President from office based on the good old American concept that you are guilty even if proven innocent, because evidence of your guilt might come at a later date (or not).
I Really like this Qout e. I think it is well said and lays out the Impeachy Thingy perfectly .
"Rep. Adam Schiff: "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."
...even Sondland stated "nope" there was never any quid pro quo attached to the release of Aid
True, but upon further reflection he later testified, "The answer is yes."
The article will hold up to future investigations.
Meanwhile,
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not leave us stuck with presidents who abuse their power in unforeseen ways that threaten our security and democracy.”
— House manager Jerry Nadler, arguing it’s impossible to limit impeachment to acts that already written into law.
WELL SAID!
What are the overnight ratings for the Impeachy Thingy ?
NO MASS marches on DC bought by Socialist Democrats , why not?
Nice opinion by Fork n Spoon Handler.
IF only lard could put up some facts.
The Republic is Stronger today then it has been in 20 years.
True, but upon further reflection he later testified, "The answer is yes."
His answer was in regards to whether or not the President place any conditions on a possible White House visit... his "yes" answer had literally nothing to do with quid pro quo regarding any investigations for aid.
When pushed further, he admitted that he never had any first hand knowledge of any quid pro quo regarding the aid, and that when he specifically asked the President, Trump said that there was no quid pro quo with regards to the Aid.
Seriously Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty...
Are you really seriously WRONG about the facts, or are you willfully attempting to muddy them up for some other purpose?
You don't ACTUALLY believe that Sondland testified that he had any first hand knowledge or had any admission from the President of an investigation for Aid quid pro quo agreement?
Do you? Because that is not what he testified to!
And Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty...
let's be clear here. Sondland was probably the "best" witness the Democrats had in terms of being closest to the President. Sondland was able to testify to having actual real conversations with the President in regards to this subject.
But his sworn testimony denied ever hearing anything from the President regarding quid pro quo on the subject of Aid. In fact, Sondland's sworn testimony was that the President specifically denied it when he asked.
But I suppose Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty...
You can provide for us a media article explaining why Sondland's testimony (like the Ukrainian public statements) just "must" be wrong?
An actual facts is that is that a crime don't have to be an actual crime, to be an impeachable offense. Bribery was not written in into law in the 1883.
You are an atheist pastor of Church of Dishonesty Scott A**hole.
An actual facts is that is that a crime don't have to be an actual crime, to be an impeachable offense.
Well then Rog...
I guess it will be up to each individual Senator to decide if this particular action would even qualify as impeachable. If they decide (since it is not argued to be a crime) that it's not impeachable...
Then they have made up their minds, and can play with a fidget spinner and daydream the rest of the trial, huh?
As Donald Trump's impeachment trial gets underway in the Senate, a new CNN poll offers the president and his party very little in the way of encouraging news.
About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial (51%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while 45% say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal.
Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry.
KansasDemocrat said...
What are the overnight ratings for the Impeachy Thingy ?
NO MASS marches on DC bought by Socialist Democrats , why not?
Haven't see ratings but how could they be any good? Saw they only had a handful of protesters in the grounds, one who tried to get inside. Shockingly small.
Wait till you see the massive crowd tomorrow when Trump goes to the right to life march. Will put the woman's march to shame if any MSM covers it.
And wait till his team obliterates Schiff's "case". There will be nothing left. Can't imagine this will last much longer. The "pastor" will be hoarse. And Durham, Barr and Schiff/"whistleblower"/Biden collusion are on deck.
Things are VERY BRIGHT INDEED !!!
Scott, the swore to be non partisan in their vote for impeachment.
Right now, I don't think that he will be convicted.
But Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry.
#MoscowMitch might have to allow witnesses and subpoenaed documents.
Even if he is not convicted, he will be called the 3rd President who has been impeached.
His tweets and his pathological base is not going away, but the Democrats will probably win the election cycle, even the Senate majority.
If the Democrats choose the right candidate.
We might see a landslide lolololol and I will be correct. We will see.
Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
Hour 23 of redundant impeachment arguments. For those following at home: Drinking game—every time House Dems say “drug deal” or “get over it”...drink a shot of milk!
John Ratcliffe
@RepRatcliffe
This impeachment fails factually, legally and constitutionally. I expect to hold all Republicans on the impeachment vote, and even pick up some Democrats.
Will be a lot clearer after Trump's team comes to bat.
Putin is thanking God
"I got Trump elected!"
Scott, the swore to be non partisan in their vote for impeachment.
Actually they swear to be open minded jurors, it has nothing to do with partisanship. They are supposed to determine whether or not an impeachable crime has occurred and whether or not that crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
So if it is someone's opinion that Schiff and Democrats brought this as a partisan instrument of politics... and it's someone's believe that Democrats brought this KNOWING FULL WELL that they would not get a conviction...
then that's all that person would be required to do.
If impeachment was brought on bad and dishonest intentions... such as doing with an eye regarding how it will affect the 2020 election, then anyone who brought impeachment (or votes for impeachment) based on that criteria is being dishonest and are breaking their vow.
