Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[Becker]

16 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Point one: The Mueller report made no such claim. We don't have to prove we are innocent in the United States, the prosecution must prove guilt. In the case of the Mueller he could not even bring a charge.

Point Two - You tell me if I say Trump did not do the horrible things the Dossier claimed that it is I making an assumption? You have a strange understanding of law. So anyone can make a horrible claim in public about you? And then YOU would have to prove innocence? Even you , have the nerve to say that It's an assumption and not a fact I am making regarding the most heinous of charges against Trump. No proof has ever been given man. That isn't enough for you? How does that sit with you?  A unsubstatiated claim the President hired Prostitutes to p*** in a bed used by the former President and 1st lady? That doesn't turn your stomach? And you think that's OK to claim such things with zero evidence? A total fabrication? Are you an American?

Point Three : It would take 25 Republican Senators to turn on the President. That would require some as of yet not put forward evidence of some as of yet undisclosed crime. You do understand that based on everything so far it is an absolute fact that 25 Senators are not going to turn on the President, and you can't even be sure they would have enough Democrats, as Senators are a bit more sober in this regard. So I suppose anything can happen but if you had to give percentages of probability they are not in your favor. In truth they have not even brought impeachment charges. So there is a ways to go. 

 

This is simply one long attempt to remove the President that has been going on sadly since the day he was elected. 

"Point one: The Mueller report made no such claim. We don't have to prove we are innocent in the United States, the prosecution must prove guilt. In the case of the Mueller he could not even bring a charge."

IMO Trump is at best a useful idiot for Putin, at worst he's a straight up Russian agent. Why you bring Mueller's report into this I don't know. Confusion I guess?

 

"Point Two - You tell me if I say Trump did not do the horrible things the Dossier claimed that it is I making an assumption?

You were making an assumption and presenting it as a fact. The Steele dossier might be true - every single bit.

 

"Point Three : It would take 25 Republican Senators to turn on the President. That would require some as of yet not put forward evidence of some as of yet undisclosed crime."

And that might very well happen. A snake oil salesman like Trump has wallowed in the swamp since he was born. There's bound to be a closet - no, a warehouse - full of skeletons just waiting to be discovered.

It is my fervent hope we will see him jailed for the rest of his miserable life if that happens.

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, Mark mark said:

It still doesn't make Trump any Innocent, Like Joe Biden is a Minnow !!!

I don't think anyone is trying to make Trump innocent. They are trying to prove him guilty. As for the Biden's, biggest scumbag politician I have ever heard of in my entire life. Of course that's just an opinion. I just wonder what Hunter's job was. I wonder if Dad told 49 year old son to deny even knowing the Mother of his child, I wonder if Dad told son to claim his drink was spiked when he tested positive for cocaine, I wonder if Dad approved of son sleeping with his dead son's wife while banging strippers, and I wonder about Hunter's business dealings in China also, but that's another story. Yeah, I kind of have a real distaste for this minnow family - I think they are rotten to the core. Are you going to make me prove that?

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

The Steele dossier might be true - every single bit.

I will stop right here. I put forward for everyone to see that I cannot have a logical argument against this kind of reasoning. It boggles the mind and causes me to fear for the future of civilization itself.

[Mark mark]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I don't think anyone is trying to make Trump innocent. They are trying to prove him guilty. As for the Biden's, biggest scumbag politician I have ever heard of in my entire life. Of course that's just an opinion. I just wonder what Hunter's job was. I wonder if Dad told 49 year old son to deny even knowing the Mother of his child, I wonder if Dad told son to claim his drink was spiked when he tested positive for cocaine, I wonder if Dad approved of son sleeping with his dead son's wife while banging strippers, and I wonder about Hunter's business dealings in China also, but that's another story. Yeah, I kind of have a real distaste for this minnow family - I think they are rotten to the core. Are you going to make me prove that?

Yes, I WILL admit, that Sons, ... Sure can be a LOT of Trouble. But I do not want MY life ruined by it ! ... Having to continue looking at the Flim Flam man, ... the Snake oil Sailsman ! ...The New age, Reality Telivison show host,  ...  and then to continue to have to swallow, ... and then spit out his Lies !!! ... and then feel sick, ....and get angry over them !!!

[Becker]

11 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I will stop right here. I put forward for everyone to see that I cannot have a logical argument against this kind of reasoning. It boggles the mind and causes me to fear for the future of civilization itself.

For me that happened when Trump was elected.

