3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Go and attack what you disagree with. Typical.

Attack?  No.  Observation of your unwillingness to refute what you claim is false in my post.

 

Now you want sources for something else?  It's a one-way street with you.

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

He said he wanted witnesses before, what does that have to do with anything?

I hope Giuliani testify's. I would pay for that to happen. 

12 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

If that was the case, you could easily refute each part of it with what you consider to be the facts of the matter. 

I understand you may be disappointed that no one really replies to your long post, but you come a bit too late into this debate. All your arguments have been debunked over and over in previous threads. 

Edited January 10, 20206 yr by candide

1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:

Attack?  No.  Observation of your unwillingness to refute what you claim is false in my post.

 

Now you want sources for something else?  It's a one-way street with you.

You are confusing yourself with Alternate facts

Just now, candide said:

I understand you may be disappointed that no one really answers your long post, but you come a bit too late into this debate. All your arguments have been debunked over and over in previous threads. 

Well said TY

A post containing profane language and the replies have been removed. 

 

Posts containing unattributed content have been removed. 

What exactly has Congress done for the American people the past year? NOTHING!! This impeachment <deleted> is all about them and their insatiable hunger to gain back power. The voters know that so goodbye to the Democratic party. It's not the same party that many of us grew up with. Tip O'Neill is turning in his grave over this bunch of clowns. 

3 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

What exactly has Congress done for the American people the past year? NOTHING!! This impeachment <deleted> is all about them and their insatiable hunger to gain back power. The voters know that so goodbye to the Democratic party. It's not the same party that many of us grew up with. Tip O'Neill is turning in his grave over this bunch of clowns. 

House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.
Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.
Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

How have any of them helped Americans? 
 

I’d rather have the judges than anything Nancy might want to push through. 

2 hours ago, candide said:

I understand you may be disappointed that no one really replies to your long post, but you come a bit too late into this debate. All your arguments have been debunked over and over in previous threads. 

Disappointed?  I couldn't care less. 555

What I posted is factual.  All of it.  You and others can imagine it was "debunked," but that doesn't make it so.

Edited January 10, 20206 yr by Ricohoc

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

How have any of them helped Americans? 
 

I’d rather have the judges than anything Nancy might want to push through. 

Agree.

 

Nancy's bills are in the trash because they are trash.  More wild-eyed socialist efforts that she knew wouldn't even hit the floor of the Senate.

 

As for judges, Trump could have as many as 300 on the bench before the end of just this term, and I look forward to the continued nomination and confirmation of Originalist judges. 

2 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Testimony was from recorded witnesses

well the house had that here too didnt they? So why are the rules different?

3 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Disappointed?  I couldn't care less. 555

What I posted is factual.  All of it.  You and others can imagine it was "debunked," but that doesn't make it so.

Facts from Trump's tweets. ????

Troll posts removed.  

 

8 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Agree.

 

Nancy's bills are in the trash because they are trash.  More wild-eyed socialist efforts that she knew wouldn't even hit the floor of the Senate.

 

As for judges, Trump could have as many as 300 on the bench before the end of just this term, and I look forward to the continued nomination and confirmation of Originalist judges. 

And yet many are bipartisan. Judgrs are a deflection and not what was asked.

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And yet many are bipartisan. Judgrs are a deflection and not what was asked.

Originalists are by definition bipartisan. 
 

Someone else (BB?) claimed all the Senate was doing was confirming judges, so blame whoever bright it up for the deflection. 
 

Passing bills that go nowhere is a waste of time, not something to be proud of.

10 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

What exactly has Congress done for the American people the past year? NOTHING!! This impeachment <deleted> is all about them and their insatiable hunger to gain back power. The voters know that so goodbye to the Democratic party. It's not the same party that many of us grew up with. Tip O'Neill is turning in his grave over this bunch of clowns. 

Mitch has over 300 bills he is holding on to and 90% bipartisan.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475346-democratic-senators-tweet-photos-of-pile-of-house-passed-bills-dead-on-mitch

8 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Mitch has over 300 bills he is holding on to and 90% bipartisan.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475346-democratic-senators-tweet-photos-of-pile-of-house-passed-bills-dead-on-mitch

He's busy with more important things like getting Trump's judges in place. Those other unimportant bills can wait as they will have far less positive impact on the US. All the new judiciary will be Trumps legacy. 

