The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, Nanker said:

And lest we forget, the worst anti-Semite ever. 

 

And extortionist

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

56 minutes ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

If they refuse to allow witnesses then it is all a He said She said and everyone loses. 

Not at all. The House stacked the deck, played their hand and here we are. If the evidence fails to convince the number of senators required, it speaks for itself.

 

Everyone has already lost in some respects.  Between Mueller, Kavanaugh and the like, those who voted for Trump have lost nearly 4 years to investigations that go nowhere.  Our votes were impacted, the agenda for the admin certainly impacted, and who knows what might have been accomplished if not for the distractions of a tyrannical DOJ investigation.  The libs have lost as they were lead around by your noses with one fake scandal after another.   And we as citizens lose because the roadmap has been established--call your opponent treasonous, utilize the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA,  and the IRS (obviously) to destroy your rival.  

 

Here's hoping the Rs have the intestinal fortitude to see it through and tell the dems "Get the heck outta here!"  on the witness issue. 

[IDBillzFan]

20 minutes ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

He's had 3 years to FIX the system and drain the swamp.

 

Yet the swamp is murkier than ever.  

 

You know what's funny? In the three years Trump has been president, the list of things the Dems have done to help this country can be written down on a piece of paper, crumbled up and comfortably shoved up the ass of a gnat.

 

But in that time, Trump has not only put two conservatives on SCOTUS, he's packing the courts from CA to NY with more conservatives that you even believed existed. Unemployment is ridiculous. POC are earning more and have more opportunities than they have EVER had. Business climate is incredible. Welfare rolls are dropping. People on average are earning more. The bad countries fear us and the chickenschitt countries are pooping their diapers.

 

All of that...all of it... in the face of deceitful opposition that is firmly based on one very, very, very simple truth: Hillary lost.

 

So we get it. It absolutely SUCKS to be an I'm-really-not-a-liberal these days. Party hasn't been this embarrassing in years. So we don't blame you for joining the #orangemanbad parade. What else are you left to do? Think for yourself? 

 

 

 

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

If they refuse to allow witnesses then it is all a He said She said and everyone loses. 

 

Please tell us when a fact witness has ever been questioned for the first time in the Senate phase of an impeachment.

 

I'll wait.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

He's brought us to the brink of war numerous times. He flaunts the laws set forth by the constitution and 

He has lies every day. 

 

Just like when Clinton lied about getting serviced. 

 

"To the brink of war" is impeachable?

What about the Presidents who actually got us into wars?

 

"Lies every day" is impeachable?

Clinton wasn't convicted, and he committed perjury.

 

"flaunts laws set forth in the Constitution?

I don't know what this is.  Do you have any specific examples?

 

 

[Tiberius]

57 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Wrong.

I see both sides as self-serving power grabbers.

You see one side as virtuous and the other side as perpetually wrong.  That's a hell of a way for you to go through life.

 

Oh, so I should just ignore my sides wrongs and say, well, both sides are to blame, so who cares. 

 

Fact: The Dems are no where near as bad as Trump, and everyone knows it. He is a big outliner. But, both sides must be equal! 

[Bob in Mich]

9 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Bob again, kudos for admitting you were wrong on extortion. admitting being wrong can be difficult, if you have a lot invested in being right.

 

i want to know the Ukraine truth and am on record for wanting them to call all the witnesses, lets put an end to the charade once and for all. however, that is not going to happen in a Senate Impeachment Trial, it just isn't. additionally, i don't think you would like the way the information points when it does come out. 

 

i happen to believe that the President sets policy, not lifelong appointed bureaucrats. thankfully, the Constitution agrees with me. additionally here, the President is responsible for investigating crime. if there was criminal activity in the Ukraine, as a whole lot of evidence seems to indicate, then the President would be derelict in his duty not to try and investigate it. being a political candidate for public office is not protection from suspicion, nor should it be.

 

it has nothing to do with closing ones eyes and ears to information, after all we all know the House Democrats are going to continue to investigate Trump, have have plainly said so. more, what it is about, is the rule of law and following precedent. never before have 'new' witnesses been introduced to the Presidential Impeachment in the Senate. precedent has always been that the House does the investigative work and presents it to the Senate for trial. yes, during the Clinton impeachment they brought forward witnesses that had already testified to the special investigator but there were no new witnesses.

