ADVERTISEMENT

Cover up

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?
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?
" Enjoying the prosperity" ?? As if the "orange man" is singularly responsible for this prosperity ??
If this country is enjoying economic positives.....has it ever occurred to you that it's just as much IN SPITE OF OrangeGuy, rather than BECAUSE OF ??? 200,000,000 people in the workforce...and THAT god-forsaken fool is the reason we're thriving ? I'll credit the other 199,999,999 workers, if you don't mind.
MY idea of an Independent voter would have included the opportunity to vote for John Kasich , in 2016;
NOT Bernie Sanders in 2020.
Need additional info ?? I'll be here.
 
" Enjoying the prosperity" ?? As if the "orange man" is singularly responsible for this prosperity ??
If this country is enjoying economic positives.....has it ever occurred to you that it's just as much IN SPITE OF OrangeGuy, rather than BECAUSE OF ??? 200,000,000 people in the workforce...and THAT god-forsaken fool is the reason we're thriving ? I'll credit the other 199,999,999 workers, if you don't mind.
MY idea of an Independent voter would have included the opportunity to vote for John Kasich , in 2016;
NOT Bernie Sanders in 2020.
Need additional info ?? I'll be here.
Oh, I know you will be. You never leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glidresquirrel
No mesmerizing takes needed when things are much simpler than you are led on to believe. Don't pay attention to the noise. Live your life.
Will do...and you live yours, as well...
Things CAN be simpler, oftentimes...
What this board & the US Senate Chamber reminds us all of......is that we're firmly standing in different places - therefore have a different view of things...
Not much chance of that changing, anytime soon...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
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.

Sondland said this in the morning of testimony, and in the afternoon he gave the deposition I showed. So he's saying he thought there was quid pro quo and then he testifies the President says there was no intended quid pro quo. So Sondland is playing both sides of the fence here? Both statements can't be true simultaneously, can they?

The Ds want to believe the morning testimony, and the Rs want to believe the afternoon testimony. In the end, there was no article of impeachment related to quid pro quo, so the Ds must have thought they couldn't make the case on it. If they could, wouldn't Schiff have drafted on article specifically about that?
 
Sondland said this in the morning of testimony, and in the afternoon he gave the deposition I showed. So he's saying he thought there was quid pro quo and then he testifies the President says there was no intended quid pro quo. So Sondland is playing both sides of the fence here? Both statements can't be true simultaneously, can they?

The Ds want to believe the morning testimony, and the Rs want to believe the afternoon testimony. In the end, there was no article of impeachment related to quid pro quo, so they Ds must have thought they couldn't make the case on it. If they could, wouldn't Schiff have drafted on article specifically about that?

Why you think he's playing both sides? He's giving an honest recollection of the call and what the President said (no QPQ), and he's giving his opinion on what happened (there was QPQ).

Quid pro quo just means "something for something" and isn't necessarily a bad thing (depends on the 'quo'). The Abuse of Power article alleges that Trump conditioned "official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine" on Ukraine announcing investigations that would give him "personal political benefit." That is an accusation of a quid pro quo, they just didn't use the latin phrase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
He just said earlier he started posting in April. So he has 4200 posts in 9-10 months . Pretty much sums his lunacy up in a nutshell.
If a pest like you were not around......then my post count would be about half that.
Wanna see FAR fewer posts ?? Lose your obsessive , never-ending , adolescent trash-talking habit.
 
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.
You don't strike me as being a Never Trumper-type conservative. I could see you as more Center-Left. I do thank you for clearly stating where you're coming from though.

I left this board, for the most part, months ago and it was one of the best things I've done. I got tired of the toxicity and personal attacks on my character and beliefs on here. Some people, like indy35, cannot seem to separate Trump from people who like his policies. I think Trump has some serious character flaws, but his policies have made me a fan of his regardless. He actually tries to do what he campaigned to do. For years, politicians from both parties have said things on the campaign trail and then didn't do what they said they would or they gave up because of political expedience.

