leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Re the bolded: this is where Bob fails. He doesn't understand, believe, or know the full context of the past three years. If he did, he'd understand that during Mueller, Trump's administration was OVERLY transparent. Provided all the documents and witnesses Mueller requested, without delay. How did that end up for Trump? Right... Weissman and Mueller railroaded his witnesses, forged evidence, dragged on an investigation they KNEW to be bogus from the first day of the SCO's appointment. Trump watched as the "system" bankrupted good people, pressured their families and them to "flip". In the end, Trump was vindicated and cleared of the most central (and nefarious) charges. Did that stop the attacks? Nope. Did that stop the people like Bob who still believe collusion/conspiracy happened (there just wasn't enough evidence to charge). People like the Bob and Pelosi/Schiff/the media THREW OUT the bedrock principle of our legal system, innocent until proven guilty, and inverted it just because they didn't get the outcome they were promised. Rather than get mad at the people who made those promises, who lied to the people for three plus years -- Bob and others keep their ire aimed at the victim. Knowing that, experiencing all that -- why should Trump EVER willingly give over documents/witnesses to the same partisan bullshiters? But Bob doesn't want to acknowledge any of that. Because he's ignorant of basic facts and too partisan to be taken seriously. What I don't understand, really and sincerely don't understand, why we would bother lamenting what is obviously the wisest course of action for someone to follow. The BS is spread non-stop--"If you have noting to fear, why not come talk to us?". What that can potentially mean, and certainly does in the political process is "Keep talking and we'll find something to %$#@ you up!". See Flynn, Michael. If truth, justice and the American way are what we all strive for, why the heck aren't libs screaming from the tree tops that Comey ran a con on Flynn? There is no way, ever, that sane people with exceptional legal counsel will ever voluntarily subject themselves to unnecessary scrutiny. It does not happen. The media loves to toss out Bolton, a guy now on record as taking multiple conflicting positions on the same subject. At best, he's a flip flopper and thus lacks credibility. At least, he should where removal of the president is in play. Yet, the stench of corruption is all around Hunter and Joe Biden, the optics are certainly bad, and Joe could demand the opportunity to testify at a hearing. It seems like a gigantic waste of time on a message board. 1
muppy Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, njbuff said: The Democrats are losing their minds over the supposed acquittal. Gee that’s a fvicking shock. what strikes me is Alexander saying he will vote to not have any witnesses not because he thinks what President Trump did was right... that the Democrats indeed in his mind proved their case and witnesses are not needed. BUT what Trump did was a mistake in judgment but doesn't arise to the level of an impeachable offense. lol Wow. Well I think that the election will indeed tell the tale on how this debacle is viewed by the American people. Trump wasn't going to be kicked out of office by a Republican dominated senate in any case... I just wonder how this will all effect the coming election. Will there be backlash against Democrats for bringing this up in the first place OR backlash against Republicans for an impeachment trial with no witnesses (unprecedented) which could be seen as a coverup. We will find out this November. Edited January 31, 2020 by Margarita 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What I don't understand, really and sincerely don't understand, why we would bother lamenting what is obviously the wisest course of action for someone to follow. The BS is spread non-stop--"If you have noting to fear, why not come talk to us?". What that can potentially mean, and certainly does in the political process is "Keep talking and we'll find something to %$#@ you up!". See Flynn, Michael. If truth, justice and the American way are what we all strive for, why the heck aren't libs screaming from the tree tops that Comey ran a con on Flynn? There is no way, ever, that sane people with exceptional legal counsel will ever voluntarily subject themselves to unnecessary scrutiny. It does not happen. The media loves to toss out Bolton, a guy now on record as taking multiple conflicting positions on the same subject. At best, he's a flip flopper and thus lacks credibility. At least, he should where removal of the president is in play. Yet, the stench of corruption is all around Hunter and Joe Biden, the optics are certainly bad, and Joe could demand the opportunity to testify at a hearing. It seems like a gigantic waste of time on a message board. The simple answer is that people like Bob/Gary/Tibs/Logic/Whitewalker/JA and all the rest -- some of whom vanished into the ether, others who are still clinging to their fantasies of a grand Trump/Russia conspiracy -- abandoned all their "liberal" principles at the drop of a hat because the disinformation campaign programmed them to do so. They fell for a psy-op of epic proportions, and suddenly took positions which were antithetical to the left just 4 years ago. Things like: perma-war, regime change, mass surveillance, government overreach et al. They're not operating from a sense of logic and reason, but emotion. And that was the intent of the three year plus "BUT RUSSIA! BUT RACISM! BUT SEXISM! BUT NAZIS!" narratives. To make people so afraid, so emotional, that they're unable to think or put things into proper context. They believe they're fighting a Nazi/authoritarian dictator -- making everything used in defiance justified... even using authoritarian staples like subverting our system of justice and sidling up to civil liberty abusers, neocons and neoliberals. Their brains have been broken. It's really as simple as that. 1
