Reply With QuoteEarl (12-01-2019)
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anatta,
Anything Trump said while not under oath is only evidence of something Trump said, which we all know is highly suspect. Let him get sworn in. Then we will hold him to his word. If he is telling the truth, then that should be no problem.Originally Posted by anatta
And if he wants corroborating evidence, then we are going to have to hear from the key witnesses which have been prevented from testifying.
It is apparent that Trump fans do not want to get to the bottom of the story, do not want the truth, as much as they want to shield the President from accountability.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Rune (12-01-2019)
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
What is ridiculous is that Trump fans refuse to allow the evidence to be heard as they claim to know the truth.
That's not justice. That's not honesty. That's not the truth. That's just political protectionism.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Russian asset
Well, the only apparent ‘truth’ is democrats are still looking for evidence lol.
And it doesn’t help matters that they can’t decide whether it’s a QPQ or a bribe. Sending this to the Senate with nothing but opinions and presumptions is nothing short of madness for Democrats. Now Jabba the Nadler wants Trump to testify [read: play along with the Democrats fishing expedition] in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If I’m Trump my answer is...um, no thanks. Enough is enough. Democrats have been hounding this president literally since the day he sat down in the Oval Office.
And democrats need to consider the distinct possibility that is becoming more apparent, by the day, to everyone but the ‘Orange Man Bad’ crowd.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Earl (12-01-2019)
100% recycled karma
no way in the world Trump will or should testify.
Everything from Schiff stifling witnesses and questions from the Republicans screams this is a rigged game.
The evidence of Trump's phone call to Sond. can be entered without Trump's testimony.
It's up to cross to undermine that evidence.
Bottom of the story? are you kidding ? we HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT
Earl (12-01-2019)
Verified User
Impeachment is like winning, it's the only thing.
Mjölner
Nope.
Right after you.
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Russian asset
Well, I can tell you it’s not in there lol.
Now run along before your brain gets hurt.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anatta,
Nice cherry picking job.
Please explain why we should not hear from the Key Witnesses.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Insane Level of Addiction
Opinions and assumptions won’t cut it in the Senate but it will in the House.
House Democrats are willing to remove an elected president on opinions and assumptions.
Imagine that,
Darth Omar (12-01-2019)
Mjölner
Answer your lie you lying cunt.
You claimed executive privilege is in the Constitution.
Prove it you lying piece of shit.
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
Diversity Makes Greatness
Happy Sunday Darth,
The evidence President Trump is withholding, yes.
Here's how that works. If you believe Trump should be impeached and removed, as a majority do, then you agree that President Trump should testify. You would love that, because for once, he would be held to his word, something everybody understands he cannot do. If you support Trump, then you do not want him placed in that position because your afraid he'll fall into a 'perjury trap,' (meaning he has to consistently tell the same story, something few on either side believe the President is capable of.)
No, actually it has been the other way around. Trump took on the left from the beginning with a stream of nonstop insults. Respectful people on the right were abhorred by him, tried their best to reject him during the campaign, but the disrespectful side of the right was energized by his rhetoric. The disrespectful spiteful, hateful element of the right was highly motivated to vote, bringing out a record number of hateful voters who rarely or ever voted before. The respectful part of the right made a judgement call to just look the other way and let it happen, because they smelled profits and lots of them. The hateful vote, plus the greedy vote, plus the evangelical vote is what elected Trump in 2016. The greedy and the evangelicals just look the way about the hateful element of Trump fans. They have their priorities being met with Trump.
The President's critics are merely ordinary people who have been attacked by the President, or had their values attacked by this President, and they have rightly objected to that. And then Trump claims he's the one 'being attacked.' He is the one that stirred it all up in the first place!
He essentially says it's 'the disgusting left that's doing it,' so all his followers should hate on the left for being so mean to him. And, of course, to the hateful element of the right, this is a bonding moment. They feel exactly like the President does. It's like he's speaking for them! He's their guy. And that's how he gets them. He's got them hypnotized. It's a cult. All he has to do is send out the dog-whistle triggers in order to energize the hateful element of the right against any media sound byte he wants. They pounce on it like red meat to wolves.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Verified User
separation of powers, you idiot
Earl (12-01-2019)
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anatta,
So you only prefer to listen to Trump via twitter, rallies or interviews where he is not under oath? Obviously he has lots to say about it. He has tweeted up a storm about it. You're willing to pay attention to what he says when he's not sworn to tell the truth. Why are you so adamant that you don't think he should be sworn to tell you the truth Are you afraid of what might happen?