I firmly believe that Trump was elected as a reaction to Obama. The country didn't like the direction he was taking things and especially didn't trust HRC. Some on the left say that it's racism that drove/drives people toward Trump. I think that's a third grader's type of rationale. In the end, it's Obama's and the Progressive's policies (writ large) they didn't like. Lurching towards socialism, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Free College, Federal Assistance for Select Homebuyers, Illegal Immigration, Abortion on Demand, etc., etc,. etc., is not appealing to me and millions upon millions of Americans across broad swaths of the nation.
 
You don't strike me as being a Never Trumper-type conservative. I could see you as more Center-Left. I do thank you for clearly stating where you're coming from though.

I left this board, for the most part, months ago and it was one of the best things I've done. I got tired of the toxicity and personal attacks on my character and beliefs on here. Some people, like indy35, cannot seem to separate Trump from people who like his policies. I think Trump has some serious character flaws, but his policies have made me a fan of his regardless. He actually tries to do what he campaigned to do. For years, politicians from both parties have said things on the campaign trail and then didn't do what they said they would or they gave up because of political expedience.

I firmly believe that Trump was elected as a reaction to Obama. The country didn't like the direction he was taking things and especially didn't trust HRC. Some on the left say that it's racism that drove/drives people toward Trump. I think that's a third grader's type of rationale. In the end, it's Obama's and the Progressive's policies (writ large) they didn't like. Lurching towards socialism, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Free College, Federal Assistance for Select Homebuyers, Illegal Immigration, Abortion on Demand, etc., etc,. etc., is not appealing to me and millions upon millions of Americans across broad swaths of the nation.
Well put!
 
Why you think he's playing both sides? He's giving an honest recollection of the call and what the President said (no QPQ), and he's giving his opinion on what happened (there was QPQ).

Quid pro quo just means "something for something" and isn't necessarily a bad thing (depends on the 'quo'). The Abuse of Power article alleges that Trump conditioned "official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine" on Ukraine announcing investigations that would give him "personal political benefit." That is an accusation of a quid pro quo, they just didn't use the latin phrase.
Here's the problem. They can't prove that Trump was specifically targeting Biden. What's the exact "personal benefit"? Biden's not even the D nominee and he may not be. He certainly wasn't when all of this alleged activity took place. Biden was involved with Ukraine in the Obama administration and Biden himself investigated Ukrainian corruption.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that Hunter Biden got paid $50K/month by Burisma and made millions more in Ukraine, and he had ZERO experience in the natural gas industry? Would he have had anything to do with Burisma or Chinese investment banking if he wasn't Joe Biden's son. The guy's a loser. He's had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. He's failed in multiple jobs he's had - and daddy always bailed him out.
 
You don't strike me as being a Never Trumper-type conservative. I could see you as more Center-Left. I do thank you for clearly stating where you're coming from though.

I left this board, for the most part, months ago and it was one of the best things I've done. I got tired of the toxicity and personal attacks on my character and beliefs on here. Some people, like indy35, cannot seem to separate Trump from people who like his policies. I think Trump has some serious character flaws, but his policies have made me a fan of his regardless. He actually tries to do what he campaigned to do. For years, politicians from both parties have said things on the campaign trail and then didn't do what they said they would or they gave up because of political expedience.