If this was an actual criminal case being considered by a prosecutor... they wouldn't' bring it in a million years. They have no first hand witnesses of any crime, their allegations don't rise to the level of criminal (by their own admission), and they have no chance to convict.
It would be brought with bad intentions... which is certainly the case here. Democrats are bringing this with every corrupt intent imaginable.
His call to the President of Ukraine sought help for his personal interests. Not the US policy issues. Or the intest of the United States of America.
I would vote to convict the President of the United States of America. Not because I am a Democrat but this doesn't matter.
"Wait till you see the massive crowd tomorrow when Trump goes to the right to life march. Will put the woman's march to shame if any MSM covers it."
An Amazing move by This President.
The President had corrupt intent.
"If the Democrats choose the right candidate."
Who? Stop fence sitting Alky.
Sanders is my choice and will get my vote in the Kansas Primary.
"I would vote to convict the President of the United States of America. Not because I am a Democrat but this doesn't matter"
Huh. Booze soaked
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.
His call to the President of Ukraine sought help for his personal interests. Not the US policy issues.
Oh I disagree Rog...
Burisma, Hunter and Joe Biden should all be investigated. There is not a single person on the planet that can explain why the drug treatment, unemployed, going to court to fight domestic issues with his ex, son of a former VP... got that gig paying hundreds of thousands a year, without influence from his father.
You know it. I know it. Nobody in their right mind would deny it. Oddly, Hunter has not received any of these lucrative international energy company jobs since his dad is no longer Vice President.
I think it should be investigated... as well as other gigs that the Biden family got during that same time. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a Special Counsel might be in order.
The Bidens are corrupt to the bone. You know it. I know it. Even Obama knew it. Time to unleash the investigative arms of the government on him, just like they have been unleashed on Trump. If he cannot stand the heat, then he should get the fuck out of the kitchen!
So yeah.. investigate him.
Tell me I am wrong!
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.
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.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
impartial justice" Scott A**hole
There is no dispute that Trump did this.
There is actually no dispute that Trump did none of this.
There is no dispute that this is nothing but a partisan political impeachment that provided no crime, because there was no crime.
Indisputable, Roger... cannot be disputed by any known facts.
Completely partisan.
Completely political.
Not a shred of evidence brought forward of a real crime.
You know it.
I know it.
Nobody really disputes that it's a partisan political dishonest engagement by corrupt politicians who are still upset because they lost the 2016 election!
No dispute Roger! none!
Fascism is not our country. You are very wrong.
Nobody is trying to reverse the last election. Hillary Clinton will not be President if we convicted this President.
That is a ridiculous idea
A "real crime" is not required to impeach the President.
You don't know shit about the Constitution!
As Donald Trump's impeachment trial gets underway in the Senate, a new CNN poll offers the president and his party very little in the way of encouraging news.
a CNN poll, alky?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!*
*h/t: denny dumb fuck
for chrissakes you drunken sot, considering CNN's hatred for trump, how could you think that they would report a poll in trump's favor?
cheese and fucking rice, alky... your stay in the nursing home has done nothing to help you recover an ability to reason.
Sorry Roger...
- not a single Republican vote makes in indisputably partisan.
- not even a sliver of a chance that Trump will be convicted means it was brought entirely for political reasons.
- not even attempting to argue that crime has taken place (but rather you don't need a crime) makes it a mockery of the system.
This is an embarrassment and history will judge it as a partisan endeavor brought forward in bad faith.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
A "real crime" is not required to impeach the President.
indeed.
see what you assholes have wrought, alky?
someday, although your sickly, liver transplant ass won't live to see it, another democrat will be elected president. and thanks to the precedent you fucking retards have just set, you have set the table for every subsequent president post-trump to be impeached for no good reason at all.
good job.
that's the problem with you on the left - you never stop to consider the unintended consequences of your actions. you really are THAT fucking childish and THAT fucking stupid.
Sorry Roger...
- not a single Republican vote makes in indisputably partisan.
What it makes you dumb fuck is that the GOP is in lock step and sees trump as a god who does no wrong.....National polls certainly say otherwise and the partisanship is the R's ignoring the fact that trump fucked up, but it is okay until a D does the same thing.....that lil scotty is the irony of your old white man party puking all over the constitution !!!!!!!
- not even attempting to argue that crime has taken place (but rather you don't need a crime) makes it a mockery of the system.
indeed.
take 'obstruction of congress' for example. or as you would say - 'objection of congress' alky.
it's bullshit on its face.
how does one co-equal branch of our government obstruct another?
by virtue of the very fact they're co-equal means there will always be a conflict in the quest for power.
how about this -
if the legislative branch passes legislation in both houses of congress and sends it to the president only to have him veto it, then by the liberals definition, the president just "obstructed" congress.
congress passed a piece of legislation and the president says "fuck no." so he has in fact, obstructed the wishes of congress.
see how absurd this gets? by virtue of this impeachment fiasco we have reduced the relationship between the executive and the legislative to be one big never ending court battle. a conflict based on such a poisoning of the relationship between the branches that we can forego any future inaugurations, and just move straight to a house hearing on impeachment. then the entire system of government so intelligently and thoughtfully built by our founders is turned to complete shit.
all because a corrupt feckless cunt sucked so fucking bad as a candidate, she couldn't manage to win an election that was supposed to be all but guaranteed.
good job democrats. your temper tantrum is poised to destroy this country. and what follows will be a result not to your liking.