 

Look, I appreciate the reasoned reply without the constant jabs.  Sort of refreshing.  Thanks.  BTW, I am signing out soon...Sabres game.

 

Yes, let the truth come out.  Call relevant witnesses and find out the truth.  I am near certain that in the end, regardless of what comes out, the Senate will not convict.  At the very least if there is wrongdoing proven though, let's at least agree on what was wrong and how to prevent future wrongdoing.  I think a believable position for the President's actions can be fashioned and it has been, just as you stated.  I just think people should be concerned as to how closely that position is to the actual truth.  

 

I maintain that Republican Senators are looking for a way to acquit without hearing any more evidence.  The precedent thing is just another excuse imo and really should be secondary to discovering what happened.   They have a witness that knows things that has volunteered to testify to the Senate. 

 

They loved Dershowitz' testimony because they now can claim they believe his take, after all he is a constitutional expert, eh?  Is he even speaking his own truth?  The guy has no problem coloring his opinions in order to stay in the limelight in my opinion, so I don't know.  I do know that his take is just one take and I have heard several other experts that disagree with Alan's take.

 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

Wrong.

I see both sides as self-serving power grabbers.

You see one side as virtuous and the other side as perpetually wrong.  That's a hell of a way for you to go through life.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh, so I should just ignore my sides wrongs and say, well, both sides are to blame, so who cares. 

 

Fact: The Dems are no where near as bad as Trump, and everyone knows it. He is a big outliner. But, both sides must be equal! 

 

 

See, here's where you prove my point. Thank you.

 

And by the way, I never mentioned Trump. I really wasn't referring to Trump at all. You have a sick obsession about him.

 

 

 

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, I appreciate the reasoned reply without the constant jabs.  Sort of refreshing.  Thanks.  BTW, I am signing out soon...Sabres game.

 

Yes, let the truth come out.  Call relevant witnesses and find out the truth.  I am near certain that in the end, regardless of what comes out, the Senate will not convict.  At the very least if there is wrongdoing proven though, let's at least agree on what was wrong and how to prevent future wrongdoing.  I think a believable position for the President's actions can be fashioned and it has been, just as you stated.  I just think people should be concerned as to how closely that position is to the actual truth.  

 

I maintain that Republican Senators are looking for a way to acquit without hearing any more evidence.  The precedent thing is just another excuse imo and really should be secondary to discovering what happened.   They have a witness that knows things that has volunteered to testify to the Senate. 

 

They loved Dershowitz' testimony because they now can claim they believe his take, after all he is a constitutional expert, eh?  Is he even speaking his own truth?  The guy has no problem coloring his opinions in order to stay in the limelight in my opinion, so I don't know.  I do know that his take is just one take and I have heard several other experts that disagree with Alan's take.

 

the main objective of this impeachment is not Trump's removal, it never was. this is all about the 15 Republican Senators up for election this November. the Dems want sound bytes and to be able to claim moral superiority (which in and of itself is a joke (but their electorate is low information so...)), in the campaigns.

 

additionally, just so we are clear here ... if you're being an idiot, i reserve the right to call you out on being one. extortion really does require one to be aware they are being coerced. 

 

i wasn't trying to be difficult. i explained my position and i didn't and still don't think it much of an ask to look into the timeline of the Kavanaugh confirmation. what you see with Bolton is right out of that playbook. it would not surprise me terribly if we see one or two more of these surprises before it is all said and done. that is just how the Dems operate.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Foxx

[ALF]

Ex-WH chief of staff Kelly says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation

 

Washington (CNN)Former White House chief of staff John Kelly says he believes John Bolton's allegation that President Donald Trump told the former national security adviser that US security aid to Ukraine was conditioned on an investigation of the President's political rivals, adding that Bolton should be heard from.

 

"If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton," Kelly said Monday night when asked about the leaked draft manuscript during remarks at the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series, according to the Herald Tribune of Sarasota, Florida.

Kelly said Bolton "always gave the president the unvarnished truth" and is a "man of integrity and great character."

"I mean, half of Americans think this process is purely political and shouldn't be happening, but since it is happening, the majority of Americans would like to hear the whole story," Kelly said.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/john-kelly-believes-john-bolton/index.html

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

 

See, here's where you prove my point. Thank you.

 

And by the way, I never mentioned Trump. I really wasn't referring to Trump at all. You have a sick obsession about him.