Bray Wyatt Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Margarita said: what strikes me is Alexander saying he will vote to not have any witnesses not because he thinks what President Trump did wasn't wrong. But that the Democrats indeed in his mind proved their case and witnesses are not needed. BUT what Trump did was a mistake in judgment but doesn't arise to the level of an impeachable offense. lol Wow. Well I think that the election will indeed tell the tale on how this debacle is viewed by the American people. Trump wasn't going to be kicked out of office by a Republican dominated senate in any case... I just wonder how this will all effect the coming election. Will there be backlash against Democrats for bringing this up in the first place OR backlash against Republicans for an impeachment trial with no witnesses (unprecedented) which could be seen as a coverup. We will find out this November. There were witnesses 5
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: There were witnesses 18 of them in fact. Of course, Schiff continues to block access to one -- never hear the people crying about witnesses today say a word about that. Wonder why that is? 5 1
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 https://twitter.com/HNIJohnMiller/status/1223230093893435392 1 2
njbuff Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Margarita said: what strikes me is Alexander saying he will vote to not have any witnesses not because he thinks what President Trump did wasn't wrong. But that the Democrats indeed in his mind proved their case and witnesses are not needed. BUT what Trump did was a mistake in judgment but doesn't arise to the level of an impeachable offense. lol Wow. Well I think that the election will indeed tell the tale on how this debacle is viewed by the American people. Trump wasn't going to be kicked out of office by a Republican dominated senate in any case... I just wonder how this will all effect the coming election. Will there be backlash against Democrats for bringing this up in the first place OR backlash against Republicans for an impeachment trial with no witnesses (unprecedented) which could be seen as a coverup. We will find out this November. We shall see. Trump should CRUSH any of these awful Democratic candidates, but I take nothing for granted as 2016 showed us all. Hopefully the Bills have a playoff spot locked up by the election. ? 2
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Senator Alexander admits Trump is guilty of trying to rig the election, so he calls on the election as a remedy? What happens if and when he cheats yet again? Quote There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.” 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Margarita said: what strikes me is Alexander saying he will vote to not have any witnesses not because he thinks what President Trump did was right... that the Democrats indeed in his mind proved their case and witnesses are not needed. BUT what Trump did was a mistake in judgment but doesn't arise to the level of an impeachable offense. lol Wow. Well I think that the election will indeed tell the tale on how this debacle is viewed by the American people. Trump wasn't going to be kicked out of office by a Republican dominated senate in any case... I just wonder how this will all effect the coming election. Will there be backlash against Democrats for bringing this up in the first place OR backlash against Republicans for an impeachment trial with no witnesses (unprecedented) which could be seen as a coverup. We will find out this November. We know what you're rooting for, "mags."
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/HNIJohnMiller/status/1223230093893435392 Freedom Day. Drop #658 2 1
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: There were witnesses Really? Did Mulvey, Bolton or any other administration officials with direct knowledge testify? Rudy? Parnas? Nope, the cover up was successful, just like Epstein's was 1
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 The Vote On Witnesses Doesn’t Matter And It Never Mattered The breathless coverage on which Republican Senators want to hear from more witnesses and which ones don’t is born not out of its true news value, but out of the compulsion on the part of our media (left and right) to extend the drama – and, therefore, the coverage and ratings and clicks – of the impeachment trial. Let us assume for a moment that Romney, who has said he is a vote for more witnesses, was joined by Lamar Alexander (who isn’t), Susan Collins (thus far unclear), and Lisa Murkowski (thus far unclear) in voting to allow for new witnesses. Let us also assume that they get John Bolton AND Mick Mulvaney. How does that actually affect the end result? The fact is that Romney waited until Alexander said he was against more witnesses, giving him the chance to support something that wasn’t going to happen. Just to be safe. Still, at the end of this whole thing, Romney isn’t going to vote to remove Trump from office. He will release a carefully crafted statement saying the Democrats just didn’t make their case and the witnesses did not provide any damning evidence. He will be joined by Collins, Murkowski, and Alexander in making that statement. Further, even if they were convinced, the Democrats still wouldn’t have the votes to remove Trump from office. And they know that. Our media, across the political spectrum, also knows this. Deep down, they know that this coverage over witnesses and who will vote to allow them and who won’t ultimately doesn’t matter. Both sides came to their conclusion on Trump before this ever started. We knew the results before the Articles of Impeachment were even drafted. If you didn’t know it, you haven’t been paying attention. That’s not an endorsement of either side, and it’s not an endorsement of the process. The fact is, from start to finish, this whole thing has been annoyingly juvenile. If it ends today, fantastic. We can move on to the next thing Trump says that offends us/the next thing the Democrats try to accuse Trump of that’s utterly stupid. With an election in ten months, we’ll have forgotten this before the Democrats even find their candidate. It’s a joke. It’s all a joke.