As of Saturday morning I will have been sober for seven years and seven months. I'm in great condition and have no physical or mental illnesses like your. racist beliefs.
My transplant Doctor see me in June.
Nor am in a nursing home.
I will see the Democrats kick your ass off
Read the Constitution before you say this again
" (but rather you don't need a crime) makes it a mockery of the system."
George W Bush is a recovering alcoholic.
Yippee and you love him.
Projecting "corrupt feckless cunt"
Blogger Roger Amick said...
As of Saturday morning I will have been sober for seven years and seven months.
that's nice, alky.
i quit cigarettes somewhere around 10-12 years ago. could be longer. i couldn't tell you exactly when. certainly not to the exact day.
that's because i don't crave a smoke every day like you crave booze, alky.
i really did quit. you suffer your personal failing every fucking day.
and speaking of quitting, how's mail oder doing since she quit your sorry ass? have you heard from her? at least to renew the restraining order she has against you?
go find a seat in the TV room and wait for your turn with the remote, alky. you have nothing of value to contribute to this thread.
Nor am in a nursing home.
Assisted living potato potahto
"Hot microphones are a hell of a thing. In 2012, speaking with Dmitry Medvedev, who was then president of our great rival Russia, President Obama said, “After my election I have more flexibility.” Medvedev responded that he would transmit this information to Vladimir. As in, you know, Putin.
Oh, what a time it was. Russia was great friend; we had pushed the Staples reset button and were looking towards the future."
Good times.
and btw alky, since you're so fucking proud of the fact that you don't need a real & actual crime to impeach...
...you have, by default, admitted what we knew all along -
the democrats are impeaching because orange man bad!
LOL. you dumb fuck.
"If the Democrats choose the right candidate." Alky the dumbass
Who? Stop fence sitting Alky.
What it makes you dumb fuck is that the GOP is in lock step and sees trump as a god who does no wrong..
Actually if there was ever a President who could see his own Party abandon him for just cause, it's Trump. The problem is that this entire display is nonsense and that (not partisanship) is why not a single Republican (and multiple Democrats) voted against impeachment.
..National polls certainly say otherwise and the partisanship is the R's ignoring the fact that trump fucked up
Just looked that the impeachment polls today.. still underwater with Economist YouGov Gallup NPR Quinnipiac IBD/Tipp all showing a lack of support... with the overall RCP average still against impeach/removal.
Just because CNN came up with a poll, doesn't mean there was some sort of shift.
"Nor am in a nursing home." Alky
Really, congrats , you moved into a single family framed home?
Game Changing.
"
MyballsJanuary 23, 2020 at 12:55 PM
Sen Murkowski was offended by Nadler. Well done dems"
I quit smoking cigarettes on January 1st in 1998.
I have a kindle fire and wifi system.
Your perseverance in defending the President using cunt is against the rules of the blog.
Go drink a little PBR.
“If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Mr. Nadler said, echoing Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert who testified in a House hearing in the fall.
I have a kindle fire and wifi system.
Whooo man you’re special. Are the utility bills in your name or Mahogany Ridge Senior Living’s?
When this is your definition of living Large
😂I have a kindle fire and wifi system. 😃
Trump has said the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants.
Let's say that in January 2021, the President directed that the FBI/DOJ to investigate the Senate Republicans who voted for Trump in the Senate trial for corruption.
President Sanders will also work on an executive order declaring that Medicare for all of people.
How long you scream #impeachment hearings ?
Democrats Warn That American People May Tamper With Next Election
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In his opening statement at Trump's impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff reminded the Senate of their solemn duty and the gravity of just what it is they will be discussing at the trial.
Schiff warned that if Trump is not impeached, the American people may have a chance to tamper with the next election.
"If President Trump is not impeached, the American people might get a say in who is president," Schiff said gravely. "We simply can't allow that to happen. We must diligently defend our electoral process against electoral outcomes we do not like. If that means seizing power through a sham impeachment trial, so be it."
"When the Founders wrote that founding document thing, they never imagined there would be electoral outcomes that Democrats did not agree with."
Democrats also said they have even hard evidence that the 2016 election was compromised by Republicans voting for Trump.
"We know this horrible outcome could happen, because it's already happened once before."
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Trump has said the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants.
that is a total and completely demonstrable LIE, alky.
yet you peddle it like a good little sycophant, just like the "good people on both sides" LIE we've shoved up your ass innumerable times around here.
shove your kindle and your nursing home hosted wifi up your ass, alky. you miserable fucking failure.
Whooo man you’re special. Are the utility bills in your name or Mahogany Ridge Senior Living’s?
the wifi is hosted by the "assisted living community."
the password is posted in 48 font on the common area bulletin board. just inside the alarmed doors that are locked 24/7.
my mother lived in the alky's setting for several years before her death as her alzheimer's/dementia consumed her.
the only way you get to leave where the alky resides is "tango uniform" (tits up) on a gurney.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) responds to President Donald Trump's claim that Article II of the Constitution gives him the right to do "whatever I want as President."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/07/23/rep-sean-maloney-trump-not-above-the-law-sot-ebof-vpx.cnn
alzheimer's/dementia consumed you from the first you posted on the blog page
maloney's a liar like you, drunkard.
trump made those comments in the context of his right to fire mueller. period.
you're a LIAR and a traitor, alky.
as is every single democrat who walks the earth.
“I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump said.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-claim-article-2-right-whatever-want-president
Blogger Roger Amick said...
“If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Mr. Nadler said, echoing Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert who testified in a House hearing in the fall.
oh...
so THAT'S why the democrats are begging cocaine mitch for a do-over with fresh witnesses. because an expert who testified in the house hearing said this.
like, conclusively.
right.
LOL.
give the other decrepit aging seniors a chance to get a hit off that smokin' wifi, alky.
"corrupt feckless cunt"
alzheimer's/dementia
josh marshall. another LIAR.
who else ya got, alky?
vox?
kos?
fredo cuomo???
jennifer rubin, maybe???????
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!*
*h/t: denny dumb fuck.
Now Here Is A Cut and Paste That Matters
FOX LEGAL ANALYST SAYS TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED
Fox News senior legal analyst
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
"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.”
___________
How can Neopolitano say that?
Trump did nothing wrong. He didn't even withhold aid because he couldn't. (Ch said so.)
Some Republicans think Trump has done something illegal during his political career or as president. But they simply don't believe that breaking the law should be punished with removal from office.
Unknown is what might happen if we get testimony from Bolton and his the transcript of the President call. But it won't happen
THE PRESIDENT
A new poll only - you got to hear this. How about this whole witch hunt that's going on? Should I talk about it for a second?
AUDIENCE
Yeah!
THE PRESIDENT
The Russian witch hunt, okay?
AUDIENCE
Booo -
THE PRESIDENT
First of all, it's very bad for our country. Makes it very hard to deal with Russia. And we should be able - they're a nuclear power. They have a big country. And we should be able to deal with them without having this artificial stuff. But think of it: Only 11 percent, in a new poll, favor the starting of this ridiculous impeachment hearings that are going on. You hear about it.
THE PRESIDENT
So I said this morning - I said - I wrote it out. I said, "Let's see…" - because I'm watching. It goes on for years and years. No collusion, no obstruction. "Oh, that's not good enough. Let's go more." Forty million dollars, interview 500 people - they got nothing.
THE PRESIDENT
I could find something - I could take anybody in this audience. Give me $40 million. Give me unlimited FBI, unlimited interviews, unlimited - they interviewed 500 people. Listen to this: Two thousand five hundred subpoenas. They did everything. Their collusion; no collusion. They have no collusion. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT
Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President. But I don't even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction. After looking at it, our great Attorney General read it. He's a total professional. He said, "There's nothing here. There's no obstruction." So they referenced, "No obstruction." So you have no collusion, no obstruction, and yet it goes on.
THE PRESIDENT
And they think this is helping them. I personally think it's hurting them. A lot of people think it's very bad for them. But it just goes on. But I wrote something out this morning on a thing called Twitter. (Applause.) Whether we like it or not, it is a good way - it is a good way of getting the word out. Because I saw Mueller is testifying tomorrow, again. How many times? Two - two and a half years. And, actually, it started practically from the time I came down on the escalator.
Transcript Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-turning-point-usas-teen-student-action-summit-2019/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809509/user-clip-trump-constitution-i-president
Some Republicans think Trump has done something illegal during his political career or as president. But they simply don't believe that breaking the law should be punished with removal from office.
stealing again alky?
One in three Republican voters (32%) in a new Pew national poll say that Donald Trump “probably” or “definitely” did something illegal either while running for president or during his first three years in office.
Which, well, wow. Right? That’s a big number — especially when you consider how Republicans have, almost unanimously, fallen into line behind Trump, no matter what he says or does in office.
Except …
That same Pew poll shows that just one in 10 (12%) of those same Republicans thought that Trump should be removed from office by the Senate impeachment trial. By contrast, 86% of Republicans believed Trump should not be removed.
But wait — there’s more. Among those Republicans who said Trump has “probably” or “definitely” done something illegal in either the 2016 campaign or the White House, 59% believe he should not be removed from office.
So.
The least damning way to interpret that data is to conclude that these Republicans who believe that Trump did something illegal don’t think that illegality has anything to do with his actions in regard to Ukraine — which is the subject of the Senate impeachment trial.
The other interpretation is this: Yes, these Republicans think Trump has done something illegal during his political career or as president. But they simply don’t believe that breaking the law should be punished with removal from office. Likely because Trump is on the same team as them.
https://kyma.com/news/politics/2020/01/23/1-in-3-gopers-think-trump-did-something-illegal-but/
hack, hack, hack...
my mother lived in the alky's setting for several years before her death as her alzheimer's/dementia consumed her.