[candide]

28 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I won't take the time to argue with you. I will let people review each of these timelines on their own and come to their own conclusions. Further I wait for the senate investigations on Biden/burisma,  the Attorney General investigation, the IG investigation, The Durham Investigation, The house Investigation on impeachment, and we will see where this all goes.

 

 

I note that you don't deny the presence of the flaws I spoted in Solomon's report. 

[JHolmesJr]

31 minutes ago, Becker said:

For me that happened when Trump was elected.

Never trumpers are tearful with rage that he won the election and their candidate lost.

They need to grow up and stop the repugnant line of argument.....nearly all their

posts are littered with nonsense and parroting biased MSM sources.

[Sujo]

50 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Never trumpers are tearful with rage that he won the election and their candidate lost.

They need to grow up and stop the repugnant line of argument.....nearly all their

posts are littered with nonsense and parroting biased MSM sources.

No, just that a president act according to the constitution he swore to uphold.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

 

[Becker]

11 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Never trumpers are tearful with rage that he won the election and their candidate lost.

They need to grow up and stop the repugnant line of argument.....nearly all their

posts are littered with nonsense and parroting biased MSM sources.

"Never trumpers are tearful with rage that he won the election...."

Not rage but nausea. Firstly that a large minority voted for him in the first place but more disgustingly that most of them still (after all he's said and done) support the draft dodger.

 

"They need to grow up and stop the repugnant line of argument..."

What repugnant argument? That the electoral college system needs to be scrapped so that the sane voters get as much of a say as the "others"?

 

"....nearly all their posts are littered with nonsense and parroting biased MSM sources."

And your posts are littered with drivel and parroting right wing nutter sources. Guess why some sources are called "main stream" and others called nutter.

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

12 hours ago, candide said:

I note that you don't deny the presence of the flaws I spoted in Solomon's report. 

I confirm only that I have not confirmed or denied them to the best of my recollection.

[Jingthing]

11 hours ago, Sujo said:

No, just that a president act according to the constitution he swore to uphold.

Yes he has greatly abused his presidential powers leaving any congress doing its duty no choice but to proceed with an impeachment process. 

[JHolmesJr]

You would have to admire the tenacity of the impeach trump faction on TV.

Even the democratic congress has taken a holiday to enjoy some semblance of 

normalcy. They are probably home getting hammered by their voters over what appears

to. be a very sketchy impeachment hearing that throws up no damning evidence of high crimes.

But over here, the drums beat on 24/7.

 

I understand all the symptoms...nausea, stress, outrage....but you did it to yourself. Most normal people would just say, let's beat this a-hole in 2020 and make things right. Instead, apologies for a very shady ex VP, some pathetic candidates with radical ideas....much hand wringing.... and the only defence Biden is, "its been debunked".

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

30 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

I understand all the symptoms...nausea, stress, outrage....but you did it to yourself. Most normal

people would just say, let's beat this a-hole in 2020 and make things right. Instead, apologies for

a very shady ex VP, some pathetic candidates with radical ideas....much hand wringing.... and the only

defence Biden is, "its been debunked".

And of course once the impeachment process comes to its obvious conclusion, ie the President is not going to be removed. They will then blame the Constitution itself for failing them. Just as they blame the Constitution itself for electing him, and call for an end to the Electoral College.

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, Becker said:

Normalcy can not return until the treacherous draft dodger in the WH is gone.

Yes, and it may never return.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-hard-to-be-an-optimist-about-america-right-now/2019/11/27/8020e526-115b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html

 

Quote

It’s hard to be an optimist about America right now

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/

 

Quote

 

How America Ends

A tectonic demographic shift is under way. Can the country hold together?

 

 

 

 

[metisdead]

Some off topic trolling posts and the trolling replies have been removed. 

 

Some personal attack posts have been removed.  

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I will stop right here. I put forward for everyone to see that I cannot have a logical argument against this kind of reasoning. It boggles the mind and causes me to fear for the future of civilization itself.

This is your idea of logical argument?

"I wonder if Dad told 49 year old son to deny even knowing the Mother of his child, I wonder if Dad told son to claim his drink was spiked when he tested positive for cocaine, I wonder if Dad approved of son sleeping with his dead son's wife while banging strippers, and I wonder about Hunter's business dealings in China also, but that's another story."

So every time someone's adult child does something immoral or illegal, it means the parent is culpable, too?  Your comments here are just a rant uncontaminated by rationality.