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, Margarita said: what strikes me is Alexander saying he will vote to not have any witnesses not because he thinks what President Trump did was right... that the Democrats indeed in his mind proved their case and witnesses are not needed. BUT what Trump did was a mistake in judgment but doesn't arise to the level of an impeachable offense. lol Wow. Well I think that the election will indeed tell the tale on how this debacle is viewed by the American people. Trump wasn't going to be kicked out of office by a Republican dominated senate in any case... I just wonder how this will all effect the coming election. Will there be backlash against Democrats for bringing this up in the first place OR backlash against Republicans for an impeachment trial with no witnesses (unprecedented) which could be seen as a coverup. We will find out this November. #landslide hahahahahahahaaaa
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I think, Robby, it's hard for folks to grasp where you're coming from at times. I mean, I know where you're coming from, I just don't know why you would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever think that in such a highly partisan "investigation" that any supporter of the president would push for more/extended hearings on this. See, in my opinion, it makes the most sense to avail oneself of every legal and rational argument or procedural opportunity to close this out with the knowledge that your adversary failed. I know you know the dems would follow that process, and we can both agree they already did in setting up the impeachment case to begin with. If the evidence they had was strong enough to carry the day legally, after the house had completed it's dirty work, there would be little reason not to move forward. Again, they didn't even carry their own partisan party on this issue. How the heck does that happen if they have the Trumpsta dead to rights? I get the "what were his motivations" angle, and "why can't we just talk more, where's the harm in that if you're innocent?" approach. That's a law enforcement/big government tactic used all the time. Let's acknowledge that as 'fishing', but let's also agree that has absolutely nothing--zero, nada, zilch--to do with what is in the best interest of the subject of the investigation. If the WH "blocking" witnesses is illegal, the dems should have at it. If not, just like Schiff, Biden or Biden Jr aren't out begging to testify voluntarily to help us all understand this polarizing events of days past, the R's should rightly tell the enemy to suck a nut. I do agree though, DJT is the first President/politician who did not go to the Mother Theresa Slums of Mumbai Selflessness Training Academy. I think as citizens were should all be grateful that prior to #45, we had 44 presidents (44.5 if you include Popular Vote Queen and Haffa-Prez Hillary C) who sacrificed everything for the good of all people everywhere. May God Bless them, may God Bless them all. Again, Larry, nice guy with a highly partisan, short sighted, inaccurate take that includes lots of assumptions on unknown matters. You seem to buy every accusation against the left while discounting every accusation on Trump. Given Trump's penchant for lying, is that really a reasonable course? Do you watch Hannity on Fox by any chance? Ever watch PBS NewsHour? The House presented their case. Imo, to an impartial jury and given the WH investigation obstruction, he would be convicted. As you say, to the Repubs, it was never going to be proven enough to convict. The goal at this point is twofold. Get the President's illegal election interference to stop. Also, they want to get the Repub Senators on record as giving up oversight and ignoring available evidence. The Nixon tapes changed minds in that hearing. Similar Trump tapes today would not. We have WH lawn video with Trump doing what he denies doing and even that is not convincing enough. Without the skies opening and God himself telling them on TV to '***** listen', the Repub Sens don't want to know more. The more they know, the harder it is to say, 'No problem'. Edited January 31, 2020 by Bob in Mich
muppy Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: We know what you're rooting for, "mags." what's that supposed to mean..... 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: #landslide hahahahahahahaaaa You made your prediction we'll see
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Margarita said: what's that supposed to mean..... I think you know.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Again, Larry, nice guy with a highly partisan, short sighted, inaccurate take that includes lots of assumptions on unknown matters. You seem to buy every accusation against the left while discounting every accusation on Trump. Given Trump's penchant for lying, is that really a reasonable course? Did Trump lie to the FISA court and change evidence? Did Trump illegally leak classified material to the press in order to fraudulantly arrange a SCO? Did Trump lie on sworn 302 forms to frame innocent people of crimes they did not commit? Did Trump go on TV and lie to the American people about a Russian plot 24/7 for three+ years despite knowing it was fiction? Trump didn't do any of that. The media did. The Congress did. The FBI and DOJ under Obama did... So, Bob, why do you keep believing those people who lied to you? Who made you look like a fool? 1 1
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 And now, back to our regularly scheduled Judicial Confirmations...... . 4 1
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said: I think you know. she's disingenuous. did you know that she claims to have me blocked ( i don't believe it) on another site yet she reads me here?? too. !@#$ing. funny. 1
muppy Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said: I think you know. you would be wrong Joe. You're going to think for me may as well let me know my thoughts....mags??
Recommended Posts