So did my old man but it was slight dementia and old age, of course he was more than a decade older than Roger. A detached home with 4 other roomies that had been converted, his ‘paid chef’ was a Jamaican LPN that also administered their meds. Never forget the night I had to drive his ass to Emory ER, we didn’t get back until after 1 am. Beat on the door until I awoke another “resident” who proceeded to unlock the 12 deadbolts and then sirens went off, woke the other 3, five octogenarians roaming around the common area and they see the open door, it was like a land rush, I got out first and was holding them all off as they tried to pry that door open...then the Jamaica queen came up from her crypt, I assume in the basement
ISN'T IT GOOD TO HAVE ONE REPUBLICAN LEFT WHO HAS DECENCY AND IS DEDICATED TO TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY!
I DEDICATE THIS TO CH UN=TRUTH
Fox News
6:50 PM
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 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.
Stupid old man, the liver beat you to this c&p
Hey, stupid kid, it is very good reading.
How in the world did Judge Neopolitano find all those crimes and impeachable offenses that somehow eluded Ch?
Trump’s Privilege Threat Rallies GOP Senators
7:19 pm EST
“A growing number of Republicans are pointing to President Trump’s threat to invoke executive privilege in order to make their case against subpoenas sought by Democrats for key witnesses and documents, a development that could bolster Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s goal of a swift end to the impeachment trial,” CNN reports.
“GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve to drag out the proceedings. Plus, many say there’s little appetite for such a time-consuming fight.”
_____________
Well now, let's see. What was it that Judge Neopolitano said about that?
"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."
Hmmmmmm.
GOP Senators Complain About Lack of Anything New
“As Democratic impeachment managers made the case against President Trump on Wednesday and Thursday, Republican senators rolled out a rationale for their future vote to acquit: that the trial is a waste of time because Democrats aren’t presenting new evidence,” Vox reports.
“But on Tuesday night, every Republican senator took vote after vote to block impeachment managers from gathering new documents and compelling witness testimony.
"So Republicans are complaining about Democrats not doing something they’re preventing them from doing.”
___________
Now that's a bit dangerous because--
Some of the people are stupid all of the time
and all of the people are stupid some of the time
but all of the people are not stupid all of the time.
Josh Hawley
@HawleyMO
WOW, House managers make extended argument that Hunter Biden’s work w/ Burisma entirely appropriate & no conflict of interest w/ Joe Biden getting rid of prosecutor that had jurisdiction over Burisma. If we call witnesses, gonna need to hear from both Bidens
Are dems really this stupid ?
Dana French
@DanaBFrench
So if Comey et. all didn't have probable cause to get a FISA, how did they have cause to investigate Donald Trump? They didn't and they knew it.
Byron Tau
@ByronTau
NEW this afternoon: The Justice Dept. has concluded it lacked the legal basis for some of the surveillance against onetime Trump adviser Carter Page.
Illegal spying on Trump campaign, this is going to be EPIC
How far up did it go, who is flipping???
Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
Someone should start asking Mueller and his crew (I hear Weissmann is on TV these days) whether any of their cases relied on information gathered or derived from the Page FISAs, either directly from Page or two hops away from him
Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
The FBI Director (Comey), Deputy Director (McCabe), the now General Counsel of the FBI (Dana Boente), and Deputy/Acting Attorney General (Rod Rosenstein) all signed FISA applications that resulted in invalidly authorized surveillance of an American citizen
and into the Trump campaign... MUCH BIGGER THAN WATERGATE
HOW HIGH DID IT GO ??? Who authorized this in the White House
Heather Champion
@winningatmylife
Watch
@IngrahamAngle #ingrahamangle Whistleblower, meetings with Ukrainians and that Ken Vogel story. Using archived Obama visitor logs, they learned the WB checked in numerous Ukrainian officials into the WH.
https://twitter.com/winningatmylife/status/1220201045885902848
The coup is starting to unravel...
What a legacy for Obama
Brian Cartwright
@blcartwright
If Ciaramella was the WB and was also complicit in bringing the Black Ledger to the US, then he participated in 2016 election interference and is covering his own role in it, with Schiff's assistance
Schiff and "whistleblower" need to be put under oath by someone.
WOW, House managers make extended argument that Hunter Biden’s work w/ Burisma entirely appropriate & no conflict of interest w/ Joe Biden getting rid of prosecutor that had jurisdiction over Burisma. If we call witnesses, gonna need to hear from both Bidens
Are dems really this stupid ?
Yes. It's the phrase lawyers fear the most. "You open the door."
DNC official and Obama NSC asked for dirt on Trump campaign
Real 2016 election interference by Obama administration by "whistleblower"
Great reporting by One America News
video:
https://twitter.com/FOOL_NELSON/status/1203061926709858306
Carlos Osweda
@COsweda
@realDonaldTrump gives his two-minute warning.
"This was a take-down attempt at a sitting president of the United States, and WE CAUGHT THEM. So let's see what happens."
https://twitter.com/COsweda/status/1220126940935311360
Going to be real interesting when the Schiff show rests.
