Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

a reply to: toolgal462

The multiple whistleblowers for one, followed by the testimonies in the House Intelligence Committee hearings. Of which, not a single witness came forward and said what the administration did was 'right' or 'legal'.

The IC hearings were the fact-finding "did the president commit a crime" hearings.
Once established, the issue was sent to the Judiciary committee on what to do about the findings that the President committed a crime. This was Trump's chance to come forward and explain what happened and why it happened. Instead, the White House sent no witnesses or testimonies and instead complained about the IC findings.
Here we are now where the full House is about to impeach the President and the Senate has promised no witnesses will testify from either side.

I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like once the administration was accused of crimes they, essentially, pleaded 'no contest' and will let the Senate acquit them because politics.

a reply to: toolgal462

What we need is "Peace Officers", not Law "Enforcement". There's a difference. SD's comments are very refreshing because they are a real picture of what goes on. There is both good and bad. The good comes from officers who have the firm belief of being a 'peace officer', and the bad comes from the juiced up kids who got picked on, bent on being an 'enforcement' officer. Again, there is a big difference, and any true peace officer will tell you this.

The problem now is, the job is a thankless and relentless job responding low IQ perps who think they are entitled to rights they are not, so it attracts more head-thumper types than peace officers. Too many rules, leads to getting busted upside the head with a D-cell maglite and hooked up. So much easier that way.

I work with officers nearly every day, and I see both types. Some smile and talk, others don't and just look at everyone with contempt. I can usually cut through most of the bravado, but not always, some are really hardcore.

a reply to: links234

You

The multiple whistleblowers for one, followed by the testimonies in the House Intelligence Committee hearings. Of which, not a single witness came forward and said what the administration did was 'right' or 'legal'.

What law was broken as claimed by the whistleblowers? And what evidence was provided on what crime was committed to cancel out the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?

a reply to: neutronflux

Please don't confuse the poster. He still thinks anonymous "whistleblowers" with 2nd or 3rd hand gossip and hearsay is evidence of something.

It is evidence that the Democrats think their constituents are morons.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Sounds good to me, however these days that would be a dangerous and thankless job. Sad.

a reply to: links234
You are most certainly correct. This will be one for the history books. A history that revealed democratic leadership for the scum they are.
Another day of infamy.

a reply to: UKTruth

This is a letter from a lunatic. And whoever doesn't see it is blind.

The country is lost

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: UKTruth

This is a letter from a lunatic. And whoever doesn't see it is blind.

The country is lost

You forgot to post it.
pdf link will be fine.

Looks like the letter worked guys! 5d chess in the 4d!

Gabbard knows it's true

originally posted by: BlissSeeker
Gabbard knows it's true

If Gabbard had a spine she would have stood up, walked across the aisle, and left the Dems behind.

Instead ... she voted, "Pwesent." and sat down hoping she could keep her job ... sucking the blood out of us taxpayers.

%$#& her!!