On 11/16/2019 at 10:53 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

People would never have expected that Obama would be acceptable to middle America, though would they.

Why not?

He was charming, sociable, at ease in public, the opposite of the horrible previous president, promised to close Guantanamo ( how'd that get on? ), sang nicely, was funny on late night shows, had a faultless marriage and was half white. 

What was not to like?

On 11/17/2019 at 11:44 PM, Sujo said:

They are facts. Uncontested facts.

Not sure what that's in reference to, but impeachment is a political trial not a criminal one. therefore facts are not the be all and end all.

Clinton lied to the American public- fact. Not convicted.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not sure what that's in reference to, but impeachment is a political trial not a criminal one. therefore facts are not the be all and end all.

Clinton lied to the American public- fact. Not convicted.

I guess when you're defending Donald Trump, facts have to count for a lot less. Otherwise, you've got no case.

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I guess when you're defending Donald Trump, facts have to count for a lot less. Otherwise, you've got no case.

5555555555555555

If half the accusations against Trump over the past 2 years were proven, he'd have been impeached the day after the Dems took over congress. He hasn't been, even by now, ergo they ain't "facts" sufficient to impeach him. Could it be, shock horror, that it's just politics and they are not going to impeach, knowing the senate won't convict? Better just to keep on talking about it till the election.

 

BTW, I'm not defending him, as I don't see any high crime or misdemeanour been committed. Just a load of political hoo ha. Everything he's been accused of has been done before by other politicians. When a senator can leave a woman to die in a river and nothing happens to him, it has to be a lot worse than the current accusations to get a conviction.

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

5555555555555555

If half the accusations against Trump over the past 2 years were proven, he'd have been impeached the day after the Dems took over congress. He hasn't been, even by now, ergo they ain't "facts" sufficient to impeach him. Could it be, shock horror, that it's just politics and they are not going to impeach, knowing the senate won't convict? Better just to keep on talking about it till the election.

 

BTW, I'm not defending him, as I don't see any high crime or misdemeanour been committed. Just a load of political hoo ha. Everything he's been accused of has been done before by other politicians. When a senator can leave a woman to die in a river and nothing happens to him, it has to be a lot worse than the current accusations to get a conviction.

Right. Coercing a foreign government to launch a criminal investigation of the person who polls best against you is at worst, just a minor infraction? That goes to the heart of Americans process of free and fair elections. A crime against the United States. 

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. Coercing a foreign government to launch a criminal investigation of the person who polls best against you is at worst, just a minor infraction? That goes to the heart of Americans process of free and fair elections. A crime against the United States. 

When a president can lie to the world about weapons of mass destruction, send a respected general out to tell porkies to the UN and start a war that resulted in thousands of dead and maimed Americans, yet be re elected, or arming a rebel movement to overthrow a democratically elected government, and finish his term without so much as an investigation into impeachment, being accused of trying to get dirt on a political opponent is indeed a minor infraction at best, IMO.

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When a president can lie to the world about weapons of mass destruction, send a respected general out to tell porkies to the UN and start a war that resulted in thousands of dead and maimed Americans, yet be re elected, or arming a rebel movement to overthrow a democratically elected government, and finish his term without so much as an investigation into impeachment, being accused of trying to get dirt on a political opponent is indeed a minor infraction at best, IMO.

And no less worthy of impeachment.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When a president can lie to the world about weapons of mass destruction, send a respected general out to tell porkies to the UN and start a war that resulted in thousands of dead and maimed Americans, yet be re elected, or arming a rebel movement to overthrow a democratically elected government, and finish his term without so much as an investigation into impeachment, being accused of trying to get dirt on a political opponent is indeed a minor infraction at best, IMO.

Is your argument that since past Presidents were not impeached even though they arguably should be, Trump should get away with undermining democracy in the US?

 

As an aside, weren't you one of those who were outraged about the security implications of Hillary Clinton's emails?  Would you agree that Trump's blatant disregard for security and frequent exposing of classified information warrants impeachment?

On 11/17/2019 at 5:31 PM, bristolboy said:

He pulled out all the stops and still couldn't put the Republican candidate over the top in a deeply red state. And you know why that was? Record black turnout. Trump supporters seem to forget that it isn't only them that Trump motivates to vote. I don't see how all the money in the world is going to immunize Trump from what he's said and what he's tweeted. 

what is was is a democrat running on centrist policies, not policies of the current Democratic party. 

On 11/19/2019 at 2:26 PM, heybruce said:

Is your argument that since past Presidents were not impeached even though they arguably should be, Trump should get away with undermining democracy in the US?

 

As an aside, weren't you one of those who were outraged about the security implications of Hillary Clinton's emails?  Would you agree that Trump's blatant disregard for security and frequent exposing of classified information warrants impeachment?

undermining democracy? you mean like trying to oust a legally elected president for 3 years based on phony narratives? 

 

disregard for security of who? the bureaucracies?

So many threads running on this farce, where to post the latest in a long line of crushing defeats?

 We have been told by Holmes of how he clearly heard Trump talking to Sondland on his phone while seated at the opposite end of a restaurant table in Kiev. This is probably the most damning of all evidence heard so fr which consists of 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay and wild assumptions. Facing doubts of the plausibility of overhearing a phone call, Chris Cuomo tried to prove how this is possible. I enclose both videos. Warning. Do not hold hot drinks while watching the Cuomo clip! 

 

 

There are now reports that instead of dismissing the case immediately, the Senate will hold a full trial should the House submit formal articles of impeachment.

 

That would be great, watching Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden testify.  Who knows, they might even call Joe Biden himself.

 

My guess is because of the above, the House will not submit articles of impeachment.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:26 PM, heybruce said:

Is your argument that since past Presidents were not impeached even though they arguably should be, Trump should get away with undermining democracy in the US?

 

As an aside, weren't you one of those who were outraged about the security implications of Hillary Clinton's emails?  Would you agree that Trump's blatant disregard for security and frequent exposing of classified information warrants impeachment?

 

You think Trump is "undermining" democracy. I think it's democracy in action. Politicians get elected, the opposition exposes and replaces the errant president at the next election, or not. It's the only time the people get to have a say. They had their say when they stopped her becoming president. They should have their say if Trump is guilty or not too. Impeachment should be for really bad things, like leaving a companion to die in a river and walking away without telling anyone.

 

As an aside, weren't you one of those who were outraged about the security implications of Hillary Clinton's emails? 

Nah. I just wanted her locked up for what she did in the past.

I guess I feel about her like you do about Trump.

 

Have a nice day.

Whenever we have a damning day for Trump in the house inquiry of credible witnesses and fresh revelation of impeachable abuse of power, we can expect ardent supporters will rush out to post distraction and diversion and a total disregard for facts and truths. 

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Whenever we have a damning day for Trump in the house inquiry of credible witnesses and fresh revelation of impeachable abuse of power, we can expect ardent supporters will rush out to post distraction and diversion and a total disregard for facts and truths. 

We read it the first time. no need to repeat yourself.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

This is what the Pelosi and Schiff have done.

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

This is what the Pelosi and Schiff have done.

Maybe that’s what happen in Kentucky and Louisiana gubernatorial lost for the Reps. 

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

There are now reports that instead of dismissing the case immediately, the Senate will hold a full trial should the House submit formal articles of impeachment.

 

That would be great, watching Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden testify.  Who knows, they might even call Joe Biden himself.

 

My guess is because of the above, the House will not submit articles of impeachment.

What are you talking about - "there are now reports"? Ever since the very first time the subject was brought up back in September, Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate would have to hold a full trial if the House submitted articles of impeachment. On September 30, Reuters reported:

 

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday he would have “no choice” but to hold a trial if the House of Representatives decides to impeach President Donald Trump.

Senate would have no choice but to hold trial - McConnell

 

Given everything the Democrats have said up till now and the efforts they have expended so far, I reckon there is little to no chance that the Democratic party will not hold a vote on articles of impeachment.

 

As the Senate is (in my opinion) never going to convict Trump, it is debatable whether a trial and almost certain acquittal will benefit the Democrats or not, but that's a different debate.

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

There are now reports that instead of dismissing the case immediately, the Senate will hold a full trial should the House submit formal articles of impeachment.

 

That would be great, watching Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden testify.  Who knows, they might even call Joe Biden himself.

