You are certainly allowed your opinion. There was only 1 person with intimate knowledge, everything else was gossip. You can believe whatever you want, Bob.
Cover up
- Thread starter BoilerMadness
- Start date
You are certainly allowed your opinion. There was only 1 person with intimate knowledge, everything else was gossip. You can believe whatever you want, Bob.
Showing my work? Ha you liberals are so funny. Its a freaking message board!! Impersonating a 4th grade teacher doesnt mean much. Do you have any common sense at all or do you just drone on like Schiff?
Bob is being a good little Marxist and won’t say the WB’s name. You have to give it to them, they march to Showtime Schiff and Tehran Nancy’s orders.
He is another clueless idiot, Im sure Im on ignore as he is another pussy that deals with anyone rebutting their crap by doing that. I dont need to spend my day '' showing my work'' I see enough and draw my own conclusions. BB W and 35 need to find out from a source when to take a dump.
And when Nancy, Schumer, Schiff, or Hakeem Jeffries tells them to. Conform or else.
I do. Your point?
Nixon v US. Heard of that? I assume you about the EP cases with Clinton and Obama too.
I'm sure you also know Reagan didn't exert EP during Iran Contra. He turned over the documents.
The original point by the OP was that this process was a power grab by the dems. I simply said that they have no power, how could they grab it?
I agree, in almost all previous confrontations like this the two parties have reached an accommodation. But when the WH refuses all cooperation.....including such high level national security concerns as notes taken by Taylor at a meeting or emails between he and Sondland.......there is no hope for an agreement.
It's vintage Trump. He does what he wants unless there's a specific law against it, refuses to cooperate, tries to find an excuse for his action (which has happened many times), then says take me to court (where his lawyers have been admonished many times). If he loses, he appeals. Rules, historical norms, procedures........things the founders didn't think they needed to spell out because anyone elected to the presidency would respect them........mean nothing to him.
There is no law against asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent.......... because there shouldn't have to be. Trump doesnt care.
Lol. So essentially Trump has to admit it or you won't believe it? That's the only way to prove if he's guilty? How do criminals ever get convicted using that logic? You are certainly no lawyer.
Who the hell is Builder Bob? telling people to show their work? WTF are you even talking about? Do you think you are something more than any other person posting on a message board? Jeez you libs are so full of yourselves. Show me your work? Hell I laughed at that in elementary school let alone some self important jack ass on a message board
So he's deplorable and irredeemable? Hmmmmm, and you daily lament why the Progressives aren't in charge? Take a long look in the mirror. Irony smacked you right between the eyes...….
I have been reading back through some of the liberal BS on this board today and asking how? How can any of these idiots believe the crap they post? Apparently I am on ignore because they dont have enough fortitude to reply so they put me on ignore. Thats a win from my view. These 4-5 people are so lost about the world, it really makes me sad.
" The only way to (win) 2020, for Dems., is to have the Senate convict Trump ?? They've CALLED OFF next Nov.'s election ?? Son of a gun.
If there were to be an 11/20 election, thank God the flawed Democratic candidate will be running against a pathological lying, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, impeached fool......that'll help their chances...
Not really. Nobody likes any of these loser Democrats running. An old red, a corrupt VP who makes Trump look like a choir boy, a great storyteller, and some lady named Amy. Boy, that’ll get the voters excited.
And whatever happened to diversity in the Democratic primary? Too many white people IMO. Is the left racist now?
Jan. 20, 2020:
Trump approval rating -
approve = 43%
disapprove = 51 %
Timothy McVeigh couldn't make Trump look like a choir boy.
The "excitement" of voting for a Democrat is realized by the fact that one is voting AGAINST the
"pussy-grabber"......
Approval numbers don’t matter right now. He’s not being removed and he’s going to be re-elected.
“ ??????”
Still bummed Beto didn’t make the cut.
Is your Democratic Party racist?
1) Am a registered independent...my whole life.
2 ) Sooo...Trump will be re-elected without regard to what polls or approval ratings might be on Nov. 1st ??
3) The(not mine) Democratic Party racist ?? Is that the new one goin' round from the right wing ??
No, pretty sure they're not.
Up to date W you have been a POS your whole life. Who were you when you last got banned you never answer
Damn! and you are still a POS and always will be. You are so weak its not even funny. Tell us all why you choose to go through life being a total a$$hole that everyone hates? Who were you when you got banned?
