.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
earlinclaifornia
-
Posts
2,971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by earlinclaifornia
-
-
1 hour ago, Sujo said:
No polls predicted hilary would win. Polls dont predict. But im sure you and trump use them if in your favor.
Amybody paying attention knew trump had a chance electorally.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Kelsall said:
Same polls that predicted Hillary would win.
That line is stale.
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, HuskerDo said:
What exactly has Congress done for the American people the past year? NOTHING!! This impeachment <deleted> is all about them and their insatiable hunger to gain back power. The voters know that so goodbye to the Democratic party. It's not the same party that many of us grew up with. Tip O'Neill is turning in his grave over this bunch of clowns.
Mitch has over 300 bills he is holding on to and 90% bipartisan.
-
1
-
-
Just now, candide said:
I understand you may be disappointed that no one really answers your long post, but you come a bit too late into this debate. All your arguments have been debunked over and over in previous threads.
Well said TY
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:
Attack? No. Observation of your unwillingness to refute what you claim is false in my post.
Now you want sources for something else? It's a one-way street with you.
You are confusing yourself with Alternate facts
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, mogandave said:
He said he wanted witnesses before, what does that have to do with anything?I hope Giuliani testify's. I would pay for that to happen.
-
1
-
4
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:I would start with the fake whistlblower Eric ciamarella and ICIG Atkinson to see who backdated the forms fraudulently submitted.
Atkinson was senior counsel to John Carlin. Carlin was Obamas NSD chief and chief of staff to Robert Mueller when he was the head of the fbi. Just a coincidence, the left will say of course.
Then we'll start on schiff and his staff to see who is perjuring themselves,if not all of them.
Pucker up ladies.
Will you please share these websites your getting all the information? Unless it is INFOWARS LOL
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Just now, Ricohoc said:
And now you're being intellectually dishonest -- or just lazy. Pretty pathetic either way.
Go and attack what you disagree with. Typical.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, mogandave said:
He said he wanted witnesses before, what does that have to do with anything?On again than off then on if you recall
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:
Correct.
It's my understanding that there were questions about Atkinson at the time that it all hit. Appears to be some talk that the Senate Judiciary Committee will look at Atkinson and his role.
Also proof?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:
If that was the case, you could easily refute each part of it with what you consider to be the facts of the matter.
When I see so many I do just give up. Sorry not going to correct all that you are trying expel as truth.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, mogandave said:
So? He has less of a reason to allow testimony than he did before he was “almost” impeached.
All the left cares about is the election anyway.
But he now says he want witnesses! At least today anyways.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:
I would start with the fake whistlblower Eric ciamarella and ICIG Atkinson to see who backdated the forms fraudulently submitted.
Atkinson was senior counsel to John Carlin. Carlin was Obamas NSD chief and chief of staff to Robert Mueller when he was the head of the fbi. Just a coincidence, the left will say of course.
Then we'll start on schiff and his staff to see who is perjuring themselves,if not all of them.
Pucker up ladies.
Where can I find proof please?
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:
Anyone wishing to label Executive Privilege as "stonewalling" or "obstruction" is free to do so, but they must also acknowledge that every POTUS since George Washington has exercised this privilege granted under the Constitution. The Executive Branch is a coequal branch of the federal government and does not fall under the authority of the Legislative Branch in its day-to-day dealings. The Judicial Branch settles all disputes between those two branches.
Those same accusers should also realize that Trump is the first POTUS never to have a formal House vote to begin impeachment hearings. In Trump's case, it was a unilateral announcement -- without a vote -- by Pelosi. Trump was also the first POTUS not allowed to have attorneys present to question witnesses or to have his attorneys or his party call witnesses in the House impeachment hearings.
Despite House rules written by the Democrats that allowed for a single day of Republican witnesses, that day was ignored and not allowed. Democrats rejected all other Republicans witnesses in the House hearings and even stopped witnesses from answering some questions that were posed by Republicans.
Trump is the first POTUS denied these procedural precedents of due process in impeachment hearings.
This event, orchestrated solely by Democrats -- many of which were done in secret and without transcripts being released -- have caused some legal scholars to label the entire process as illegitimate. Regardless of anyone's view regarding legitimacy, It certainly wasn't fair, wasn't bi-partisan, did not afford due process to the accused, and did not provide due process to the POTUS.
Any citizen subjected to such biased and one-sided judgment would certainly seek to exercise as much and as many constitutional safeguards as possible. Hence, Trump chose to exercise his Executive Privilege granted under the Constitution. The entire process has been quite Stalinesque.