29 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

He's busy with more important things like getting Trump's judges in place. Those other unimportant bills can wait as they will have far less positive impact on the US. All the new judiciary will be Trumps legacy. 

In other words, your claim that the House Democrats were not doing legislating is BS.

48 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

He's busy with more important things like getting Trump's judges in place. Those other unimportant bills can wait as they will have far less positive impact on the US. All the new judiciary will be Trumps legacy. 

trump was well short of a majority of voters. trump does not have a remit to reshape the Courts for years to along ultra conservative partisan lines. 

 

trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

trump was well short of a majority of voters. trump does not have a remit to reshape the Courts for years to along ultra conservative partisan lines. 

 

trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA

As a response to your trolling post I would note the following undisputed facts:

 

The USA operates on a Electoral system.

He won.

Elections have consequences (B. Obama)

You cannot point to one verifiable fact to show hes unfit.

On 1/10/2020 at 5:50 AM, Tug said:

Well of course there should be witnesses but I’m sure old Mitch McConnell will fight tooth and nail to prevent it because truth and facts are trumps worst enemies and the gop are wed to trumps fate 

The House Democrats didn't allow the Republican side of the House to call any witnesses. Why should the Republican Senate allow it then?

20 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

The question will continue to be asked.  Witnesses to what exactly?  Feelings?  Presumptions? A different foreign policy agenda that upsets some bureaucrat? 

 

There won't be any hearsay witnesses (like in the House), and I'm betting there will be no witnesses at all -- except maybe the only real witness: Sondland; and he's a better witness FOR Trump.  Sondland already testified that Trump told him directly that he wanted nothing in return for aid to Ukraine.

 

The only thing for Democrats to hope at this point is that their drumbeat damages Trump in the election; but they're losing in that strategy, too.  Trump has probably gained more support over three years than he had when elected, and that support is going to come from many different demographics.

It will be good to see the Republicans retake the House. Doesn't seem to be anything the Democrats can do to stop it. It must be killing them that Trump didn't start a war with Iran.

16 hours ago, Sujo said:

No. The congress investigates and charges. It was not a trial.

Very easy for trump to have this finished since day 1. Allow his witnesses to the perfect call give evidence.

 

Ask yourself why he does not want direct witnesses to testify and clear him.

Doesn't need them. 

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

The House Democrats didn't allow the Republican side of the House to call any witnesses. Why should the Republican Senate allow it then?

Name 1 witness relevant to the investigation the dems refused to call.

 

Better yet, name 1 witness the whitehouse allowed to give evidence.

 

You do know the difference between an investigation and a trial dont you?

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Name 1 witness relevant to the investigation the dems refused to call.

 

Better yet, name 1 witness the whitehouse allowed to give evidence.

 

You do know the difference between an investigation and a trial dont you?

 House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, the anonymous whistleblower and anyone the whistleblower relied on to prepare the complaint alleging Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine.

Edited January 11, 20206 yr by Longcut

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

Doesn't need them. 

Then if he wont have witnesses to clear him he can stop crying about the process.

 

It could have been over on day 1. But its dragged on because of his obstruction. So he can stop complaining about it.

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

Joe Biden

Relevant how?

Did trump call him and ask him to investigate himself. Was he in on the calls. Was he in on the meetings?

 

The investigation is about what trump did. So anyone witness to that is relevant.

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Then if he wont have witnesses to clear him he can stop crying about the process.

 

It could have been over on day 1. But its dragged on because of his obstruction. So he can stop complaining about it.

I must clarify. He doesn't need them for the Senate trial. He will be cleared by the Senate. 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Relevant how?

Did trump call him and ask him to investigate himself. Was he in on the calls. Was he in on the meetings?

 

The investigation is about what trump did. So anyone witness to that is relevant.

Really? Then why was he not allowed to call the so-called Whistleblower?