 

 

 

Lol, ya sure. I mentioned him. And I’m right. Nice dodge, tool 

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the main objective of this impeachment is not Trump's removal, it never was. this is all about the 15 Republican Senators up for election this November. the Dems want sound bytes and to be able to claim moral superiority (which in and of itself is a joke (but their electorate is low information so...)), in the campaigns.

Are you saying it’s wrong to let the people speak on this matter? 

[Gavin in Va Beach]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Like Bob is... 

 

He's just too high to understand the difference. 

 

Impeachment charges?!? Everything the Democrats do rely on opinions and feelings. 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

... Are you saying it’s wrong to let the people speak on this matter? 

hahahahahahahahaaaaa

Edited January 28, 2020 by Foxx

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, I appreciate the reasoned reply without the constant jabs.  Sort of refreshing.  Thanks.  BTW, I am signing out soon...Sabres game.

 

Yes, let the truth come out.  Call relevant witnesses and find out the truth.  I am near certain that in the end, regardless of what comes out, the Senate will not convict.  At the very least if there is wrongdoing proven though, let's at least agree on what was wrong and how to prevent future wrongdoing.  I think a believable position for the President's actions can be fashioned and it has been, just as you stated.  I just think people should be concerned as to how closely that position is to the actual truth.  

 

I maintain that Republican Senators are looking for a way to acquit without hearing any more evidence.  The precedent thing is just another excuse imo and really should be secondary to discovering what happened.   They have a witness that knows things that has volunteered to testify to the Senate. 

 

They loved Dershowitz' testimony because they now can claim they believe his take, after all he is a constitutional expert, eh?  Is he even speaking his own truth?  The guy has no problem coloring his opinions in order to stay in the limelight in my opinion, so I don't know.  I do know that his take is just one take and I have heard several other experts that disagree with Alan's take.

 

Enjoy the game! Go Sabres! 

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, ALF said:

Ex-WH chief of staff Kelly says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation

 

Washington (CNN)Former White House chief of staff John Kelly says he believes John Bolton's allegation that President Donald Trump told the former national security adviser that US security aid to Ukraine was conditioned on an investigation of the President's political rivals, adding that Bolton should be heard from.

 

"If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton," Kelly said Monday night when asked about the leaked draft manuscript during remarks at the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series, according to the Herald Tribune of Sarasota, Florida.

Kelly said Bolton "always gave the president the unvarnished truth" and is a "man of integrity and great character."

"I mean, half of Americans think this process is purely political and shouldn't be happening, but since it is happening, the majority of Americans would like to hear the whole story," Kelly said.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/john-kelly-believes-john-bolton/index.html

 

 

Alf, I like when you participate, but please stop with people who don't know ***** about what happened.

This has been going on for months now.  Every one of the House witnesses speculated about this. Now Kelly.  Great.  Thanks Alf.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

Impeachment charges?!? Everything the Democrats do rely on opinions and feelings. 

You vote? Talk about low information voters! 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the main objective of this impeachment is not Trump's removal, it never was. this is all about the 15 Republican Senators up for election this November. the Dems want sound bytes and to be able to claim moral superiority (which in and of itself is a joke (but their electorate is low information so...)), in the campaigns.

 

I think it is primarily about Trump's attempt to illegally impact the election.  He keeps doing this same type of thing.  Certainly post Mueller he has to be aware that soliciting foreign interference is illegal.  That type of interference cannot continue to occur.

 

As far as the moral superiority with respect to the Senators, well, if the shoe fits....   They should search for the truth and THEN decide whether or not it is impeachable.  It appears to me that many Repub senators simply want to cover for Trump. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, snafu said:

 

 

Alf, I like when you participate, but please stop with people who don't know ***** about what happened.

This has been going on for months now.  Every one of the House witnesses speculated about this. Now Kelly.  Great.  Thanks Alf.

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying the eye witnesses were just speculating? Gordon Sonlond was part of the extortion and admitted it. 

 

Are you lying or just misinformed? 

[Nanker]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

Ex-WH chief of staff Kelly says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation

 

Washington (CNN)Former White House chief of staff John Kelly says he believes John Bolton's allegation that President Donald Trump told the former national security adviser that US security aid to Ukraine was conditioned on an investigation of the President's political rivals, adding that Bolton should be heard from.