I firmly believe that Trump was elected as a reaction to Obama. The country didn't like the direction he was taking things and especially didn't trust HRC. Some on the left say that it's racism that drove/drives people toward Trump. I think that's a third grader's type of rationale. In the end, it's Obama's and the Progressive's policies (writ large) they didn't like. Lurching towards socialism, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Free College, Federal Assistance for Select Homebuyers, Illegal Immigration, Abortion on Demand, etc., etc,. etc., is not appealing to me and millions upon millions of Americans across broad swaths of the nation.
Straightforward reply. Worthy of, but certainly not requiring an obvious rebuttal that's been seen here a thousand times.
Everybody can clearly see that conversations here often devolve into hand-to-hand combat. The contributors, here, are probably just a microcosm of what this country's political landscape has become:
hard-wired partisans eager to do battle.
What the board needs, in my opinion, is what it can never have: a hands-on moderator with a task like a college debate parliamentarian, keeping everything on track.
Everybody knows how VOLUNTARY good behavior suggestions fare.
Anyway, SD....before you took your leave....some of us recall your "Right" beliefs... but also your belief in a much-needed order, here. We oughta be able to drink to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
Here's the problem. They can't prove that Trump was specifically targeting Biden. What's the exact "personal benefit"? Biden's not even the D nominee and he may not be. He certainly wasn't when all of this alleged activity took place. Biden was involved with Ukraine in the Obama administration and Biden himself investigated Ukrainian corruption.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that Hunter Biden got paid $50K/month by Burisma and made millions more in Ukraine, and he had ZERO experience in the natural gas industry? Would he have had anything to do with Burisma or Chinese investment banking if he wasn't Joe Biden's son. The guy's a loser. He's had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. He's failed in multiple jobs he's had - and daddy always bailed him out.

Completely agree with everything you wrote. In my mind I still don't know if what happened is an impeachable offense, but I strongly support calling additional witnesses to find out what actually happened.

It does seem strange to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't strange in the aristocratic world. This dude is currently on the board...what the heck does he know about natural gas? How true is that for most boards? My understanding is the company was trying to whitewash the board after all the corruption happened, and that's why these powerful people from western countries got asked to join.

By all means congress or whoever can investigate it, but what happened there should be a separate investigation. As of now it's just speculation and IMO, throwing it in to the discussion around the President is just distracting. If the President or anyone else has any hard evidence (beyond speculation) I assume it would have come out by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Here's the problem. They can't prove that Trump was specifically targeting Biden. What's the exact "personal benefit"? Biden's not even the D nominee and he may not be. He certainly wasn't when all of this alleged activity took place. Biden was involved with Ukraine in the Obama administration and Biden himself investigated Ukrainian corruption.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that Hunter Biden got paid $50K/month by Burisma and made millions more in Ukraine, and he had ZERO experience in the natural gas industry? Would he have had anything to do with Burisma or Chinese investment banking if he wasn't Joe Biden's son. The guy's a loser. He's had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. He's failed in multiple jobs he's had - and daddy always bailed him out.

You're right SDBoiler, other than all of the evidence, there's nothing to show that they were specifically targeting Biden.


