Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for witness testimony but I would also understand if this thing is voted on quickly and dispatched based on the obvious lack of any criminal charges to begin with.

My question is, why do you think that the R's don't want witness testimony? Because of the long drawn out court battles that would ensue or something else?

If Graham is serious about getting the impeachment sham over with quickly, and then calling for an investigation of Joe Biden and what happened in Ukraine I think that would be the best option. If Graham will actually do something and isn't all talk.

The fact that the R's wont call witnesses in the impeachment trial only allows the Dems their talking point that the Senate is covering up Trumps crimes.

It's complicated for those of us who pay close attention, but Dems know that their base doesn't pay attention and will believe whatever sound bite they are fed by a complicit media. So why give them the chance to use that talking point?

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for witness testimony but I would also understand if this thing is voted on quickly and dispatched based on the obvious lack of any criminal charges to begin with.

My question is, why do you think that the R's don't want witness testimony? Because of the long drawn out court battles that would ensue or something else?

If Graham is serious about getting the impeachment sham over with quickly, and then calling for an investigation of Joe Biden and what happened in Ukraine I think that would be the best option. If Graham will actually do something and isn't all talk.

The fact that the R's wont call witnesses in the impeachment trial only allows the Dems their talking point that the Senate is covering up Trumps crimes.

It's complicated for those of us who pay close attention, but Dems know that their base doesn't pay attention and will believe whatever sound bite they are fed by a complicit media. So why give them the chance to use that talking point?

For the same reason you never answer when someone asks you, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Because it's a question with a forgone conclusion, whether truth or not, doesn't matter. What matters to them is resistance By Any Means Necessary.

In other words, to paraphrase from an old movie, Wargames, the only winning move is not to play the game.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for witness testimony but I would also understand if this thing is voted on quickly and dispatched based on the obvious lack of any criminal charges to begin with.

My question is, why do you think that the R's don't want witness testimony? Because of the long drawn out court battles that would ensue or something else?

If Graham is serious about getting the impeachment sham over with quickly, and then calling for an investigation of Joe Biden and what happened in Ukraine I think that would be the best option. If Graham will actually do something and isn't all talk.

The fact that the R's wont call witnesses in the impeachment trial only allows the Dems their talking point that the Senate is covering up Trumps crimes.

It's complicated for those of us who pay close attention, but Dems know that their base doesn't pay attention and will believe whatever sound bite they are fed by a complicit media. So why give them the chance to use that talking point?

For the same reason you never answer when someone asks you, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Because it's a question with a forgone conclusion, whether truth or not, doesn't matter. What matters to them is resistance By Any Means Necessary.

In other words, to paraphrase from an old movie, Wargames, the only winning move is not to play the game.

No, I'm talking about the R's in the Senate. Why don't they want to call witnesses? I get that both sides witnesses will claim EP or the 5th and make the entire crap show drag on in perpetuity if witnesses are called.....But how can calling witnesses harm Trump when he isn't even accused of any crimes that warrant removal from office?

Dems are such jerks pulling this crap.

eta: not suprised to see pierre delectos mug on tv today saying he wants to hear from Bolton.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for witness testimony but I would also understand if this thing is voted on quickly and dispatched based on the obvious lack of any criminal charges to begin with.

My question is, why do you think that the R's don't want witness testimony? Because of the long drawn out court battles that would ensue or something else?

If Graham is serious about getting the impeachment sham over with quickly, and then calling for an investigation of Joe Biden and what happened in Ukraine I think that would be the best option. If Graham will actually do something and isn't all talk.

The fact that the R's wont call witnesses in the impeachment trial only allows the Dems their talking point that the Senate is covering up Trumps crimes.

It's complicated for those of us who pay close attention, but Dems know that their base doesn't pay attention and will believe whatever sound bite they are fed by a complicit media. So why give them the chance to use that talking point?

For the same reason you never answer when someone asks you, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Because it's a question with a forgone conclusion, whether truth or not, doesn't matter. What matters to them is resistance By Any Means Necessary.