As to presidential voting polls -- regardless of their origin, they are only worth browsing if state-by-state polls. The popular vote does not determine the winner of the presidency, so a national poll is worthless. Ask Hillary. Since the Electoral Vote is state-by-state, those are the polls that MIGHT have some legitimacy depending on the sampling sizes of Republicans, Democrats and Independents and the way the poll is conducted.
National polls that deal with a specific demographics (males, college educated, Black and Latino voters) are usually pretty close to being reliable if done by a reputable polling company. I pretty much ignore them all.
One need only look at arenas full of supporters for Trump and determine that to be a poll worth reasonable consideration. Then compare it to what shows up for any of the Democrats -- or even all of the Democrats combined. In most of the Dem rallies, you could shoot a cannon through the building and not hit anyone.
Cult speak. Want to see that summary again of Biden trump from all polling just let me know.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, mogandave said:
I’m sorry, when you responded to my post I thought you were saying Nancy was afraid of: “President’s obstruction”If that wasn’t what you meant, what what did you mean?
Why did Nancy relinquish her authority to use the court to supersede the President’s executive privilege?
Waiting for the courts to probably get to the Supreme court like trump has with revealing his taxes most likely would occur AFTER his election loss.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:
Nobody has yet to ever tell me why the rules should be any different now than they were for the Clinton Impeachment.
LIke so many other people, I have tuned out the "urgent" impeachment because the folks who say it was urgent now say that it isnt. Is it urgent again?
Testimony was from recorded witnesses and several were called back as well. Seems like the rules are now different if none are called.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:
How have you somehow deduced FEAR pray tell? Can't wait to hear your source or reasoning.
So far that 2 cents seems an overpayment to me.
-
1
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, mogandave said:
Why does that frighten her?How have you somehow deduced FEAR pray tell? Can't wait to hear your source or reasoning.
-
1
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
42 minutes ago, mogandave said:
Again, why did the House not compel the witnesses to testify when they had the authority?
Ask yourself this: What was Nancy afraid of?
President’s obstruction
-
1
-
3
-
3 hours ago, Laza 45 said:
Yea!.. remember Hillary's emails.. such a scandal!
Just one more investigation of Hillary gone south. Another one bites the dust! Donny has how many? But who's counting.
-
1
-
2
-
-
49 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:
Except it was the role of the House to call witnesses and take any claims of executive privilege to the courts. Too busy for that. Must vote to impeach this threat to national security.
So now they have an incomplete case to present to the Senate (if they ever present it) with only one suitable witness claiming first-hand knowledge. Nancy's stunt of stalling it has managed to confirm what it was all along -- superficial and political theater. Unfinished business that the Senate is not likely to complete for them. The House is now faced with having to present their case as is; and here lately, even Dem Senators are perturbed at Nancy's antics.
This sham impeachment effort is going nowhere. The fact that Nancy hasn't forwarded it to the Senate is just further evidence of that. Democrats, filling their usual role of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences, have botched yet another of what they thought would be a slam dunk (like Hillary's primary election and the Mueller Report). Nope.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-so-afraid-of-john-bolton/ar-BBYIf1E Witness factors. John said...
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:
Except it was the role of the House to call witnesses and take any claims of executive privilege to the courts. Too busy for that. Must vote to impeach this threat to national security.
So now they have an incomplete case to present to the Senate (if they ever present it) with only one suitable witness claiming first-hand knowledge. Nancy's stunt of stalling it has managed to confirm what it was all along -- superficial and political theater. Unfinished business that the Senate is not likely to complete for them. The House is now faced with having to present their case as is; and here lately, even Dem Senators are perturbed at Nancy's antics.
This sham impeachment effort is going nowhere. The fact that Nancy hasn't forwarded it to the Senate is just further evidence of that. Democrats, filling their usual role of being the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences, have botched yet another of what they thought would be a slam dunk (like Hillary's primary election and the Mueller Report). Nope.trump's stonewalling of the direct knowledge testimony of those person could continue to linger in courts for to long, hence the 2 articles not waiting forever. Want those directly involved names as a reminder?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:
There were even more in 2018, what does that have to do with a second presidential term?
28, 25 who is counting JUST LEAVE please!
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
No idea what you are talking about. He doesn't need 67 votes.
Staying un-imformed is a cult behavior.
Senate rules suggest such a move would be difficult, if not impossible. It would take 60 votes to pass a resolution on impeachment outside a trial and 67 votes to change the impeachment rules. That threshold would require Democratic support, since McConnell has only 53 Republicans — and Democrats would be loath to undercut Pelosi.
-
1
-
U.S. Democrats to press for impeachment witnesses throughout trial
in World News
Posted
Thanks for the facts reflecting just the opposit of was just said. Some keep repeating oping the lie becomes truth. Nancy's Hosue will soon gain many more seat than the majority they have, facts back up this assertion. Not empty repetition which is all they have.