Graham on the impeachment inquiry: 'I made my mind up. There's nothing there'

[Helix]

I have no worries about the Republican Senate carrying on a partisan trial, just as the House carries on their partisan impeachment crap. When only one side of the evidence is presented at the trial, the vote will be easy, just as in the House sham, the vote will be easy.

I understand that you support Republicans refusing to perform their constitutional duty as jurors. It's not much of a surprise.

 

[ludin]

Oh, he knows. He knows that he’s peddling nonsense.

prove it. do something to actually support your argument for a change. you know some kind of evidence.

 

[ludin]

Maybe he should have looked at the Constitution, it's pretty clearly outlined there...

i think he knows the constitution. so again you have yet to say where he is wrong.
so you have no argument.

 

[snakestretcher]

Right. Because only democrats are allowed to have already made up their minds.

What did you honestly expect Trump's arse-kisser in chief to say?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

prove it. do something to actually support your argument for a change. you know some kind of evidence.

^^ That’s pretty funny coming from you, since one of the things you’re best known for in this forum is not providing any proof to back up your mostly ridiculous assertions.

As for proof that Dershowitz knows better; Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia

 

[ludin]

^^ That’s pretty funny coming from you, since one of the things you’re best known for in this forum is not providing any proof to back up your assertions.

As for proof that Dershowitz knows better; Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia

actually you are incorrect. i back myself up all the time. other people not liking or or reading it is not my problem.
denial fallacies are the favorite tactic of the left but they are no longer valid arguments.

there is a difference in supporting your argument which i do all the time and then the other person pretending that it doesn't exist.
.

i asked for evidence not wiki. wiki is not proof of anything. i asked you to show me where he did not know what he was talking about.
not a wiki article.

what this means is that you have to show me a statute or some other federal law that says he is wrong.

 

[Obscurity]

Hasn't heard any evidence. Brown Noser Lindsey can suck a fart out of my ass.

 

[Bandit]

actually you are incorrect. i back myself up all the time. other people not liking or or reading it is not my problem.
denial fallacies are the favorite tactic of the left but they are no longer valid arguments.

there is a difference in supporting your argument which i do all the time and then the other person pretending that it doesn't exist.
.

i asked for evidence not wiki. wiki is not proof of anything. i asked you to show me where he did not know what he was talking about.
not a wiki article.

what this means is that you have to show me a statute or some other federal law that says he is wrong.

Why should anyone try and prove anything to a trump supporter. You have already made it abundantly clear you care about nothing but your self serving interest and have ignored everything immoral, criminal and disgusting. You cannot be changed because you have no choice. Either way, it is the end of your party and you know it. I figure you are trying to do as much damage as you can before you return to where you were before he was elected. A life of obscurity and anger at everyone else because blaming yourself would be too painful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NebraskaFtball]

I call it that you are talking about the Obama administration. Ukraine was giving the money with nothing granted.

Ie no crime.

Huh...So attempted crimes are not crimes now? Weird. I guess all of the attempted murderers out there can rejoice.

Do you see the folly in your logic?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

actually you are incorrect. i back myself up all the time. other people not liking or or reading it is not my problem.
denial fallacies are the favorite tactic of the left but they are no longer valid arguments.

there is a difference in supporting your argument which i do all the time and then the other person pretending that it doesn't exist.
.

i asked for evidence not wiki. wiki is not proof of anything. i asked you to show me where he did not know what he was talking about.
not a wiki article.

what this means is that you have to show me a statute or some other federal law that says he is wrong.

First, you’re lying, saying that you back yourself up “all the time”. That is a fact.

Second, only an idiot or fool doesn’t know who Dershowitz is and what his qualifications are. In this instance the reference should have been unnecessary, so you’re lucky I even provided a wiki link.

Dershowitz is a paid legal hack for Faux News. He flushed his credibility down the toilet, spouting nonsense to please right wing knuckleheads. Virtually every other scholar of his (previous) stature disagrees with his assessment of Trump’s violation to his oath and the Constitution.

 

[yankintx]

Graham on the impeachment inquiry: 'I made my mind up. There's nothing there'

Lindsey Trump - Throw him off the Senate jury and then kick him out in 2020 for not doing his job.

Like any juror, Graham should remove himself as he has already decided before the trial has begun.

 

[NebraskaFtball]

As dershowitz called it nothing. Leftists are making up crimes.

Nah. I'm not a leftist. I'd argue I'm one of the more conservative people on this board. And I'm not making up anything. The facts and the truth are there for anyone without partisan blinders on. The founders specifically feared this very situation. Hence their decision to write impeachment into the Constitution, and give that power to Congress to hold a President to account who may abuse the power that the office provides them. What Trump did was not okay. It was beyond wrong. And he needs to pay a price for abusing the power we granted to him.