Impeachment Trial May Hinge on Lamar Alexander
January 23, 2020 at 8:38 pm EST
“If you want to know how President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial could play out, keep your eye on Lamar Alexander,” Politico reports.
“On the most important question of the trial — whether or not to subpoena witnesses — the 79-year-old Tennessee Republican is a wild-card. Privately, senior Senate Republicans expect the vote to seek witness testimony to fail, but they are watching Alexander and several other Republicans closely. And wherever Alexander comes down is almost sure to be the majority position in the Senate.”
Interesting...
Graham Will Resist Calls for Bidens to Testify
Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters he would resist calls from conservatives next week to try to call the whistle-blower and the Bidens to testify at the trial, the New York Times reports.
Said Graham: “There’ll be a lot of pressure on me to call the whistle-blower, to call Schiff, to call Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. I’m not going to give in to that pressure, because I don’t think it will serve the Senate and the country well, there’s ways to do this outside of this trial.”
_____________
Real reason (I think): It won't do us a damn bit of good and could even blow up in our faces.
Trump, Democrats Keep Distance from GOP Moderates
January 23, 2020 at 9:19 pm
Washington Post: “They are the most closely watched senators of President Trump’s impeachment trial — the moderate Republicans who might vote with Democrats to call new witnesses and subpoena unseen documents. But, a week into the trial, they are also oddly isolated.
“Trump has kept his distance after White House advisers warned him that outreach would not help his cause. Democrats say there is no serious effort to privately lobby the Republicans, with the party relying instead on public opinion and the House prosecutors to squeeze them into breaking ranks.”
I'd like to see them try to break Schiff down under investigation, under interview. He can go circles around them, honestly and effortlessly.
Jane doesn't read Alky's posts.
😃
The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT.
Who are the 66 US Senators that will vote to Remove?
The very unserious Left.
"Leading Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) left Wednesday’s impeachment trial early, about an hour before her colleagues adjourned, it was reported on Wednesday.
Reporters spotted the Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member leaving the Senate around 8:45 p.m. ET, bidding two reporters farewell as she exited."
Schiff's closing was excellent. He quoted Col. Vindman who said, "Here, right matters." And he made the case that if right and truthfulness do not matter, we are lost. If right does not matter, the Constitution cannot help us. And he made the case that we have been given abundant evidence that we cannot trust this President to put our nation before himself.
Big Majority Wants Impeachment Witnesses
January 23, 2020 at 10:13 pm EST
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.
Apparently the strategy is to bore so many people nobody will be left to watch defense
Schiff's closing was excellent. He quoted Col. Vindman who said, "Here, right matters." And he made the case that if right and truthfulness do not matter,
Schiff talking about "right and truthfulness" peaks the barf meter since his whole case was deceit, speculation, and innuendo.
I really thought 24 hours was too long. The Democrat case was laid out in two hours of lies and was just a repeat after that.
The End of the Schiff Show and the endless lying.
Notice how hatefilled the Left has suddenly become at US Constitutional Expert and Lawyer (oh and Jewish) Alan Morton Dershowitz.
He is a life long Democrat and Liberal.
But, now that he is Defending Trump, actually hhevis more Defending the US Constitution against the Cowarly Schitt and Neybob Nadler.
Pelosi wanted this .
Funny headline from today's Wa Post
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
Democrats emphasize abuse-of-power charge against Trump as GOP complains of repetition
Gee......they are now complaining of trumps most used method of communication....repetition!!!!!! GW is a Hoax, Mueller probe is a Hoax....Impeachment is a Hoax and goat fucking idiots bow and swallow in unison!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
Funny that I have notices the goat fucker has gone silent on a company I own stock in.......wonder why??????? LOLOLOL
He quoted Col. Vindman who said, "Here, right matters." And he made the case that if right and truthfulness do not matter,
And the junior senator Marsha Blackburn tweeted that vindman is no patriot but another loser who badmouthed trump.....another reason the GOP is dying right in front of all of us.....Trump before country!!!!!!!
New Poll Shows Dem’s Impeachment Hopes are Doomed
A new Hill-Harris poll shows that 60% of Americans do not believe that any new information will be revealed during the Senate impeachment trial. As expected, the poll shows that Democratic individuals are much more hopeful that something significant will come out during the proceedings.
In fact, an astonishing 61% of Democrats who were polled thought something potentially explosive will come out. Independents and Republican individuals were more realistic in their expectations with only 30%, and 25% of them respectively thinking that new important information will be revealed.
D+5 sample of register voter Poll was taken before the trial began.
Decoding the polls: Sanders surging and more takeaways from the newest numbers
The Vermont senator is enjoying possibly his best week of polling at just the right time in the 2020 race."
Great News, Will Obama/Hillary Screw Bernie and his voters again.
Hey cramps....even more reason to have witnesses come out.....get the whole story so dumb fucks like you can actually see what a fucking crook trump is!!!!!!!
...the poll shows that Democratic individuals are much more hopeful that something significant will come out during the proceedings.
the implication being that the house democrats didn't do their fucking job.
sounds about right.