 

"If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton," Kelly said Monday night when asked about the leaked draft manuscript during remarks at the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series, according to the Herald Tribune of Sarasota, Florida.

Kelly said Bolton "always gave the president the unvarnished truth" and is a "man of integrity and great character."

"I mean, half of Americans think this process is purely political and shouldn't be happening, but since it is happening, the majority of Americans would like to hear the whole story," Kelly said.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/john-kelly-believes-john-bolton/index.html

I’ve got a new avatar for you Alf:

 

Ooh! Ooh!

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I think it is primarily about Trump's attempt to illegally impact the election.  He keeps doing this same type of thing.  Certainly post Mueller he has to be aware that soliciting foreign interference is illegal.  That type of interference cannot continue to occur.

 

As far as the moral superiority with respect to the Senators, well, if the shoe fits....   They should search for the truth and THEN decide whether or not it is impeachable.  It appears to me that many Repub senators simply want to cover for Trump. 

except that it is not illegal to ask the Ukraine to investigate. you see, we have a treaty with them.  Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Foxx

[Nanker]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

except that it is not illegal to ask the Ukraine to investigate. you see, we have a treaty with them.  Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex

 

 

Yeah, sure... but shaddup, Orangeman BAD!!!

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I think it is primarily about Trump's attempt to illegally impact the election.  He keeps doing this same type of thing.  Certainly post Mueller he has to be aware that soliciting foreign interference is illegal.  That type of interference cannot continue to occur.

 

As far as the moral superiority with respect to the Senators, well, if the shoe fits....   They should search for the truth and THEN decide whether or not it is impeachable.  It appears to me that many Repub senators simply want to cover for Trump. 

additionally here, to your last paragraph.

 

you simply cannot impeach the president on the low standard the Dems are attempting to set. if you do, every time the House is held by the opposite party in the Executive, welcome to impeachment land. we are where we are today because everything that has brought us to this point has been the doings of a partisan witch hunt. not one Republican, at any point, has voted to go along with the Democrats. not one.

 

unplug from the matrix, Bob. you have been had for the better part of four years now. actually much longer, but for this latest iteration, four years.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Foxx

[snafu]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are saying the eye witnesses were just speculating? Gordon Sonlond was part of the extortion and admitted it. 

 

Are you lying or just misinformed? 

 

I watched the White House Counsel play a clip of Sondland's testimony this past Saturday.  Sondland said over and over and over that it was his own speculation about what Trump wanted. It was a great summary.  I heard Sondland's testimony live when he was in the House hearing.

 

I'm not lying and I'm not misinformed.

 

I'm done with replying to you.

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

I watched the White House Counsel play a clip of Sondland's testimony this past Saturday.  Sondland said over and over and over that it was his own speculation about what Trump wanted. It was a great summary.  I heard Sondland's testimony live when he was in the House hearing.

 

I'm not lying and I'm not misinformed.

 

I'm done with replying to you.

 

he'll run you raged in circles if you let him.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I watched the White House Counsel play a clip of Sondland's testimony this past Saturday.  Sondland said over and over and over that it was his own speculation about what Trump wanted. It was a great summary.  I heard Sondland's testimony live when he was in the House hearing.

 

I'm not lying and I'm not misinformed.

 

I'm done with replying to you.

 

 

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

he'll run you raged in circles if you let him.

It’s so easy when you have the truth on your side. Seriously 

[snafu]

Just now, Foxx said:

he'll run you raged in circles if you let him.

 

He will. And at the same time he sadly exposes what a partisan shill he is.

I try to keep it brief.

 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

He will. And at the same time he sadly exposes what a partisan shill he is.

I try to keep it brief.

 

 

He gave me too many headaches so he went on the list:

 

[Tiberius]

Truth is your kryptonite 

[Nanker]

You’re an amoral sociopath. 

[RochesterRob]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Truth is your kryptonite 

  Wrong franchise when discussing you.  More like 1960's Batman for you.  C-list villain like the Puzzler, Archer, or Lord Fogg best describes you.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

26 minutes ago, Nanker said:

You’re an amoral sociopath. 

 

 

safe to assume he doesn't make your 2020 Christmas list?....just askin'...............

[Deranged Rhino]

Catching up on the thread... 