  • December 6th 2018. Parnas and Fruman attend a private meeting with Trump and Giuliani where Trump tasks them to pressure the Ukranian government to investigate the Bidens.
  • Jan 23rd 2019. Giuliani along with Parnas and Fruman conduct an interview with Shokin in an attempt to gather more information on the Bidens.
  • February 2019. At Giuliani's behest, Parnas and Fruman press Poroshenko to initiate an investigation into the Bidens. They said the action would be rewarded by a White House visit.
  • March 2019. Nunes senior aide Harvey has a call arranged by Lev Parnas to speak with Kostiantyn Kulyk and Nazar Kholodnytsky. Kulyk and Kholodnytsky have been accused in Ukraine of corruption and pursuing politically motivated prosecutions. Kulyk had created a dossier of Biden disinformation and unproven theories.
  • March 28th 2019. Giuliani provided a packet to Pompeo that contains disinformation and unproven theories on the Bidens.
  • April 1st 2019. John Solomon has an article published that advances the disinformation on Biden that Giuliani had gathered.
  • April 7th 2019. John Solomon publishes an interview with Kulyk that airs the disinformation on Biden.
  • May 7th 2019. Ukranian Presidential advisors meet with Zelensky to discuss Trump and Giuliani's demands for investigations of the Bidens.
  • May 9th 2019. Giuliani tells the New York Times he plans to travel to Kyiv to meet with Zelensky and urge him to investigate the Bidens.
  • May 10th 2019. Trump interview with Politico where he says it would be an appropriate thing to have an investigation into Biden. He stated he saw Biden as the clear front runner in the Democratic race and that Trump would speak to Giuliani about his trip to Ukraine.
  • June 21st 2019. Giuliani tweets that the "new President of Ukraine is still silent on investigation of alleged Biden bribery on Proshenko. Time for leadership and investigation."
  • Late June 2019. At Giuliani's direction, Parnas and Fruman offer Dmitry Firtash help with the Justice Department in exchange for dirt on the Bidens.Giuliani also proposes that Firtash hire Toensing and diGenova as Firtash's lawyers, the two were also working on dirt on the Bidens.
  • July 2019. Firtash hires Toensing and diGenova, then uses his network of Ukranian contact to attempt to find damaging information on the Bidens.
  • July 10th 2019. Sondland meets with two of Zelensky's top advisors and encourages them that investigations that need to be started again, referencing Biden and Burisma. It was this meeting that Bolton became incensed and later referred to Sondland's suggestion as a "drug deal." After the meeting there was a debriefing which Vindman and Hill both attend, Sondland once again emphasizes the importance of Ukraine delivering an investigation of the Bidens.
  • July 19th 2019. Volker and Giuliani meet for breakfast with Lev Parnas. Volker texts that he had setup a call for Monday with Zelensky and that it was "most important for Zelensky to say that he will help with an investigation."
  • July 22 2019. Giuliani speaks with Yermak over the phone and discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands for investigations into the Bidens.
  • July 25th 2019. Trump has phone call with Zelensky in which he asks Zelensky to look into Biden and Biden's son.
  • July 25th 2019. Prior to the Trump/Zelensky phone call, Volker texts Yermak saying that he heard from the White House and assuming Zelensky can convince Trump he'll start an investigation, they'll setup a White House visit.
  • July 26th 2019. Volker, Sondland, Taylor, and Holmes meet with Zelensky. Zelensky states that Trump had raised some very sensitive issues on their call and Zelensky would have to follow up in person. Holmes testifies that after reading the call memo, that "sensitive issues" referred to the investigation of the Bidens.
  • August 2nd 2019. Giuliani and Parnas fly to Madrid to meet with Yermak. Giuliani presses Yermak to investigate the Bidens. Giuliani tweets on August 3rd from Madrid, additional disinformation about the Bidens.
  • August 9th 2019. Volker texts Sondland and Giuliani to suggest a phone call "to make sure I advise Zelensky correctly as to what he should be saying" for when Zelensky announced the Bidens investigations.Sondland texts that potus wants the deliverable. Sondland later testifies that the "deliverable" refers to the public statement announcing investigations into the Bidens.
  • August 10th 2019. Yermak texts Volker that Zelensky won't announce the investigations without a firm date for a White House visit. Sondland emails Pompeo to inform him about Zelensky's agreement to have a press conference to announce the investigation.
  • August 11th 2019. Volker texts Giuliani about a draft statement that they want Zelensky to read when announcing an investigation into the Bidens.
  • August 12th 2019 Whistleblower files a complaint to the ICIG
  • August 13th 2019. Volker and Sondland text Yermak urging him to include in the Zelensky draft, specific references to Burisma.
  • August 17th 2019. Sondland texts Volker asking if the US side still wants Zelensky to give them a draft on an announcement into the investigations of Biden. Volker responds that "that's the clear message so far...I'm hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond."
 
Last edited:
It’s amazing that Indy has it figured out but the government doesn’t. The establishment he worships is failing him!
 
It’s amazing that Indy has it figured out but the government doesn’t. The establishment he worships is failing him!
Why do facts upset you? If you had any you wouldn’t have to lie so much. Care to actually address SDBoiler claim or the list of evidence? Something constructive?
 