Funny how the goat fucker hides behind mommy's apron when confronted with reality.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
The stupidity of the trump regime and the old white man party stymieing science in the name of the US,,,,,no wonder why we are losing the edge on new technology and growth.......assholes like the goat fucker, cramps and trump thinking science is stupid!!!!!!
U.S. government’s science ranks grow thin
Hundreds of scientists across the federal government have been forced out, sidelined or muted since President Trump took office. The exodus has been fueled by policies that have diminished the role of science as well as specific steps such as moving agencies away from Washington.
"If the Democrats choose the right candidate." Alky
Who? Stop fence sitting Alky.
Sanders is my choice and will get my vote in the Kansas Primary.
Blogger anonymous said...
...even more reason to have witnesses come out.....get the whole story
But, but Schiff says he already has "overwhelming evidence" of Trumps guilt. Why do you need more witnesses?
But, but Schiff says he already has "overwhelming evidence
And you call second hand....now the eye witness accounts will confirm trump is a crook so all americans can judge on their own if they want to support a king like you!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
And the goat fucker keeps hiding....why don't you mention my stock any more asshole?????
But, but Schiff says he already has "overwhelming evidence" of Trumps guilt. Why do you need more witnesses?
Bingo.
And you call second hand....now the eye witness accounts
But they already have a transcript of the call. Why would you need an eye witness when you already have the transcript?
1936 USSC Affirmed FDR can and did withhold funds.
Many gop senators refused to be captive and forced to listen to schiff's bullshit for hours on end. Some were reading a book. Some even had fidget spinners. They knew what they were hearing was factlesss, baseless, and certainly not impeachable.
Why would you need an eye witness when you already have the transcript?
a better question would be -
why didn't the house call these "first hand accounts" witnesses during THEIR impeachment hearings?
house democrats were in such a fucking hurry because time was of the essence...
...right up until peloshee needed to sit on the articles for a month because -
- solemn and sober and prayerful politics.
that's why republicans in the senate are treating it like the joke that it is.
But they already have a transcript of the call.
First of all.....it is not a transcript....FACT!!! Now they fill in all the Trump directions before the call was made including the order to hold back the funds which is talking point of the right!!!!!! And for the loser ballz.....captive???? It's their fucking job you dumb ass idiot!!!!! The price of freedom for us patriots......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
And the goat fucker still remains mute and dumb.....LOLOLOL
First of all.....it is not a transcript....
It's not? Even the Democrats are not disputing the accuracy and authenticity of the transcript.
Have you never heard the term captive audience?
We don't call you dopey for nothing.
FANTASTIC FRIDAY !!!
Things are looking GREAT
dems have jumped the shark, last Groundhog Day for Schiff
Then it's GAME ON !!!
and what a whirlwind of other news...
Have you never heard the term captive audience?
IT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB ASSHOLE......Since you think democracy is a joke.....go worship putin.......BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
and authenticity of the transcript.
IT IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT AND D'S HAVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY.....!!!!!!!
as well as specific steps such as moving agencies away from Washington.
Fatboy why is it Trump's fault these jackasses won't relocate to where they needed, rather than inside the beltway bubble?
fuck you are stupid
So Schiff says we can't leave it up to the voters, but you think I'm the one thinking democracy is a joke?? Are you really as ignorant as you appear to be here?
IT IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT AND D'S HAVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY...
Nope, the only not calling it a transcript is you.
When she is not in front of the Fawning Demstream , she gets actual questions.
She failed Spectactularly.
"Elizabeth Warren’s plan for student loan debt forgiveness sounds great in theory. But it neglects one very important group of people: those who already paid back their student loans.
One father reminded Warren of this during a face-to-face conversation at a presidential campaign town hall event in Iowa this week: "I just wanted to ask one question,” he said, “My daughter is getting out of school. I've saved all my money. She doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?"
“Of course not,” Warren responded.
“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” he asked.
A large percentage of Americans, including this father, worked to pay back their student loan debt without government assistance. Now they’re being told by Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates that had they waited just a few more years, they could have saved thousands — maybe even tens of thousands — of dollars.
“My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations,” the father explained to Warren. “I saved my money. He made more than I did. But I worked a double shift, worked extra — my daughter worked since she was 10 … We did the right thing, and we get screwed.”
Warren’s plan is a slap in the face to hard-working, responsible adults such as this man. And in application, student loan debt forgiveness is nothing more than a Band-Aid, a temporary fix that will not repair the underlying problem: the high demand for, and the coinciding high cost of, higher education.
We can’t just “hit the reset button,” as Bernie Sanders has said"
Really, why not?
IT IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT AND D'S HAVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY...
COMMENSA: Nope, the only(sic) not calling it a transcript is you.
You are both wrong. It is not a word-for-word transcript of the original conversation, for which there is a recording, but which the White House will not release.
Both the White House and Republicans have admitted that, not just the Dems.
Proof? For example, it has been testified by two who heard the original conversation that word Burisma was spoken in the original but does not appear in the "transcript."
“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?”
exactly, i'm currently paying tuition for 2 kids so that wouldn't have student loan debt
FUCK DEMOCRAPS
Exactly
January 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM
James said...