 

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

He's brought us to the brink of war numerous times. He flaunts the laws set forth by the constitution and 

 

You know I have nothing against you, Shady. I don't mind your bomb throwing, not sure why but it cracks me up. This is an attempt to be serious though, because what you raise is a very important point. Trump, unlike presidents of past, pulled us from the brink of war, he did not bring us to it. The establishment brought us to the brink, and praised Trump lavishly when he fired missiles into Syria and toed the neocon/neoliberal line on war. 

 

He literally ran on the opposite plank. He ran on getting us out of endless wars, of stopping regime change -- that's a huge threat to a major revenue stream for countless groups with enormous power. From the Military Industrial complex and contractors, to the Intelligence industrial complex (globally), to sitting members of Congress and the Senate itself. 

 

This is why he's been attacked from day one by all of those groups, using psy-op weapons on the American population during that fight. You've got the situation completely backwards on that point. The one thing you cannot accuse Trump of being is a war monger. He's had to bend over backwards to avoid the traps set by people in the Pentagon, Langley, and capital cities across the globe which were designed to bring us into war. 

 

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

Jesus man. Don had told all "his people" to ignore all the subpoenas and not show up - That alone is obstruction

 

I guarantee if a Democrat were pulling this shite all of your heads would have exploded 

 

It's not obstruction to take the spat between branches to the third branch, the courts. To imply that it is obstruction is incredibly dangerous to the long term viability of our republic. (Which is why Schiff and Pelosi and Schumer are pushing that talking point so hard). 

 

We have three branches of government for this explicit purpose. Throw your bombs all you want, but at least understand that what you're advocating for is a complete undoing of the republic and the constitution itself. Don't let your emotions get the better of you and make you abandon common sense. 

 

 

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

Are bombs falling on US sites from Iran?  

Are American soldiers getting injured from said bombings? 

 

Lil Kim is still flaunting his tiny rockets. 

 

He's had 3 years to FIX the system and drain the swamp.

 

Yet the swamp is murkier than ever.  

 

 

See the post above re: soldiers. No president in recent memory has done more to protect, support, and defend the troops. He's the first president who hasn't sent them into harms way to fill the coffers of the MiC. Obama can't say that. Bush can't say that. Clinton can't say that. HW Bush can't say that. Reagan can't say that... 

 

As for the fixing the swamp in three years -- well, that's just missing the forest through the trees. How many senators and congressmen retired post 2016? Over 45. How many major CEOs of important companies stepped down since 2017? It's in the 1000s now. We've seen major bad guys, and more importantly their financing networks, get taken off the board starting in November of 2017 with the KSA purge. 

 

Plus, you know, there's this: 

 

Make no mistake, that's what's really happening. And there has been undeniable progress made that would never have been made without 45 in office. 

 

 

Turning to Bob now... 

 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

How about the democrats?  Biden?  How about the voters?  I am not in favor of schemes attempting to misinform the voters so that their decisions become more poorly informed.  Who screams about fake news again?   

 

Recall the request was to simply announce investigations....perform actual investigations, not so much. 

 

The irony of you writing the bolded, while still clinging to the belief that Trump/Russia is real is HIGH comedy. 

 

If you're not in favor of schemes attempting to "misinform voters", why didn't you speak up when the evidence came flooding in that the previous administration was engaged in EXACTLY that in the final months of 2016 with the specific intent to interfere with the US election? 

 

I have yet to hear you express your disgust that the FBI/DOJ lied to the FISA court 17 times in order to illegally frame and get a warrant on an innocent american citizen (Page), not because they saw him as a threat (they knew he was an active CIA asset in fact, who had just helped bust a ring of Russian spies in NYC), but because they wanted to use him to get illegal surveillance on their opposition campaign? 

 

Where is your outrage over Schiff's numerous lies about having concrete proof of collusion? Or the lies in his memo where he accused Nunes of lying before the IG proved that it was Schiff and the democrats who were lying? 

 

You haven't said boo about any of that... why? 

 

Is it because your outrage stops at the partisan line? 

 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

Shouldn't he go to the Justice Department and ask them to open an investigation?  That would mean though that they may never undertake it and then they would never announce an investigation into the Bidens.

 

And, the phone transcript, as incomplete as it is, was released by the White House.

 

 Who is the head of the Justice Department? 

 

That's right. It's POTUS. 

 

The phone transcript is not incomplete by any measure. You're just proving how little you've thought about this for yourself and how quickly you blindly swallowed down the lies spewed by the very same people who lied to your face about Trump/Russia. 