[bristolboy]

15 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Never trumpers are tearful with rage that he won the election and their candidate lost.

They need to grow up and stop the repugnant line of argument.....nearly all their

posts are littered with nonsense and parroting biased MSM sources.

When you have no use for facts, go to motives. Because the advantage of this is there's no way of disproving it.

[JHolmesJr]

41 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

When you have no use for facts, go to motives. Because the advantage of this is there's no way of disproving it.

 

none of your prize witnesses produced any facts that support impeachment either....just presumptions, hearsay,

personal bias, guessing, supernatural powers of hearing....and smears.

 

[candide]

18 hours ago, candide said:

Just a few obsevations on Solomon's report (I did not check everything) that show how biased it is

- for some key allegations there is no source

- sometimes the source does not state what he claims: example "

Dec. 8, 2015

The New York Times publishes article stating Prosecutor General Shokin’s office is investigating Burisma Holdings and its founder Zlochecvsky". The NYT article does not mention it at all.

- some key information is inaccurate, ex. 

"Aug. 20, 2014

Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s office opens criminal investigation of Burisma Holdings and Mykola Zlochevsky."

Shokin was nominated in 2015 only.

- it omits key informations to understand the case, for example that Manafort has already been under investigation by the FBI in 2014.

 

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I confirm only that I have not confirmed or denied them to the best of my recollection.

It is a surprising attitude. You provide a link to a source to support your argument, I provide some proof that the source is at least partly flawed, and you are not interested to know If your source is reliable or not.

It also would have been very easy to check, I.e. it's easy to know when Shokin was nominated, it's easy to click on the link in your source to find out that the NYT article does not mention that Shokin was investigating Burisma, etc...

[bristolboy]

59 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

none of your prize witnesses produced any facts that support impeachment either....just presumptions, hearsay,

personal bias, guessing, supernatural powers of hearing....and smears.

 

Please. Such nonsense. Like your claim that nobody could hear what Trump was saying on the phone that Sondland was holding away from his ear in the restaurant. Sondland said he was holding the phone away from his ear because Trump was talking so loudly. And Sondland didn't dispute Holmes testimony about the call, either.

In fact there's plenty of evidence. Of course, if you think anything short of a smoking gun is inadequate than you have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

And it seems now that Sondland was lying about the "No quid pro quo" statement from Trump. No evidence of that phone call exists in the White House records. Or maybe, just as Trump supporters seem to believe about their man, Sondland wasn't lying. He was just presenting an alternate version of reality.

[candide]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

none of your prize witnesses produced any facts that support impeachment either....just presumptions, hearsay,

personal bias, guessing, supernatural powers of hearing....and smears.

 

So if it's not true, why is it that no one contradicted these testimonies under oath?

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, candide said:

So if it's not true, why is it that no one contradicted these testimonies under oath?

 

Senate trial will be the one where I expect all the right people to be questioned.

[Becker]

15 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Senate trial will be the one where I expect all the right people to be questioned.

The wrong people being those who have dirt on Trump, right?

[candide]

8 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Senate trial will be the one where I expect all the right people to be questioned.

Why that? It would have been better for Trump to quickly send witnesses who could exonerate him, such as Giuliani, Pompeo and Mulvaney, and quickly close the investigation. Or could it be that they would not exonerate them, or worse?

[rabas]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

The wrong people being those who have dirt on Trump, right?

Right, thus far people claiming to have dirt on Trump were wrong.

 

[Becker]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Right, thus far people claiming to have dirt on Trump were wrong.

 

You're probably defining dirt quite differently than I do and I can understand the need to do that for a base Trump supporter.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Right, thus far people claiming to have dirt on Trump were wrong.

 

How do you know? Nobody ever contradicted them under oath?

[rabas]

23 minutes ago, Becker said:

You're probably defining dirt quite differently than I do and I can understand the need to do that for a base Trump supporter.

I'm defining 'dirt' as proven wrongdoing or illegal activity by Mr. Trump. If you are defining it as yet unproven, unsubstantiated claims or innuendo then I think your needs may have a problem, not mine.

 

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, rabas said:

I'm defining 'dirt' as proven wrongdoing or illegal activity by Mr. Trump. If you are defining it as yet unproven, unsubstantiated claims or innuendo then I think your needs may have a problem, not mine.

 

Then your dreams have been answered. Trump himself admitted it. Mulvaney gave a press conference and admitted it.