IT IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT AND D'S HAVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY...
COMMENSA: Nope, the only(sic) not calling it a transcript is you.
You are both wrong. It is not a word-for-word transcript of the original conversation, for which there is a recording, but which the White House will not release.
Both the White House and Republicans have admitted that, not just the Dems.
Actually james is wrong (shocker !!!)
These conversations are transcribed by two individuals they then produce a joint transcript. There is no recording of the calls. That's why you never hear them being played EVER.
Else the impeachment dems would have demanded this "recording", they didn't. They know the "pastor" is once again being untruthful. (It's Friday and I'm being generous)
I may be mistaken, but I am not being untruthful. If there is no audio recording, that does not contradict that others took notes, and in that sense you could say they "recorded" it. The White House has never claimed that the redacted transcript is a verbatum reproduction of the original notes of the conversation.
If it were, "Burisma" would not have been (conveniently?) omitted, would it?
Actually Vindman tried to get the transcript changed (it's passed around for review) but the transcribers rejected his claim. Looks like he was trying to bolster his partisan case.
It was NOT conveniently omitted.
Another case of "mistaken".
I believe it was not only Vindman who remembers that the word "Burisma" was in the original conversation. So why was it redacted out of the "transcript"?
It wasn't redacted out. He tried to wrongly insert it.
Oh really? "Wrongly"? Read this:
Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?
Contemporaneous notes from vice presidential aide Jennifer Williams say that Burisma was mentioned on the call with Ukraine’s president but was not included in the summary released by the White House
______________
“Read the transcript!” has been a mantra of President Donald Trump ever since he released a summary of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky over allegations he withheld aid to the nation unless its president agreed to manufacture dirt on the son of his political rival, Joe Biden.
But, in fact, the summary of the call with Zelensky is not a transcript at all; it’s a summary with important facts withheld. This was verified by Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, who listened in on the president’s call with Zelensky and testified before the impeachment inquiry on November 7. Her deposition testimony along with former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison’s was released by the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday.
“I recall that one of the issues he had noted was that the transcript released did not include the word Burisma. But on looking back at my notes, I do see that Burisma was mentioned by name in the call,” Williams told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during her deposition.
Williams was asked whether she compared her notes from the call to the summary released by the White House and she noted at least one discrepancy.
“My notes did reflect that the word Burisma had come up in the caII, that the president had mentioned Burisma. I hadn’t noticed that when I first read the transcript,” she told the committee. Burisma is the company whose board Hunter Biden belonged to. When asked which president she was referring to, Williams answered, “President Trump.”
“So you wouldn’t have written that down if it hadn’t come up during the call. Is that right?” Williams was asked.
“Correct,” she responded.
Crickets from Cowardly.
Well Reverend Hypocrite!
We have the National Security Agency (which is pretty independent from everyone) who listens, records, and transcribes the phone calls for the official NSA record. This was the same agency who made the decision to take these sorts of conversations off the main grid and onto more secured servers (due to repeated illegal leaks).
So if you are asking me who I trust in this situation... and the choice is between the professionals who are tasked to record and transcribe this as their sworn duty... or someone who took personal notes (and is not a professional transcriber)... I would go with the professionals. Especially when there seems to be many people who listened in on the call and only one who seems to be out of step with everyone else.
But then again... it could just be a big giant conspiracy and "everyone" is in on it! Lack of evidence being proof of a cover up and all that!
Hypocrite?
"Do not judge others so that you yourself will not be judged," Jesus said.
"For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged,
and the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
Ch, how can a whistleblower complaint be withheld from the US Congress, when a statute specifically states that it “shall” be provided?
Well Reverend Hypocrite!
If the whistleblower isn't a real whistleblower...
But rather an anti-Trump hack who has been trying to impeach Trump since 2017, and actually ILLEGALLY consulted with Congress (Adam Schiff?) prior to making his complaint...
Then there would be no reasonable reason for anyone to hear it.
But since you are asking about witnesses...
Shouldn't he testify? Would love to know about his anti-Trump comments and whether or not he broke the law by conferring with Adam Schiff prior to making his complaint!
"and only one who seems to be out of step with everyone else."
Are you reading challenged?
Contemporaneous notes taken by BOTH Vindman AND vice presidential aide Jennifer Williams say that "Burisma" WAS mentioned on the call with Ukraine’s president but WAS NOT INCLUDED in the transcript summary released by the White House.
Wonder why not.
James said...
Crickets from Cowardly.
…
WAS NOT INCLUDED in the transcript summary released by the White House.
Wonder why not.
Well guess what, I don't hang around this board all day to correct your lies, excuse me, "mistakes".
And actually I don't believe Vindman and Williams. Neither did the professional career transcribers who took down what was released by the White House, not made by the White House. But lets give Vindman/Williams a chance to testify under oath about their dealings with Schiff, Biden, the "whistleblower", Atkinson etc. and vice-versa. And bring in the transcribers too. That's what Schiff should have done except for some reason he didn't want to...
hmmmm.
Come to think of it I suspect this may end up in the purvey of Barr.
Post a Comment