Last edited:
Don’t tell me that I don’t have any. The government is the one letting you down. Not me.
I really didn’t expect for the Republicans to be decent people, they wouldn’t be Republicans in the first place if that was the case.
I was just easily pointing out that SDBoiler’s claim, that it couldn’t be proven that they were specifically targeting Biden, is utterly absurd.
 
It’s amazing that Indy has it figured out but the government doesn’t. The establishment he worships is failing him!
The "government" doesn't "have it figured out " ??
You mean the WHITE HOUSE doesn't ??
Seems as though the House Majority has it figured out.
As does the majority of American adults, according to polling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
The "government" doesn't "have it figured out " ??
You mean the WHITE HOUSE doesn't ??
Seems as though the House Majority has it figured out.
As does the majority of American adults, according to polling.
Business as usual in the WHITE HOUSE. Haha the House majority of angry Democrats doesn’t have it figured out. They have hate and wasting time figured out but not much else.

Keep clutching on to those polls. They really nailed it in 2016.
 
Completely agree with everything you wrote. In my mind I still don't know if what happened is an impeachable offense, but I strongly support calling additional witnesses to find out what actually happened.

It does seem strange to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't strange in the aristocratic world. This dude is currently on the board...what the heck does he know about natural gas? How true is that for most boards? My understanding is the company was trying to whitewash the board after all the corruption happened, and that's why these powerful people from western countries got asked to join.

By all means congress or whoever can investigate it, but what happened there should be a separate investigation. As of now it's just speculation and IMO, throwing it in to the discussion around the President is just distracting. If the President or anyone else has any hard evidence (beyond speculation) I assume it would have come out by now.
I am convinced that he did what the accusations allege. That being said, I also understand that the question of removal goes far beyond that, and while I personally disagree, could accept a good faith statement that the actions are not sufficient for removal. What creates my disdain for the Trump supporters, and it seems likely for many Senators in the near future, is the acceptance of what appears to be a false Presidential narrative without actually pursuing the information available.
Whether the House short-circuited things by not fully pursuing subpoenae really begs the question, since clearly, had they done so, given the Administration and President's predilection toward slow rolling lawsuits, the issue would have dragged on for years.
The willingness of so many to simply support the narcissistic "Everything that I do is perfect" narrative of the President truly confounds me. I recognize its existence but have absolutely no ability to make sense of it.
 
Business as usual in the WHITE HOUSE. Haha the House majority of angry Democrats doesn’t have it figured out. They have hate and wasting time figured out but not much else.

Keep clutching on to those polls. They really nailed it in 2016.
The major polling organizations had the Clinton popular vote margin, in 2016, pegged at 4-5 %....instead of the actual 2.0 %
******Within THE MARGIN OF ERROR allowed

The House sent over 200 signed bills to the Senate Majority Leader's desk, in the past 1 1/2 terms...
a substantial majority of which languished without further action....
( The 1998 GOP House of Repres. was ALSO governed by "hate", and "wasting time" ?? .......
....yeah,.....THAT Impeachment & Trial)
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
You're right SDBoiler, other than all of the evidence, there's nothing to show that they were specifically targeting Biden.