 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, I appreciate the reasoned reply without the constant jabs.  Sort of refreshing.  Thanks.  BTW, I am signing out soon...Sabres game.

 

Yes, let the truth come out.  Call relevant witnesses and find out the truth.  I am near certain that in the end, regardless of what comes out, the Senate will not convict.  At the very least if there is wrongdoing proven though, let's at least agree on what was wrong and how to prevent future wrongdoing.  I think a believable position for the President's actions can be fashioned and it has been, just as you stated.  I just think people should be concerned as to how closely that position is to the actual truth.  

 

I maintain that Republican Senators are looking for a way to acquit without hearing any more evidence.  The precedent thing is just another excuse imo and really should be secondary to discovering what happened.   They have a witness that knows things that has volunteered to testify to the Senate. 

 

They loved Dershowitz' testimony because they now can claim they believe his take, after all he is a constitutional expert, eh?  Is he even speaking his own truth?  The guy has no problem coloring his opinions in order to stay in the limelight in my opinion, so I don't know.  I do know that his take is just one take and I have heard several other experts that disagree with Alan's take.

 

 

 The irony is thick in this post. 

Quick, do you think the Democrat House members who rushed through a partisan impeachment (first in history) without evidence or even accusing the sitting president of a crime, were just "looking for a way to impeach without evidence?"

 

Or does your outrage stop at the partisan line? 

 

(there's a theme here, Bob. You're not an independent thinker. You're a partisan hack. Nothing more.)

 

 

[Rob's House]

If you're not following this guy you should be.

 

 

[muppy]

I think the level of personal attacks and vitriol expressed in this thread is only matched by our politicians and the POTUS  tweet history.  Shame on us all but especially the politicians who make the division within our country wider on the daily. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Margarita said:

I think the level of personal attacks and vitriol expressed in this thread is only matched by our politicians and the POTUS  tweet history.  Shame on us all but especially the politicians who make the division within our country wider on the daily. 

 

Honestly, who divided the country more? Trump and his tweets or the media who went all in, accusing the President of being a traitor (punishable by death) for four years without any evidence. They knowingly lied, with the specific intent of dividing the country. Calling anyone who dared question their evidence-less case as Putin supporter, Nazi, or traitor themselves. 

 

Trump punches back. He doesn't punch first. Plenty of people find his tweets off putting and his mannerism in general. But he's not the one dividing the country. 

 

It's the media and the establishment who are fighting for their lives and (rightly) view Trump as an existential threat to their way of life.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

By the time he released the funds, Trump was aware the scheme was outed.   His plan was discovered.  In brief, he was caught.  You know that, I assume.  That is why I claimed the plan seems to be to simply exhaust. 

 

A guy with a gun, a note, and a running get away car goes to the bank.  He gives the teller a robber's note, steals money, and runs for the door.  The guard stops him before he can leave.

 

Is that a crime?  Who was harmed?  The bank kept its money, right?   No harm, no foul or something else?

 

Since Trump proclaimed, according to Sondlund (after he was caught) that he wanted nothing, no Quid Pro Quo.  He THEN released the money before the deadline.  Many have said, that proves no wrongdoing.  Horseshit.  Acting properly after getting caught attempting to act improperly, does not cut it.. 

 

Except that is an almost comic book level of review of what happened.

 

Though it sets a bad precedent (not that the impeachment process to date hasn't been setting all sorts of bad precedents which will bite whoever's is the next President to have a House led by the other party) as 2 of these 3 potential witnesses didn't testify previously, am perfectly fine with Bolton testifying, provided we also get the whistleblower testifying and IG Atkinson testifying.

 

Get this all out in the open and under oath.  Would expect that won't go the way the D's want/ expect but am willing to let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

[Rob's House]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Honestly, who divided the country more? Trump and his tweets or the media who went all in, accusing the President of being a traitor (punishable by death) for four years without any evidence. They knowingly lied, with the specific intent of dividing the country. Calling anyone who dared question their evidence-less case as Putin supporter, Nazi, or traitor themselves. 

 

Trump punches back. He doesn't punch first. Plenty of people find his tweets off putting and his mannerism in general. But he's not the one dividing the country. 

 

It's the media and the establishment who are fighting for their lives and (rightly) view Trump as an existential threat to their way of life.