I still do not know why GOP keeps deflecting from the articles of impeachment.  Schiff is not a witness, the whistleblower is moot, as are the Bidens.  This is about POTUS withholding appropriated military aide from the Ukraine.  Only those who participated in this action since May 2019 will be allowed to testify. period

that is going to be hard/when trump and his ass slackers nunass jorden still believe in the tooth fairy 

3 hours ago, Skallywag said:

I still do not know why GOP keeps deflecting from the articles of impeachment.  Schiff is not a witness, the whistleblower is moot, as are the Bidens.  This is about POTUS withholding appropriated military aide from the Ukraine.  Only those who participated in this action since May 2019 will be allowed to testify. period

 

FYI, there are no articles of impeachment.  There may never be.

 

Should there be articles of impeachment, though, anything in the Republican held Senate will be by their rules, not yours.  I have a feeling they may not agree with your assessment of who will be allowed to testify, or who the interrogators will be.  Trump himself might be allowed to question witnesses.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

 

FYI, there are no articles of impeachment.  There may never be.

 

Should there be articles of impeachment, though, anything in the Republican held Senate will be by their rules, not yours.  I have a feeling they may not agree with your assessment of who will be allowed to testify.

Its obvious you have a feeling but its not based on logic or reality.

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its obvious you have a feeling but its not based on logic or reality.

ICYMI 

 

“We would expect to finally hear from witnesses who actually witnessed, and possibly participated in corruption - like Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower, to name a few,” Gidley said, referring to House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, who is leading an impeachment inquiry into Trump."

 

 

9 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

ICYMI 

 

“We would expect to finally hear from witnesses who actually witnessed, and possibly participated in corruption - like Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower, to name a few,” Gidley said, referring to House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, who is leading an impeachment inquiry into Trump."

 

 

FINALLY, we will get a SOMETHING burger out of all this!

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

ICYMI 

 

“We would expect to finally hear from witnesses who actually witnessed, and possibly participated in corruption - like Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower, to name a few,” Gidley said, referring to House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, who is leading an impeachment inquiry into Trump."

 

 

Isn't that a photo from an Apple- factory, that Trumpp opened today?

Except...it was operating since 2013?

 

Pray remind me: what is Biden to testify exactly?

...oh nevermind!

You and yours have been asked that question ad infinitum and your answers were somewhere between >crickets & tumbleweed< to a bunch of BS, that has nothing to do, with the case at hand!

Oh well...Happy Hour is calling! 

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

FINALLY, we will get a SOMETHING burger out of all this!

So far, Trump supporters have been behind Trump's refusal to allow former and current high ranking officials of his administration to testify because of the claim of Democratic bias. So we'll see if the Senate subpoenas those same people and if the Trump administration complies. 

6 hours ago, Skallywag said:

I still do not know why GOP keeps deflecting from the articles of impeachment.  Schiff is not a witness, the whistleblower is moot, as are the Bidens.  This is about POTUS withholding appropriated military aide from the Ukraine.  Only those who participated in this action since May 2019 will be allowed to testify. period

since the GOP has nothing to support any other defense, they are not questioning the facts, thus the only option available is to follow Trump and shoot in all directions trying to divert peoples focus, typical politics activities, but surely it's sad to see/hear it, mostly from that Ohio guy Jordan, what a piece of s... trying so hard to act/speak like Trump

2 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

Isn't that a photo from an Apple- factory, that Trumpp opened today?

Except...it was operating since 2013?

 

Pray remind me: what is Biden to testify exactly?

...oh nevermind!

You and yours have been asked that question ad infinitum and your answers were somewhere between >crickets & tumbleweed< to a bunch of BS, that has nothing to do, with the case at hand!

Oh well...Happy Hour is calling! 

Ask Webfact about the picture.  It's his post.

 

The Senate will determine who will testify and why.  I doubt if they will be contacting you for approval.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So far, Trump supporters have been behind Trump's refusal to allow former and current high ranking officials of his administration to testify because of the claim of Democratic bias. So we'll see if the Senate subpoenas those same people and if the Trump administration complies. 

The post doesn't mention any of those people.  It mentions Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower as those Trump expects to testify.

12 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

The post doesn't mention any of those people.  It mentions Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the so-called Whistleblower as those Trump expects to testify.

So Trump expects them to testify -  but not a word about actual eye and/or ear witnesses to his actions in this case? And after so much complaining about hearsay? Laughable.