  • December 6th 2018. Parnas and Fruman attend a private meeting with Trump and Giuliani where Trump tasks them to pressure the Ukranian government to investigate the Bidens.
  • Jan 23rd 2019. Giuliani along with Parnas and Fruman conduct an interview with Shokin in an attempt to gather more information on the Bidens.
  • February 2019. At Giuliani's behest, Parnas and Fruman press Poroshenko to initiate an investigation into the Bidens. They said the action would be rewarded by a White House visit.
  • March 2019. Nunes senior aide Harvey has a call arranged by Lev Parnas to speak with Kostiantyn Kulyk and Nazar Kholodnytsky. Kulyk and Kholodnytsky have been accused in Ukraine of corruption and pursuing politically motivated prosecutions. Kulyk had created a dossier of Biden disinformation and unproven theories.
  • March 28th 2019. Giuliani provided a packet to Pompeo that contains disinformation and unproven theories on the Bidens.
  • April 1st 2019. John Solomon has an article published that advances the disinformation on Biden that Giuliani had gathered.
  • April 7th 2019. John Solomon publishes an interview with Kulyk that airs the disinformation on Biden.
  • May 7th 2019. Ukranian Presidential advisors meet with Zelensky to discuss Trump and Giuliani's demands for investigations of the Bidens.
  • May 9th 2019. Giuliani tells the New York Times he plans to travel to Kyiv to meet with Zelensky and urge him to investigate the Bidens.
  • May 10th 2019. Trump interview with Politico where he says it would be an appropriate thing to have an investigation into Biden. He stated he saw Biden as the clear front runner in the Democratic race and that Trump would speak to Giuliani about his trip to Ukraine.
  • June 21st 2019. Giuliani tweets that the "new President of Ukraine is still silent on investigation of alleged Biden bribery on Proshenko. Time for leadership and investigation."
  • Late June 2019. At Giuliani's direction, Parnas and Fruman offer Dmitry Firtash help with the Justice Department in exchange for dirt on the Bidens.Giuliani also proposes that Firtash hire Toensing and diGenova as Firtash's lawyers, the two were also working on dirt on the Bidens.
  • July 2019. Firtash hires Toensing and diGenova, then uses his network of Ukranian contact to attempt to find damaging information on the Bidens.
  • July 10th 2019. Sondland meets with two of Zelensky's top advisors and encourages them that investigations that need to be started again, referencing Biden and Burisma. It was this meeting that Bolton became incensed and later referred to Sondland's suggestion as a "drug deal." After the meeting there was a debriefing which Vindman and Hill both attend, Sondland once again emphasizes the importance of Ukraine delivering an investigation of the Bidens.
  • July 19th 2019. Volker and Giuliani meet for breakfast with Lev Parnas. Volker texts that he had setup a call for Monday with Zelensky and that it was "most important for Zelensky to say that he will help with an investigation."
  • July 22 2019. Giuliani speaks with Yermak over the phone and discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands for investigations into the Bidens.
  • July 25th 2019. Trump has phone call with Zelensky in which he asks Zelensky to look into Biden and Biden's son.
  • July 25th 2019. Prior to the Trump/Zelensky phone call, Volker texts Yermak saying that he heard from the White House and assuming Zelensky can convince Trump he'll start an investigation, they'll setup a White House visit.
  • July 26th 2019. Volker, Sondland, Taylor, and Holmes meet with Zelensky. Zelensky states that Trump had raised some very sensitive issues on their call and Zelensky would have to follow up in person. Holmes testifies that after reading the call memo, that "sensitive issues" referred to the investigation of the Bidens.
  • August 2nd 2019. Giuliani and Parnas fly to Madrid to meet with Yermak. Giuliani presses Yermak to investigate the Bidens. Giuliani tweets on August 3rd from Madrid, additional disinformation about the Bidens.
  • August 9th 2019. Volker texts Sondland and Giuliani to suggest a phone call "to make sure I advise Zelensky correctly as to what he should be saying" for when Zelensky announced the Bidens investigations.Sondland texts that potus wants the deliverable. Sondland later testifies that the "deliverable" refers to the public statement announcing investigations into the Bidens.
  • August 10th 2019. Yermak texts Volker that Zelensky won't announce the investigations without a firm date for a White House visit. Sondland emails Pompeo to inform him about Zelensky's agreement to have a press conference to announce the investigation.
  • August 11th 2019. Volker texts Giuliani about a draft statement that they want Zelensky to read when announcing an investigation into the Bidens.
  • August 12th 2019 Whistleblower files a complaint to the ICIG
  • August 13th 2019. Volker and Sondland text Yermak urging him to include in the Zelensky draft, specific references to Burisma.
  • August 17th 2019. Sondland texts Volker asking if the US side still wants Zelensky to give them a draft on an announcement into the investigations of Biden. Volker responds that "that's the clear message so far...I'm hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond."

SDBoiler, where are you? No response? I saw you’ve been lurking around. Is this going to be one of our classic interactions where you say something absurdly untrue and illogical, I destroy your post with facts, then you run away and abandon the thread?
 
Yeah, come on SDBoiler. Indy needs to feel good about himself this morning. Verification via message board is top priority!
You and SDBoiler would be good friends, both of you have been unable to mount a single logical factual argument to back up any of your points.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask on a message board to have someone defend their argument.
 
Last edited:
I can picture @SDBoiler1 perfectly, “hurr durr, Hey George, how do we know they were even going after Biden?”

I don’t know Lennie, probably because they said it 100 goddamn times. Now go drool over in the corner and pet your rabbits.
 
Last edited:
SDBoiler, where are you? No response? I saw you’ve been lurking around. Is this going to be one of our classic interactions where you say something absurdly untrue and illogical, I destroy your post with facts, then you run away and abandon the thread?
Watch this, and maybe you'll learn something. The House Manager's Case is in tatters.

 
  • Like
Reactions: atlboiler2156
Watch this, and maybe you'll learn something. The House Manager's Case is in tatters.

A two-hour replay of the President's defense......to show why the Impeachment charges are " in tatters" ??
Did, in fact, learn something.......but it ain't even vaguely suggestive of the case being insufficient.
Are you going to need the replay of CNN/MSNBC 's panels' summarization, later, of today's presentations ?? " Maybe you'll learn something" ??
 
Watch this, and maybe you'll learn something. The House Manager's Case is in tatters.

I watched it live. If you’d been paying attention you would have known that the House managers knew the arguments the defense would lay out. Each point had already been raised and thoroughly debunked in the previous days. It was a really short presentation since they don’t have any factual arguments to refute all the evidence that had been laid out. Trump is counting on all the Senate Republicans being as morally bankrupt as he is, I still do expect that he’s right in that assessment. Have you figured out yet if Biden was specifically being targeted? Able to crack the case on that one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubleyous
Interesting FOX carried the pubs live today but for the last 3 days of house manager presentations they mostly had a live feed reduced in the corner with no sound while pundits ridiculed it on air.

MSNBC and CNN carried all of it live, including the pubs today.

Assuming they carry the next two days live and uninterrupted, which networks would be considered more fair and balanced?
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Interesting FOX carried the pubs live today but for the last 3 days of house manager presentations they mostly had a live feed reduced in the corner with no sound while pundits ridiculed it on air.

MSNBC and CNN carried all of it live, including the pubs today.

Assuming they carry the next two days live and uninterrupted, which networks would be considered more fair and balanced?
I bet you don’t get an answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
Trump BLOCKED the witnesses the house wanted. He didn't exert executive privilege, he just said NO. That is obstruction of Congress. Tell me why it isn't.
You have the nerve to accuse the house of not doing their job when they couldn't interview the key witnesses. Explain to me how they were supposed to get first hand info if the witnesses that had it were blocked from testifying. Explain that to me.

How the hell is this a power grab? The house has no power. None. Watch and see how much power they have as the senate conducts a trial without witnesses and every Republican votes with the president because they're afraid of doing what they know is right because trump will use people like you to keep them from being elected.
Power grab? Trump has all the power here. Wtf is wrong with you?

I hope you're smarter than you appear in some of your posts. The President blocked the subpoenas, because they weren't legal. Pelosi announced the impeachment at a press briefing. The House voted to commence the impeachment. The House neglected to confer the power of subpoenas to the committees, which was a gross oversight on Pelosi's part and rendered any subpoenas they issued invalid. Thus, the WH could ignore them without penalty. The WH lawyers notified Pelosi & Schiff that they were ignoring the subpoenas and why, but they never remedied the situation. More proof that they were never serious about winning the impeachment. They just wanted to smear Trump as much as possible to, hopefully, render him unelectable. It's really transparent to anyone, who can look at it objectively.