 

That's the Democrat way. If they don't get what they want (power) they scream & throw a fit, assail your character, call you every name in the book, then accuse you of being divisive.

 

It's been like that since GWB. Maybe longer.

[muppy]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Honestly, who divided the country more? Trump and his tweets or the media who went all in, accusing the President of being a traitor (punishable by death) for four years without any evidence. They knowingly lied, with the specific intent of dividing the country. Calling anyone who dared question their evidence-less case as Putin supporter, Nazi, or traitor themselves. 

 

Trump punches back. He doesn't punch first. Plenty of people find his tweets off putting and his mannerism in general. But he's not the one dividing the country. 

 

It's the media and the establishment who are fighting for their lives and (rightly) view Trump as an existential threat to their way of life.

This reads to me as if you hold one side less culpable than the other. I think this divide has only widened with Trump but to think it didn’t exist previously I disagree.  It is the nature of our politics to be adversarial I think both sides have no real interest in anything close to coming together. It’s worse now than it’s ever been. At least it seems that way to me Rhino

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Honestly, who divided the country more? Trump and his tweets or the media who went all in, accusing the President of being a traitor (punishable by death) for four years without any evidence. They knowingly lied, with the specific intent of dividing the country. Calling anyone who dared question their evidence-less case as Putin supporter, Nazi, or traitor themselves. 

 

Trump punches back. He doesn't punch first. Plenty of people find his tweets off putting and his mannerism in general. But he's not the one dividing the country. 

 

It's the media and the establishment who are fighting for their lives and (rightly) view Trump as an existential threat to their way of life.

On a side note dang you type fast:-)

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

This reads to me as if you hold one side less culpable than the other. I think this divide has only widened with Trump but to think it didn’t exist previously I disagree.  It is the nature of our politics to be adversarial I think both sides have no real interest in anything close to coming together. It’s worse now than it’s ever been. At least it seems that way to me Rhino

 

No, please don't misunderstand. 

 

My position is that there is no difference between Dem/Rep. That's a trick, a dodge, used to pit us, the people, against one another. It's bread and circus for the mob. There is an establishment, which is bi-partisan in composition. That's who has been dividing the country. That's who is fighting Trump (and has been from day one). It's not just the democrats being bad while the republicans are angels -- by any stretch. 

 

Go back and look at YouTube clips of the election coverage from all the major media outlets (when you have time to kill of course). If you do, and are honest, you'll see that the attacks came from day one, with vitriol and falsehoods sold as facts, and it was designed to divide the country and make anyone who spoke out against the narrative they were building (Trump/Russia) toxic. 

Trump didn't do that. The media and the establishment politicians did it.  

 

3 minutes ago, Margarita said:

On a side note dang you type fast:-)

 

The benefits of being a writer by trade  Have to write fast to hit those deadlines  

[muppy]

Speaking of internet communication I wonder how much more civil it could be in chat rooms if folks tried to communicate as if they were actually face to face and not hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard. I’ve been labeled a troll, fake, stupid , trolling for dates LOL that one I laughed...anyway I’m not innocent I came in hard and said trump voters were brainwashed (cultish) I shouldn’t have said that I don’t know people in here personally nor do u me it was wrong but I have a really hard to me with folks I DO know personally who literally think Trump can do no wrong and that’s why I said what I did. It does appear that here he is widely supported but not in 100% everything and I can appreciate this place more knowing that. Anyway.....

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, please don't misunderstand. 

 

My position is that there is no difference between Dem/Rep. That's a trick, a dodge, used to pit us, the people, against one another. It's bread and circus for the mob. There is an establishment, which is bi-partisan in composition. That's who has been dividing the country. That's who is fighting Trump (and has been from day one). It's not just the democrats being bad while the republicans are angels -- by any stretch. 

 

Go back and look at YouTube clips of the election coverage from all the major media outlets (when you have time to kill of course). If you do, and are honest, you'll see that the attacks came from day one, with vitriol and falsehoods sold as facts, and it was designed to divide the country and make anyone who spoke out against the narrative they were building (Trump/Russia) toxic. 

Trump didn't do that. The media and the establishment politicians did it.  

 

 

The benefits of being a writer by trade  Have to write fast to hit those deadlines  

TRIPLE LIKE THIS totally agree ??? I read something recently I’ll get off my phone to post it I think it’ll strike a chord...