20 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Absurd, Anyway, be careful what you wish for. The senate trial will be presided by the SCOTUS chief justice. He will have to power to demand testimony from any and all of the witnesses that are part of the OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS article of impeachment that is sure to be one of the articles. 

Exactly. And from his past record, it is very unlikely that Roberts would play a partisan role in this trial. 

On 11/25/2019 at 8:58 AM, darksidedog said:

The general rule of law is that when someone is suspected of committing a crime, that action is investigated, which is what is happening here.

Seems reasonable ... by the by, can you tell me the law that was allegedly violated?

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How do you know who it is. 

 

Whistleblowers are protected, especially after trump posed threats to him.

 

So please tell us what evidence the whistleblower could give to the senate.

When I can get paid as at least as much as gas and oil expert Hunter Biden did for sitting on the Burisma Board... I suppose I would participate too. However, I would not presume, as a keyboard warrior, to be able to compete with the CIA. 

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by Tounge Thaied

1 minute ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Seems reasonable ... by the by, can you tell me the law that was allegedly violated?

Impeachment foes not require a crime to be committed.

Just now, Sujo said:

Impeachment foes not require a crime to be committed.

Not possible Sir, that would be a coup.

Just now, Tounge Thaied said:

When I can get paid as at least as much as gas and oil expert Hunter Biden did for sitting on the Burisma Board... I suppose I would participate too. I would not presume, as a keyboard warrior, to be able to compete with the CIA. 

Why did you quote me when your response has nothing to fo with the whistleblower.

Just now, 4675636b596f75 said:

Not possible Sir, that would be a coup.

Read the constitution.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Why did you quote me when your response has nothing to fo with the whistleblower.

The whistleblower is CIA. 

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Impeachment foes not require a crime to be committed.

 

It requires "high crimes and misdemeanours"....not one side's whims due to a stinging election

loss to an improbable newcomer whose popularity they underestimated.

For the record, I see nothing wrong in Trump wanting to get to the bottom of

the shady goings on in Ukraine involving previous admin. Be it Biden, Obama, whoever.

Who's he going to entrust with this? The CIA....that place is crawling with Obama acolytes.

Highly untrustworthy.

 

I reckon he was doing Americans a service by getting some answers on what went on before his time.

People are weary of this nonsense impeachment charade, except some bored guys here, this will all crumble

into a grudging motion of censure....and even that will be only due to Pelosi's majority in the House.

What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by JHolmesJr

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Read the constitution.

The entire Constitution?  Or a specific portion?  Why don't you help me out and be more specific?  You can be more specific, can't you?

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

It requires "high crimes and misdemeanours"....not one side's whims due to a stinging election

loss to an improbable newcomer whose popularity they underestimated.

For the record, I see nothing wrong in Trump wanting to get to the bottom of

the shady goings on in Ukraine involving previous admin. Be it Biden, Obama, whoever.

Who's he going to entrust with this? The CIA....that place is crawling with Obama acolytes.

Highly untrustworthy.

 

I reckon he was doing Americans a service by getting some answers on what went on before his time.

People are weary of this nonsense impeachment charade, except some bored guys here, this will all crumble

into a grudging motion of censure....and even that will be only due to Pelosi's majority in the House.

What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Same debunked alternate Trumpist reality, so same question as before. If there was some ground for an investigation, why didn't he ask for Barr to launch an official investigation, instead of just asking Z to only make a public announcement on TV?

1 minute ago, candide said:

Same debunked alternate Trumpist reality, so same question as before. If there was some ground for an investigation, why didn't he ask for Barr to launch an official investigation, instead of just asking Z to only make a public announcement on TV?

More triggering.  Tsk tsk.  When did he ask Zelinsky (sic) to make a public announcement on television.  Please be specific as hard as this may be.

18 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Impeachment foes not require a crime to be committed.

That is true but trying to feed facts to 45 loyalists is like talking to a brick wall. It's not a facts based movement. It's a cult of personality.

Coming across a fire and reporting it is one thing.

 

Manufacturing one takes some real bitterness at losing an election.

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

More triggering.  Tsk tsk.  When did he ask Zelinsky (sic) to make a public announcement on television.  Please be specific as hard as this may be.

 

I think he did...so what...announcing an investigation is the first step...it helps flush the guilty

out of hiding....they start to blab on camera (like Brennan, Clapper etc on a different matter)...then you proceed.

Its way better than carrying out investigative surveillance with doctored 'evidence'.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is true but trying to feed facts to 45 loyalists is like talking to a brick wall. It's not a facts based movement. It's a cult of personality.

The pot calling the kettle black.  Thanks Jing for such a fine example that gives and gives as it backfires on you.

3 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

More triggering.  Tsk tsk.  When did he ask Zelinsky (sic) to make a public announcement on television.  Please be specific as hard as this may be.

Testimony under oath by his friend Sondland, for example.

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I think he did...so what...announcing an investigation is the first step...it helps flush the guilty

out of hiding....they start to blab on camera (like Brennan, Clapper etc on a different matter)...then you proceed.

Its way better than carrying out investigative surveillance with doctored 'evidence'.

You're going to need to post a primer so thinking people can translate what you just wrote.

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I think he did...so what...announcing an investigation is the first step...it helps flush the guilty

out of hiding....they start to blab on camera (like Brennan, Clapper etc on a different matter)...then you proceed.

Its way better than carrying out investigative surveillance with doctored 'evidence'.

No, there is only one good way: the DOJ launches an official investigation (provided there is enough evidence for it), and then uses the collaboration agreement to ask Ukraine for help.

Now the question that Trump's fans never answer: why didn't Barr open an official investigation?

As much as I would like to see trump dying in his own filth I can't see the point of this impeachment, it will never get passed by the senate, they are like deer blinded by headlights, overwhelmed by trumps good manners, spirituality and his intelligence. Sure he will be covered in <deleted> when he rises again but his supporters are so stupid they will see only the holy spirit.

8 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

The pot calling the kettle black.  Thanks Jing for such a fine example that gives and gives as it backfires on you.

An excellent example of total reality disconnect.

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is true but trying to feed facts to 45 loyalists is like talking to a brick wall. It's not a facts based movement. It's a cult of personality.

Brick walls don't lie!

 

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

Brick walls don't lie!

 

Well, the brick wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for sure was a lie...

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The ID of the WB is irrelevant. His report has been confirmed by numerous fact witnesses. If someone calls the fire department and they find the fire, who called it in is similarly irrelevant. 

What are the names of the fact witnesses?  The only "fact" witness I saw, and I watched all the hearings, was Ambassador Sondland who after questioning by Devon Nunes admitted that he had no knowledge of a "quid pro quo" as it was only his opinion. 

 

Name a fact witness other than the Ambassador.

56 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Do you want to see trump giuliano pompeo perry under oath also?

 

You do want the truth dont you?

I want to see the US government, congress, and especially the Democrats,  get on with the business of the country and its people,  which they have ignored for 3 years now.

 

Do you really want to see this go on another 5+ years?

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

I want to see the US government, congress, and especially the Democrats,  get on with the business of the country and its people,  which they have ignored for 3 years now.

 

Do you really want to see this go on another 5+ years?

Deflection, why not answer the question?

And while we're at it, please also explain why Barr didn't start an investigation into biden's misconduct?

35 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You think, or know?  I think I can fly.  Can I?

 

I come across these things and then move on to other stuff...Im not an impeachment supporter

but I have read somewhere here that the guys who support impeachment say that he only asked for an investigation to be announced...not an actual investigation....I think that's BS myself. 

 

 

2 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You think, or know?  I think I can fly.  Can I?

 

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I come across these things and then move on to other stuff...Im not an impeachment supporter

but I have read somewhere here that the guys who support impeachment say that he only asked for an investigation to be announced...not an actual investigation....I think that's BS myself. 

 

 

As I mentioned already a few posts before, it's been told under oath by Trump's friend and GOP financer, Sondland (and also by Taylor). It's been also diffused by various media, including Fox News. Disturbing facts seem to be quickly forgotten....

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by candide

1 hour ago, candide said:

 

As I mentioned already a few posts before, it's been told under oath by Trump's friend and GOP financer, Sondland (and also by Taylor). It's been also diffused by various media, including Fox News. Disturbing facts seem to be quickly forgotten....

 

Seems to disturb democrats a lot.....Im cool with it.

Announcing an investigation....OMG! Crime of the century.

 

9 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Seems to disturb democrats a lot.....Im cool with it.

Announcing an investigation....OMG! Crime of the century.

 

The moving target tactic ????:

- he did not do it

- he did it but was just asking to fight corruption 'in general'

- he did ask about the Bidens, but nothing wrong to ask to start an investigation into anyone

- he only asked for an announcement to support his electoral propaganda but it's not a big deal

- etc....