Why aren’t you enjoying the prosperity then instead of crying on a message board about orange man bad? And are you upset your favorite Independent, Bernie the Red is running as a D?
So, if you ever get arrested, you're okay going to jail based not on facts, but on heresay by some undisclosed so-called witness?
The "not showing your work" thing is funny. Hadn't heard that since 7th grade math.
Hill, Sondland, Morrison, Taylor, Holmes, Kent, Vindman. These people didn't get together, cook up this policy on their own. They instituted the policy they were given. The policy is a fact.That's not hearsay, that's not opinion. Some, mostly Sondman, gave their opinion of why there was a such a policy when asked.....but the career diplomats didn't go there.
The policy got to them from trump through Rudy. Besides possibly Pompeo and Mulvaney, it's unlikely anyone else got any marching orders directly from Trump.
Just like the mob, the top guy is insulated. Rudy can't be forced to reveal attorney client conversation, trump is blocking Pompeo and Mulvaney and anybody else he talked to from testifying, there's no one left with direct knowledge. But people are convicted every day without "facts". Juries can draw their own conclusions. In this case, the conclusions are obvious. The questions surround the jury.
I know that all probably means nothing, just go back to your process arguments.
No high crime, no misdemeanor, all partisan. Keep spinning those wheels, Bob.
Oh JFC. Trump said that, not Sondland. And it was after the WB came forward and the investigation was public. You really want us to believe what trump says.......especially when he knows it's all coming out?
Isn't that hearsay evidence lol?
"I can't find the records.....and they won't provide them to me". Why not, if it clears trump?
To be clear, I absolutely believe Trump said it. He thought that's all he had to say, case closed.
You need to bring more than that.
You have to give it to the Marxists. They're relentlessly loyal to the state. Relentlessly loyal.
Once more...
-Confidential Source tells police in an affidavit that he buys drugs from Joe Crook and that more drugs are present in house.
-Police request search warrant from judge based on Confidential Source affidavit and Confidential Source remains unnamed to judge and in warrant application.
-Judge issues search warrant.
-Police execute search warrant and discover a significant amount of drugs.
-Defendant goes to prison.
Yes, the law, including the Supreme Court, is fine with that, and that is an occurrence which I deal with on a regular and recurring basis.
This is moronic even for you. Sondland is testifying that Trump did not want a "quid pro quo". This is not hearsay evidence at all. Sondland is saying he asked Trump the question directly and Sondland is giving what the President's reply was. You can't be this dense. You could be this full of TDS though. You've shown that many times.
If Sondland didn't believe that's what was said, would he have testified to it?
Why do you think the Articles eventually brought to the Senate don't include anything related to "quid pro quo", which could be construed as a real federal crime? Sondland's testimony directly refutes it - that's why!
Maybe there's a real underlying crime with the situation you're referring to? The articles of impeachment contain no federal crimes whatsoever. The are made up "allegations" of wrongdoing which sound bad on a superficial level but have no substantive legal basis.
SD: I understand where you're coming from. Don't need to elaborate.
But know this: I've only posted on this board since April. On several occasions, I've mentioned my voter registration being "Independent", as well as the fact that it's ALWAYS been Indep.
I've occasionally mentioned that I'm at about the 35-40 yard line (left), on the US political football field.
Along with my SIX votes for the election/re-election of IN Senator Richard Lugar. For STARTERS.
Not going to throw a Molotov cocktail into this post.....so I'll just suggest that if this were 1989-1994 - And HW were President...then my rhetoric, here, would have been about 5% as intense as it has been since Jan. 20, 2017. Such is life.
That's not the issue that was presented. The argument presented is that the "impeachment/charging with drugs" is improper because the basis of knowledge was an undisclosed confidential source. The investigation and prosecution following the disclosure by the confidentia source/whistleblower has to proceed on its own merits. The impeachment and drug case are identical as relating to the propriety of using confidential sources and whistleblowers.
Edit - In neither situation is the identity of the informer necessary to the initiation of proceedings developed in the ensuing investigation. The informer's identity or testimony is not germane to the prosecution.
And in turn, there are no impeachable offenses (high crimes/misdemeanors) and he won't be removed from office. This is so simple.
The video you linked is Sondland's recollection of his call with the President in which the President said he didn't want quid pro quo. It's known that this happened after he knew about the investigation. Sondland testified that there WAS quid pro quo.