You don't think trying to invalidate an election and keep Trump's name off the ballot in the next election is a power grab? You're right. Power grab is understating the case. It's more properly called a COUP. The Dems are trying to make us a Third World country. Open the borders and have Presidential Coups. I wonder if they're going to run on those issues?

Let's look at what the House has done.
They're trying to Impeach the President for Obstructing Congress, when the House obstructed itself, by not voting to give the committees the authorization to issue subpoenas. The President followed the rules by ignoring them.
They're trying to Impeach the President for Abuse of Power, when there is no factual proof that it occurred. Everything they have offered as proof is hearsay evidence. The ONLY fact witness that they interviewed, Ambassador Sondland, admitted that the President told him "He wanted nothing from Ukraine. No quid pro quo". The President of Ukraine said that he was never pressured to do anything. The transcript didn't indicate that there was any pressure.

Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi all said that they had "Overwhelming " evidence that Trump was guilty, yet the first thing they do, when they appear before the Senate, is request that the Senate subpoena documents and witnesses. Why would you need that if your case was already "Overwhelming"? Then in a monumental act of stupidity, they tell the Senators that if they don't subpoena the documents and the witnesses, that the Senators would be complicit in the "Cover Up". That's a great way to ingratiate yourselves with the people that are going to judge the case. Understanding that they already know the outcome, you know that it won't matter, whether the Senate issues subpoenas or not. Trump is not going to be found guilty, since this case is a joke and a sham. When the Senate votes in Trump's favor, Schiff, Pelosi & Nadler will run to the nearest cameras and proclaim that the fix is in and that the Senate ignored their "Overwhelming" evidence and are just part of the "Cover Up". Of course, the MSM will trumpet their outrage, since they are just the marketing wing of the DNC.

Don't confuse me with you, W and 35. I'm not a mindless little drone like you guys are, who can't recognize the difference between a political hit job and an actual abuse of power. I'm not a big fan of Trump, the person, but he has done enough good things for the country that I'm supporting him for reelection. I'm not blind to his flaws, but you guys are apparently totally blind to everything that he's done for our country. I've never experienced blind hatred like that in my life and I hope I never do.
 
People that care about Trump more than the country are disgusting.

I care more about the Presidency, than I care about Trump. What the Dems are trying to do to the Presidency and the country is disgusting, in an attempt to grab power. The fact that you can't recognize that just shows how totally indoctrinated you are and how your TDS doesn't allow you to think straight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glidresquirrel
Thank you. There is no law regarding obstruction of congress......but it's clearly an offense the framers would consider serious, considering how they set up our republic with the separation of powers.
So how should this violation by the executive branch be addressed if there is no law? The only remedy is impeachment.

The house collected plenty of evidence and felt they had enough to go forward. Republicans disagree. The house doesn't have any direct evidence of trump telling one of his yes men that he was holding up aid to Ukraine until they announced an investigation into his political opponent BECAUSE TRUMP BLOCKED THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESSES AND THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS. Hence the obstruction of congress article of impeachment. Do you see how this works?

Impeachment is an act of last resort. If there is a point of contention, between the Administration and the Legislative Branch, the Founding Fathers designed the system, so it would be resolved in the Judicial Branch, not go immediately to impeachment. The only reason the Dems went directly to impeachment is because the country is doing great and they know that Trump will get reelected, unless they can dump enough mud on him to make him unelectable. Every Dem politician, every MSM talking head and all the midless Dem drones remind us daily that Trump is corrupt, he lies, he's Putin's puppet, he's trying to undermine his opponents by pointing out their corruption, he bombed Pearl Harbor, and on and on...

I watched all the hearings in the House and there was a lot of inuendo, supposition and presumption, but NO compelling evidence, which is why the House Dems want the Senate to do their work for them.
As usual, I see that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT