Trump at brink of impeachment as U.S. House committee approves charges

[Longcut]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They are trying to claim that not participating in his own lynching is 'obstruction of congress'. LOL 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/articles-impeachment-show-democrats-are-ones-obstructing-justice-ncna1101981

It's their job to prove that he is guilty. Not his job to prove that he is innocent.

[candide]

37 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Testimonies comprising presumptions/hearsay/personal opinions - Evidence = Hot Air.

 

Nothing to contradict here. 

 

You say Trump did something bad....you have no proof to back your claim. It's not Trump's job to provide witness

testimony to counter your opinions. If you have facts, then show them....we have already seen the released transcript of the call. That is factual material that contradicts everything these far removed witnesses are saying.

 

None of the lies Schiff spouts is in the official transcript that has been confirmed by vindman.

It is not my opinion, it's what testimonies under oath and other documents show. 

The transcript does not contradict the testimonies. 

[Jingthing]

This article explains what crimes 45 is being impeached for. Indeed, the HIGHEST of crimes. When the founders wrote the CONSTITITUION there was no federal criminal code. 45's flagrant ABUSE OF POWER violates his oath of office to the CONSTITUTION.  

 

For those that don't know that already you actually need to read the entire article to get the background for this. But I do realize 45 cult of personality adherents actually aren't interested in learning, facts, or knowing stuff that doesn't follow the talking points of the dear leader. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/14/impeachment-is-law-saying-political-process-only-helps-trumps-narrative/

 

Quote

 

Impeachment is the law. Saying ‘political process’ only helps Trump’s narrative.

Downgrading a legal process to mere politics reinforces the idea that the Constitution’s presidential accountability mechanism is just a “hoax.”

 

 

[candide]

57 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They are trying to claim that not participating in his own lynching is 'obstruction of congress'. LOL 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/articles-impeachment-show-democrats-are-ones-obstructing-justice-ncna1101981

So you agree that testimonies from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton or Giuliani will contribute to his lynching (= support the current testimonies). We all understand that.

[candide]

46 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Stupidest answer of the day.

I am afraid there is too much competition to win that prize. 

[candide]

47 minutes ago, Longcut said:

It's their job to prove that he is guilty. Not his job to prove that he is innocent.

And Trumps tries to prevent them from proving it by forbidding key witnesses to testify.

[candide]

52 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

But the 45 cult of personality adherents aren't actually interested in answers or facts. Total brick wall. 

They also seem to think that making more 'noise' than others proves they are right.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

This article explains what crimes 45 is being impeached for. Indeed, the HIGHEST of crimes. When the founders wrote the CONSTITITUION there was no federal criminal code. 45's flagrant ABUSE OF POWER violates his oath of office to the CONSTITUTION.  

 

For those that don't know that already you actually need to read the entire article to get the background for this. But I do realize 45 cult of personality adherents actually aren't interested in learning, facts, or knowing stuff that doesn't follow the talking points of the dear leader. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/14/impeachment-is-law-saying-political-process-only-helps-trumps-narrative/

 

 

 

The Cult of 45 pales before the cult of CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO.....the blind regurgitation of whatever biased nonsense they spout to prop up the failed Democrat Party.

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

The Cult of 45 pales before the cult of CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO.....the blind regurgitation of whatever biased nonsense they spout to prop up the failed Democrat Party.

In other words the constitution doesn't interest you if what it's about conflicts with 45's agenda. Lovely. 

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

In other words the constitution doesn't interest you if what it's about conflicts with 45's agenda. Lovely. 

In other words, you'll fall for whatever the WAPO etc...trumps sworn enemies in the media....say.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

In other words, you'll fall for whatever the WAPO etc...trumps sworn enemies in the media....say.

Funny that you say that. That's another area where 45 is a direct threat to American democracy.

 

 

[metisdead]

A post containing a video from a late night comedy show has been removed as well as the replies.  Posting videos from late night comedy shows are not credible news sources.

[Longcut]

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

In other words, you'll fall for whatever the WAPO etc...trumps sworn enemies in the media....say.

CNN Politics’ Fact Check pointed out that Escobar and Jackson Lee either changed or omitted the word “us” when quoting the transcript in the markup session. The word “us” is significant because it implies Trump was asking for a favor of national interest, instead of a personal favor against a political rival.

 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Longcut said:

CNN Politics’ Fact Check pointed out that Escobar and Jackson Lee either changed or omitted the word “us” when quoting the transcript in the markup session. The word “us” is significant because it implies Trump was asking for a favor of national interest, instead of a personal favor against a political rival.

 

Your quote is not what the linked article says. Anything after 'significant' is not the conclusion of your link, as you're claiming with your post.

[Longcut]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Your quote is not what the linked article says. Anything after 'significant' is not the conclusion of your link, as you're claiming with your post.

I could have added the rest, but it doesn't change anything. The outcome is still the same.

 

CNN Politics’ Fact Check pointed out that Escobar and Jackson Lee either changed or omitted the word “us”

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

I could have added the rest, but it doesn't change anything. The outcome is still the same.

 

CNN Politics’ Fact Check pointed out that Escobar and Jackson Lee either changed or omitted the word “us”

Ok, so you don't understand your own link, and you're making incorrect claims here.

Your conclusion is not the conclusion of the article, in contrast to your claim.

[Longcut]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Ok, so you don't understand your own link, and you're making incorrect claims here.

Your conclusion is not the conclusion of the article, in contrast to your claim.

 

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ok, so you don't understand your own link, and you're making incorrect claims here.

Your conclusion is not the conclusion of the article, in contrast to your claim.

You must be referencing what  Pamela Karlan had to say. I don't feel she is very credible for one. For two she is biased against the president and was giving her own opinion. Nothing factual.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

 

You must be referencing what  Pamela Karlan had to say. I don't feel she is very credible for one. For two she is biased against the president and was giving her own opinion. Nothing factual.

I was referencing to the article, not one particular person.

Your conclusion differs from that of the article, despite you presenting it here as the article conclusion.

[J Town]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I was referencing to the article, not one particular person.

Your conclusion differs from that of the article, despite you presenting it here as the article conclusion.

Isn't that the MO for ALL Trump supporters?

[rabas]

44 minutes ago, stevenl said:

58 minutes ago, Longcut said:

CNN Politics’ Fact Check pointed out that Escobar and Jackson Lee either changed or omitted the word “us” when quoting the transcript in the markup session. The word “us” is significant because it implies Trump was asking for a favor of national interest, instead of a personal favor against a political rival.

Your quote is not what the linked article says. Anything after 'significant' is not the conclusion of your link, as you're claiming with your post.

The below sentence alone from the quote proves your assertion wrong. Of course the article is about the meaning of 'we'. A court of law would toss the whole nonsensical argument in no time.

 

Last week, Professor Pamela Karlan argued that Trump was using the “royal we” in that sentence and actually asking for a personal favor.

 

[HuskerDo]

On 12/13/2019 at 8:56 PM, Cryingdick said:

 

I think a better approach is to take no risks and win the election. If we become vindictive and seek revenge such as the dems do now it is the wrong way to go about it. Just go patch the holes in the road and let the dems whine win they lose and it isn't even close.

 

Be the better person.

"I think a better approach is to take no risks and win the election"......

 

As far as I can see that's a forgone conclusion. Trump will win another 4 year term as the Dems have nothing to hang their hats on other than Socialism. I'm just curious who has the "testis" to carry the Trump torch 5 years from now.

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

"I think a better approach is to take no risks and win the election"......

 

As far as I can see that's a forgone conclusion. Trump will win another 4 year term as the Dems have nothing to hang their hats on other than Socialism. I'm just curious who has the "testis" to carry the Trump torch 5 years from now.

Sad if that really happen as world leaders will continue to laugh at him.

 

After 5 years ( that is quite a stretch), the question is really who will pardon him when he languish in jail. Deserving I must say. 

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Sad if that really happen as world leaders will continue to laugh at him.

 

After 5 years ( that is quite a stretch), the question is really who will pardon him when he languish in jail. Deserving I must say. 

SDNY has some crimes they will charge him with that cannot be pardoned by a president, current or future. And wasn't that a clue to y'all Trump supporters when he started looking into whether or not he could pardon himself?

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, rabas said:

The below sentence alone from the quote proves your assertion wrong. Of course the article is about the meaning of 'we'. A court of law would toss the whole nonsensical argument in no time.

 

Last week, Professor Pamela Karlan argued that Trump was using the “royal we” in that sentence and actually asking for a personal favor.

 

Which is not what I said.

 

My main point: longcut presented a link with some lines from that link. The lines were his own opinion, and not supported by the link.

That is not done at best.

[xylophone]

31 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Sad if that really happen as world leaders will continue to laugh at him

Agree, and I don't think that the trump supporters want to acknowledge that this man is the laughingstock of the world, not only the leaders but just about anyone else who wishes to reference his behaviour and dumb sayings.....the peach being the fact that the revolutionary leaders in 1776 surrounded the airports. Now how dumb is that?

The majority of the posters on this thread and others regarding trump and the US, post following party lines (partisan) but outside of that there are people like me and many friends who come from countries around the world who think the man is just plain dumb, proven on almost a daily basis by him.

 

Unfortunately for the USA, whether he is impeached or not won't change anything, because the man is still plainly dumb, surrounded himself with liars and cheats, some of whom are serving jail time, and just doesn't know how stupid he is, nor, apparently do his supporters, which is quite surprising because it is very plain to see.

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Unfortunately for the USA, whether he is impeached or not won't change anything, because the man is still plainly dumb, surrounded himself with liars and cheats, some of whom are serving jail time, and just doesn't know how stupid he is, nor, apparently do his supporters, which is quite surprising because it is very plain to see.

Fortunatly for the USA, many citizens don’t care a whole lot about what some “foreign leaders” or what some of the citizens of other countries think. 
 

Many people in the United States like much of what the President has done, has tried to do, and will continues to do. 
 

It seems to be only the left that hates him, and that just makes hime more attractive to a lot of people. About half the country is fine with him, and would like to se him re-elected. 
 

 

 

[J Town]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It seems to be only the left that hates him.

No. Any sane, rational person who looks at the blatantly criminal, utterly stupid acts Trump has done hates him. There may be some people who have benefited financially who look the other way. Judas did the same for 30 pieces of silver.

 

Current polls have him at over 60% disapproval rating. That's millions more than "half the country."

 

 

[zydeco]

20 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Unfortunately for the USA, whether he is impeached or not won't change anything, because the man is still plainly dumb, surrounded himself with liars and cheats, some of whom are serving jail time, and just doesn't know how stupid he is, nor, apparently do his supporters, which is quite surprising because it is very plain to see.

And what sort of an adult talks like this? It is unbelievable a US president tweets and talks like a 13 year-old. Commiecast? Trump: "Both Commiecast MSNBC & Fake News CNN are watching their Ratings TANK. Fredo on CNN is dying."

[WalkingOrders]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-rich/  His current estimated Networth is quoted from Forbes at this link , as well as how he began and all his setbacks.  I think people can read and decided for themselves is his current estimated networth ( high or low) would indicate a man who has squandered a fortune. Some would call him more then moderately successful.

[metisdead]

An off topic post and the replies have been removed. 

 

A post using a profane acronym has been removed. 

 

Inflammatory posts have been removed.