In other words, to paraphrase from an old movie, Wargames, the only winning move is not to play the game.

No, I'm talking about the R's in the Senate. Why don't they want to call witnesses? I get that both sides witnesses will claim EP or the 5th and make the entire crap show drag on in perpetuity if witnesses are called.....But how can calling witnesses harm Trump when he isn't even accused of any crimes that warrant removal from office?

Dems are such jerks pulling this crap.

eta: not suprised to see pierre delectos mug on tv today saying he wants to hear from Bolton.

My post answers that question. Think about it...why play their game when you know it is rigged and you cannot win because they will lie, cheat, steal, or do anything to resist. What positive will come of that when they have the media in their pocket to control the flow of information to the voters?

Now, go read my post again.

a reply to: toolgal462

Pretty much what Krakatoa said. I just found out recently (might have been a link in this thread) that the call transcript was moved to a classified server specifically over fears that Democrat operatives would hack in and change it. And to be honest, given the way some of them lie through their teeth, I wouldn't put it past them to try.

But I actually agree with you, on one caveat: if witnesses are called all witnesses are called! Bolton, Mulvaney, Parnas, but also the whistleblower, Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden... heck, I wounder if Zelensky would testify? He can't be forced to, but he might be willing to. The same goes for Yuriy Lutsenko, and possibly Viktor Shokin (that one would likely have to be by remote link after the mercury poisoning). Let's get Marie Yovanovitch on the stand, under penalty of perjury answering the defense's questions. Guiliani... let him present all his evidence! That took 4 hours when OAN did a documentary and he said he had more. Let's call that idiot with the open phone recording, Igor Furman was it? Why did he decide to release that now? Why did he hold on to that recording for so long? Was he planning to release it all along at the opportune time? How about the people at PBS that he released it to? Are they conspiring with the prosecution?

Let's open this Pandora's box and let some chips actually start to fall. I'm good with that. The one thing I am not good with is when the Democrats start saying they want witnesses, but only theirs. Nope, not how we do it in the USA. It's all the witnesses or none. Anything less is a travesty of justice.

Fireworks start in a couple of minutes...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Listening to the first few sentences from Sekulov I already know the majority of the Left is not capable of understanding.

and you can forget about the Left being able to follow along with Starr. LOL

Dems know that all they need to do to rile up their base is repeat over and over, "IMPEACH ORANGE MAN ORANGE MAN BAD"

Kinda like Maxine Waters does.

LOL is anyone still awake?

I need a gallon of water to wash down this dry legal lecture provided by Ken Starr.

It's almost comical.

originally posted by: toolgal462
LOL is anyone still awake?

I need a gallon of water to wash down this dry legal lecture provided by Ken Starr.

It's almost comical.

Some great facts being put forward now... the real corruption reasoning is coming out.

Ken Starr did an awesome job at showing why this impeachment defies the Constitution and how the House went about this is unprecedented. Dense legal history, but all factual and relevant.

Popcorn is cooking... getting ready...

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: toolgal462
LOL is anyone still awake?

I need a gallon of water to wash down this dry legal lecture provided by Ken Starr.

It's almost comical.

Some great facts being put forward now... the real corruption reasoning is coming out.

Ken Starr did an awesome job at showing why this impeachment defies the Constitution and how the House went about this is unprecedented. Dense legal history, but all factual and relevant.

Popcorn is cooking... getting ready...

~Namaste

Agree with you and it all needed to be said but if I had a hard time following, imagine what some of our more Left leaning members got out of it?

anything more complicated than "ORANGE MAN BAD" goes right over their heads.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: toolgal462
LOL is anyone still awake?

I need a gallon of water to wash down this dry legal lecture provided by Ken Starr.

It's almost comical.

Some great facts being put forward now... the real corruption reasoning is coming out.

Ken Starr did an awesome job at showing why this impeachment defies the Constitution and how the House went about this is unprecedented. Dense legal history, but all factual and relevant.

Popcorn is cooking... getting ready...