The reason Republicans are only saying the process is wrong and doing nothing about it is because it is not really wrong. If Democrats were violating Constitution or law, the Republicans could hold them accountable. But Republicans have no basis for that, so all they can do is complain. And it is sad that they have no basis to dispute the charges against the President, so they are reduced to arguing process. Seriously, if you are arguing process you have no case.
Rigged, yeah right, with highly credentialed impartial and professional witnesses who are loyal to the Constitution, not Trump? Who all painted parts of the same story, one after another? How is that rigged?
That's only in a trial. Impeachment hearings are not a trial. The hearings were more like an investigation building a case for an indictment. The trial comes later. Republican members of the Intelligence Committee should actually have been critical of the President if they wanted to do their duty to protect the Constitution, instead of taking a defense posture. Democratic members were acting in an official capacity, serving their oath to uphold the Constitution. Republican members acted very partisan, and were obviously dedicated to defending the President against any accusations. The hearings showed that. Democrats talked about the case, Republicans talked about the Democrats.
It is not a transcript, it is a memo. What was said is disputable. And it certainly doesn't tell the whole story. But it does strongly suggest guilt.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (12-01-2019)
Rune (12-01-2019)
Insane Level of Addiction
This president, elected by the people, will never be removed from office by Democrats who have been trying to do so since the first day of his presidency.
Never.
Verified User
[QUOTE=PoliTalker;3374138]
specious speculation on your part. Separation of powers means he doesn't have to ( not subservient to Congress) , and that's the basis for his executive privilege claims as wellSo you only prefer to listen to Trump via twitter, rallies or interviews where he is not under oath? Obviously he has lots to say about it. He has tweeted up a storm about it. You're willing to pay attention to what he says when he's not sworn to tell the truth. Why are you so adamant that you don't think he should be sworn to tell you the truth Are you afraid of what might happen?
Repubs can't hold Dems "accountable" for the procedure -where do you come uo wit this stuff? it's the Schiff show, soon to be the Nadler Narrative.The reason Republicans are only saying the process is wrong and doing nothing about it is because it is not really wrong. If Democrats were violating Constitution or law, the Republicans could hold them accountable. But Republicans have no basis for that, so all they can do is complain. And it is sad that they have no basis to dispute the charges against the President, so they are reduced to arguing process. Seriously, if you are arguing process you have no case.
The "arguing process" ( cross examination) is the "disputing the charges" -this is basic stuff why to you wander in your statements?
bureaucrats protect their turf -you saw that in all the testimony. Vindman was the worseRigged, yeah right, with highly credentialed impartial and professional witnesses who are loyal to the Constitution, not Trump? Who all painted parts of the same story, one after another? How is that rigged?
He got upset POTUS withheld funds to his beloved Ukraine. so he leaked to the WB ( my cojecture but it fits)
For all your puffery writings why don't you object to the CONSTANT leaking of a POTUS?
wrong. the Repubs disputed both the facts of a QPQ ,and the insane "bribery charges"That's only in a trial. Impeachment hearings are not a trial. The hearings were more like an investigation building a case for an indictment. The trial comes later. Republican members of the Intelligence Committee should actually have been critical of the President if they wanted to do their duty to protect the Constitution, instead of taking a defense posture. Democratic members were acting in an official capacity, serving their oath to uphold the Constitution. Republican members acted very partisan, and were obviously dedicated to defending the President against any accusations. The hearings showed that. Democrats talked about the case, Republicans talked about the Democrats.
it tells the story of the phone call, even the Vindman witness who wanted to edit it more agrees his edits would not change the facts of the callIt is not a transcript, it is a memo. What was said is disputable. And it certainly doesn't tell the whole story. But it does strongly suggest guilt.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks