13 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?utm_source=url_link

Quoting the guy that testified that what trump did was definately impeachable. Brilliant.

I'm terribly confused. Didn't the Dems say that it was a matter of urgency to impeach Trump?

Yet, they still haven't sent the articles of impeachment to the senate.

Does that mean it wasn't actually urgent at all, or that they know they made a mistake by impeaching him and don't want to be humiliated in the senate?

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm terribly confused. Didn't the Dems say that it was a matter of urgency to impeach Trump?

Yet, they still haven't sent the articles of impeachment to the senate.

Does that mean it wasn't actually urgent at all, or that they know they made a mistake by impeaching him and don't want to be humiliated in the senate?

You mean send it to the Senate headed by Mitch McConnell who is openly acknowledged that his coordinating with the White House and has said he won't call witnesses? Witnesses such as Sean Duffy who, 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with Zelensky, transmitted a highly confidential order to put a hold on disbursement of US military aid.

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean send it to the Senate headed by Mitch McConnell who is openly acknowledged that his coordinating with the White House and has said he won't call witnesses? Witnesses such as Sean Duffy who, 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with Zelensky, transmitted a highly confidential order to put a hold on disbursement of US military aid.

Where else are they going to send it to? Are they waiting for the election in hope that they win the senate so they can send it to a body with an openly anti Trump leader?

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Finally, one source to support one of many claims.

 

Your link is to a pay site.  However I was able to determine that it is an editorial by a Harvard Law professor arguing that the impeachment process is not complete until the articles are sent to the Senate.  However the semantics don't matter to most people; the overwhelming consensus is that Trump has been impeached.

A Harvard Law professor that the left called to testify at the impeachment hearings as an expert witness on impeachment.
 

He testified that the phone call was an impeachable offense, no he claimed Trump is not impeached. 
 

Yes I agree, most people believe CNN over an expert witness they disagree with.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Quoting the guy that testified that what trump did was definately impeachable. Brilliant.

 

Thank you.

 

 

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where else are they going to send it to? Are they waiting for the election in hope that they win the senate so they can send it to a body with an openly anti Trump leader?

Or maybe, just possibly, there might be the remotest chance that as more information comes out, like the fact that 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president a hold was put on military aid, pressure will build on the Senate to conduct a real trial. And if it ultimately decides not to, that will hurt electoral prospects for several republican senators.

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Or maybe, just possibly, there might be the remotest chance that as more information comes out, like the fact that 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president a hold was put on military aid, pressure will build on the Senate to conduct a real trial. And if it ultimately decides not to, that will hurt electoral prospects for several republican senators.

You mean it was all about politics from the beginning? And if Trump had questions about Ukraine, which he would  because of highly unusual Biden enrichment, why would the hold not be exactly 91 minutes later, since the WH was obviously working on Ukraine that day?

 

Or, is 91 a magic number? My wife is interested.

 

1 minute ago, rabas said:

You mean it was all about politics from the beginning? And if Trump had questions about Ukraine, which he would  because of highly unusual Biden enrichment, why would the hold not be exactly 91 minutes later, since the WH was obviously working on Ukraine that day?

 

Or, is 91 a magic number? My wife is interested.

 

You mean that was the first day they were dealing with it? Before that nothing? Really? And what an amazing coincidence that right after the phone call with Zelensky aid gets put on hold. What in the transcript of the call would cause that action to be undertaken? What response of Zelensky's? Given Mulvaney's acknowledgement of a quid pro quo and the rapid hold put on the aid, your contention is obviously tendentious.  

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm terribly confused. Didn't the Dems say that it was a matter of urgency to impeach Trump?

Yet, they still haven't sent the articles of impeachment to the senate.

Does that mean it wasn't actually urgent at all, or that they know they made a mistake by impeaching him and don't want to be humiliated in the senate?

No they know that Mitch McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent witnesses from beeing called they desperately want to limit the exposers of facts because they prove trump guilty Nancy isent in any hurry trump is impeached and spinning in the wind a tweeting up a storm lol so common senate let’s have a trial with witnesses and expose this mess!

1 minute ago, Tug said:

No they know that Mitch McConnell will do everything in his power to prevent witnesses from beeing called they desperately want to limit the exposers of facts because they prove trump guilty Nancy isent in any hurry trump is impeached and spinning in the wind a tweeting up a storm lol so common senate let’s have a trial with witnesses and expose this mess!

 

You are probably unaware of exactly how demented this sounds to the average person.

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where else are they going to send it to? Are they waiting for the election in hope that they win the senate so they can send it to a body with an openly anti Trump leader?

 

One school of thought involves the Supreme Court. As it stands now, if a vacancy opened, Trump could nominate another conservative. If he is impeached, while he could still nominate, but it makes it more of an uphill battle than it is. 
 

As it stands now, depending how you interpret the wording there are two scenarios:

1. Trump is not impeached until the House sends it up

2. Trump is impeached and the matter is already before the Senate. 
 

 I believe Nancy and Mitch both know this, and neither have any interest in moving it forward. Nancy knows it either gets dismissed, or Trump gets acquitted in a “trial” the will likely damage the left. Mitch knows there is know way taking it up helps the President. 
 

But, if a Supreme Court nomination pops up, Nancy can make an argument to pull it back and reopen hearings, and Mitch can make an argument to take it up and dismiss. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are probably unaware of exactly how demented this sounds to the average person.

Average person NOT on the left. 
 

To a leftist it sounds perfectly reasonable. 

39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean that was the first day they were dealing with it? Before that nothing? Really? And what an amazing coincidence that right after the phone call with Zelensky aid gets put on hold. What in the transcript of the call would cause that action to be undertaken? What response of Zelensky's? Given Mulvaney's acknowledgement of a quid pro quo and the rapid hold put on the aid, your contention is obviously tendentious.  

The Democrat's  mendaciousness is the mother of other's apparent tendentiousness.

 

But until the Biden's unusual enrichment is fully explained, the dissimulatious impeachment matter is little more than deep state nothing burger.

 

21 minutes ago, rabas said:

The Democrat's  mendaciousness is the mother of other's apparent tendentiousness.

 

But until the Biden's unusual enrichment is fully explained, the whole impeachment matter is little more than deep state nothing burger.

I would love to hear Hunter explain what he did on a daily basis to add value.

21 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

I would love to hear Hunter explain what he did on a daily basis to add value.

What business is it of yours.

 

A private company can employ whoever it likes. Now if its an investigation into him you want then you only have Barr to blame for not doing it.

 

But its not relevant to the trump impeachment.

46 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are probably unaware of exactly how demented this sounds to the average person.

With all due respect trump on a Daly basis horrifies the majority of us Americans with his demented ramblings the majority of Americans want a trial with witnesses not a coverup as Mitch McConnell wants they don’t want a russan disinformation inspired clown show as Donald trump wants we want a trial of facts with relevant witnesses no more no less that isent demented that is normal it is what the vast majority of the electorate wants

10 minutes ago, Tug said:

With all due respect trump on a Daly basis horrifies the majority of us Americans with his demented ramblings the majority of Americans want a trial with witnesses not a coverup as Mitch McConnell wants they don’t want a russan disinformation inspired clown show as Donald trump wants we want a trial of facts with relevant witnesses no more no less that isent demented that is normal it is what the vast majority of the electorate wants

So why did the House not wait for these important witnesses? 
 

Why the rush? 

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So why did the House not wait for these important witnesses? 
 

Why the rush? 

Because it wasnt a trial. It was an investigation. They had enough to impeach. So at the trial stage the witnesses can be called.

30 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So why did the House not wait for these important witnesses? 
 

Why the rush? 

Impeachment means, indelible stain, indelible stain, indelible stain on Trump's presidency forever. So in Trump's case "the sooner,the better", All the money in the World will not rewrite the history books.

6 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Even Moore who called the Trump victory last time knows he is going to win again. One of his reasons is that he is on the ground in Michigan and sees the overwhelming support the president has in that state. I am on the ground between Pennsylvania and Ohio and can say I see the same thing on the ground here.

 

I don't think some of the people living in Thailand understand how strong the support is over here.

 

The Trump signs are beginning to line entire streets of towns now. MI PA OH = checkmate.

 

https://deadline.com/2019/12/michael-moore-donald-trump-2020-elections-trump-would-most-likely-win-1202818002/

What are you going to do when Texas surprisingly goes Democrat? 

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Even Moore who called the Trump victory last time knows he is going to win again. One of his reasons is that he is on the ground in Michigan and sees the overwhelming support the president has in that state. I am on the ground between Pennsylvania and Ohio and can say I see the same thing on the ground here.

 

I don't think some of the people living in Thailand understand how strong the support is over here.

 

The Trump signs are beginning to line entire streets of towns now. MI PA OH = checkmate.

 

https://deadline.com/2019/12/michael-moore-donald-trump-2020-elections-trump-would-most-likely-win-1202818002/

What Moore also said that Trump will win if the election was held today. He also said that he will lose more popular votes than 2016. In most democratic country, he will not be the President with no majority votes. 

28 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

What Moore also said that Trump will win if the election was held today. He also said that he will lose more popular votes than 2016. In most democratic country, he will not be the President with no majority votes. 

Yes, in the US we care about the rights of the majority, and historically have not subscribed to the “mob rule” mentality preferred in much of the world, but not to worry, if the left has their way we will. 

41 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

What Moore also said that Trump will win if the election was held today. He also said that he will lose more popular votes than 2016. In most democratic country, he will not be the President with no majority votes. 

To repeat once again, the United States of America are a democratic republic of 50 individual states each with its own government, Senate, House, courts, legal system, and taxation.  They chose to enter into the Union of United States (plural) of America voluntarily. Please go study republics and why they are formed.

 

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

To repeat once again, the United States of America are a democratic republic of 50 individual states each with its own government, Senate, House, courts, legal system, and taxation.  They chose to enter into the Union of United States (plural) of America voluntarily. Please go study republics and why they are formed.

 

Why modern American still cling on to an election method that is centuries old and based on the slavery issue. Anyway I can’t comment on your constitution but must say that majority support is the mainstay of democracy and people always respect a popular leader. 

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Why modern American still cling on to an election method that is centuries old and based on the slavery issue. Anyway I can’t comment on your constitution but must say that majority support is the mainstay of democracy and people always respect a popular leader. 

 

Please do not make up lies about our system of government. 

 

You claim you can’t comment on our Constitution after making a up a lie about it. Real classy. 
 

Where are you from? Let’s have a go at that.
 

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Please do not make up lies about our system of government. 

 

You claim you can’t comment on our Constitution after making a up a lie about it. Real classy. 
 

Where are you from? Let’s have a go at that.
 

I thought USA value freedom of speech. What happen since 2016. Has Trump changed all that in you. Like non tolerance of anything non Trumper. 

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought USA value freedom of speech. What happen since 2016. Has Trump changed all that in you. Like non tolerance of anything non Trumper. 

Free speech includes the clobbering you receive from others when you speak nonsense. That is one of the things that makes America great.

 

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

Free speech includes the clobbering you receive from others when you speak nonsense. That is one of the things that makes America great.

 

One man nonsense is another man freedom of speech. I do submit to you that clobbering opponents is Trump’s ace. He will even pay for the lawyer fees. 

2 hours ago, oby said:

hunter enriched the lives of hookers from NYC to kiev, and drug lords from Columbia to iran.

and as reported today, now pelosi's son is involved with the ukraine oil and gas industry... 

democrats, entering politics for the corruption and graft, oh and pilfering their campaign funds,

cue: AOC and ilhan omar and many others

2020 trump with a landslide, thanks to democrats for trump 555

No need to read Trump's tweets, their content will be found in this forum ASAP!