~Namaste

Ken Starr's basic message was that impeachment has been weaponized, and this is not how it was suppose to be.

Actually, impeachment was weaponized even as far back as Andrew Johnson. The law he was impeached for breaking said that the president couldn't fire any cabinet secretaries without congressional approval. The law was flagrantly unconstitutional, and was passed specifically to create grounds to impeach Johnson. His cabinet secretaries were all holdovers from Lincoln, and he hated pretty much all of them.

a reply to: toolgal462

We're not the only audience, Supreme Court Justice Roberts is overseeing the whole deal, what you witnessed is top tier lawyers laying out defence at a caliber we are not use to seeing, it comes off boring and mindnumbing, but these people have dwelled deep into the sources and cites and are purely talking in language designed for this system.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: toolgal462

We're not the only audience, Supreme Court Justice Roberts is overseeing the whole deal, what you witnessed is top tier lawyers laying out defence at a caliber we are not use to seeing, it comes off boring and mindnumbing, but these people have dwelled deep into the sources and cites and are purely talking in language designed for this system.

I know, I get it. Starr definitely wasn't playing to the Dems. Leave the Dems with idiots like Schiffty repeating over and over again that Trump is guilty. That's what Dems understand.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: toolgal462
LOL is anyone still awake?

I need a gallon of water to wash down this dry legal lecture provided by Ken Starr.

It's almost comical.

Some great facts being put forward now... the real corruption reasoning is coming out.

Ken Starr did an awesome job at showing why this impeachment defies the Constitution and how the House went about this is unprecedented. Dense legal history, but all factual and relevant.

Popcorn is cooking... getting ready...

~Namaste

Ken Starr's basic message was that impeachment has been weaponized, and this is not how it was suppose to be.

Actually, impeachment was weaponized even as far back as Andrew Johnson. The law he was impeached for breaking said that the president couldn't fire any cabinet secretaries without congressional approval. The law was flagrantly unconstitutional, and was passed specifically to create grounds to impeach Johnson. His cabinet secretaries were all holdovers from Lincoln, and he hated pretty much all of them.

Exactly.

Purpura just destroyed the White House meeting being used as a quid pro quo. He just showed that there was 3 different invitations to Zelensky to come to the White House, long before anything had been discussed around aid and investigations.

And how there was always a meeting for 9/1 to meet in Warsaw before the 7/25 call, but Trump had to decline because of the hurricane and had Pence meet instead, and Trump met on 9/25 at the next available date at the UN meeting.

The House ignored all of this, and I'm sure they were aware of it... which means, they ignored it and left it out on purpose, so what was the intent? To find the truth, which is what was just mentioned, or to press forward with an impeachment even though they knew he had the meeting pre-scheduled prior to the 7/25 call?

Great stuff here. They are using the House's own witnesses and their testimony.

~Namaste

Wow! Purpura knocked out that first article on Abuse of power as rediculous! I can't imagine how regular voters...not politicians cannot see the truth. Love that the Defense is using their own retrieve testimonies from the House. No need for gotchas from anyone who had not testified.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Purpura just destroyed the White House meeting being used as a quid pro quo. He just showed that there was 3 different invitations to Zelensky to come to the White House, long before anything had been discussed around aid and investigations.

And how there was always a meeting for 9/1 to meet in Warsaw before the 7/25 call, but Trump had to decline because of the hurricane and had Pence meet instead, and Trump met on 9/25 at the next available date at the UN meeting.

interesting information left out until now........
3 invitations to visit the white house? who knew???

the dems lack

Raskin killin' it!

originally posted by: toolgal462
Raskin killin' it!

looks like it
www.foxnews.com...

Raskin reminds senators that Democrats never invited Rudy Giuliani to testify as part of the House impeachment inquiry.

reminding them of their shortcomings in the house portion highlights the farce

These lawyers are absolutely shredding the Democrat process and case.

originally posted by: UKTruth
These lawyers are absolutely shredding the Democrat process and case.

None of that matters cuz now they got BOLTON to harp on.