 

[ludin]

Nah. I'm not a leftist. I'd argue I'm one of the more conservative people on this board. And I'm not making up anything. The facts and the truth are there for anyone without partisan blinders on. The founders specifically feared this very situation. Hence their decision to write impeachment into the Constitution, and give that power to Congress to hold a President to account who may abuse the power that the office provides them. What Trump did was not okay. It was beyond wrong. And he needs to pay a price for abusing the power we granted to him.

what did he do? the only person other than the people that filed the memo was vindman. he was the only person on the phone call.
he admited that the memo was correct according to his notes. he also when asked couldn't point out any quid pro quo.

he had some disagreements over policy but that is not illegal.
no one else that testified has any knowledge of the phone call or what was said.
they are simply spouting off 3rd and 4th sources of information which is hearsay and not reliable.

so there was no abuse of power.
if you think it is abuse of power to withhold funding until a government gets a hand on corruption then
every president that has ever been elected has abused their power.

presidents have abused the power for the past 2 centuries.

 

[Moderate Right]

I understand that you support Republicans refusing to perform their constitutional duty as jurors. It's not much of a surprise.

But they are going to perform their constitutional duty. It says nowhere in the constitution that the constitutional duty of a Senator in an impeachment trial is voting to remove a president from office. In fact, we have had two impeachments of a president and the precedent is in not removing the president from office. That's why our founders created the high bar of requiring a 2/3's vote to remove. You act like their duty is to vote guilty. It's not.

 

[danielpalos]

Hopefully, some in the Senate went to "pre-med instead of pre-judge."

 

[NebraskaFtball]

what did he do? the only person other than the people that filed the memo was vindman. he was the only person on the phone call.
he admited that the memo was correct according to his notes. he also when asked couldn't point out any quid pro quo.

he had some disagreements over policy but that is not illegal.
no one else that testified has any knowledge of the phone call or what was said.
they are simply spouting off 3rd and 4th sources of information which is hearsay and not reliable.

so there was no abuse of power.
if you think it is abuse of power to withhold funding until a government gets a hand on corruption then
every president that has ever been elected has abused their power.

presidents have abused the power for the past 2 centuries.

For starters, the fact you are of the mindset that the single phone call with Zelensky is what this is all about is likely a root cause of your confusion here. There is much, much more to this abuse of power scheme than a single phone call. This scheme began months before the phone call that culminated in Trump's continuance of corrupt actions.

Donald Trump engaged in a wide-ranging abuse of power scheme. He attempted to extort Ukraine into publicly announcing the opening of a corruption investigation into his chief political opponent in the upcoming election. A public announcement that would include key words and phrases in which were approved by him. He wanted President Zelensky to personally deliver the remarks publicly on either CNN or Fox. Even suggesting somewhere like on Tucker Carlson as an acceptable outlet. This was to be done to further his electoral chances in 2020. He did not care about general corruption, or even if there was corruption engaged in by the Bidens. He wanted a public announcement so that he could beat his opponent over the head with it for months and months, the same way he was successfully able to do to Clinton.

In exchange for this public announcement, he was willing to withhold military aid and an official State Visit, both of which were desperately sought by the Ukrainians. The prior was also very much in our national security interests. So Trump was willing to damage our national security in exchange for receiving something of value that would personally benefit him. Not only is this very much not okay and completely wrong, but it is exactly what is defined as being a High Crime. That makes it very much impeachable.

If not for the whistle-blower coming forward and warning of this extreme abuse of power scheme transpiring, we may have never known about this. But the WB filed a report, that was then corroborated by the Trump-appointed IC IG as being both urgent and credible. It was not until this point in time that the Trump administration realized just how screwed they were, and they then opted to release the aid to Ukraine, even without the public announcement being made. However, the cover-up had been in full swing at this point. Following the call that directly implicates Trump in seeking the quid-pro-quo with Zelensky (remember, he did not mention the word 'corruption' one single time on the call) his top administration lackeys scrambled to hide the call on a code-level server that could only be accessed by a select few. But it did not matter by then, because all of the back-channel shenanigans had left a long paper trail of the abuse of power scheme. These are corrupt people, led by the most corrupt of them all in Trump. But they are not geniuses. They are a bunch of morons that felt they were above the rule of law, above the Constitution, and would be capable of doing whatever they needed to do in order to retain power for themselves.

You may not like it. You may even pretend this is not real. But you would be wrong. This is all truth my friend. Trump abused the power granted to him by the people, trying to impact the outcome of the election in his favor, through the use of extortion and foreign interference. THIS. IS. WRONG!

 

[rickc]

Republicans in the Senate are between a rock and a hard place. Think about.it.

A majority of the republican base is the Deplorables. You see it plainly on this very forum.

So they have 2 choices.

Stick their heads in the sand, refuse to look at the evidence and turn trump loose

Or

Actually review the evidence and make an informed decision on it.

So it is between keeping their phoney baloney jobs and doing the right thing for the American People. What they were hired to do.

 

[ludin]

For starters, the fact you are of the mindset that the single phone call with Zelensky is what this is all about is likely a root cause of your confusion here. There is much, much more to this abuse of power scheme than a single phone call. This scheme began months before the phone call that culminated in Trump's continuance of corrupt actions.

eH wrong. this entire thing and all the accusations stem from trump committing quid pro quo.

Donald Trump engaged in a wide-ranging abuse of power scheme. He attempted to extort Ukraine into publicly announcing the opening of a corruption investigation into his chief political opponent in the upcoming election. A public announcement that would include key words and phrases in which were approved by him. He wanted President Zelensky to personally deliver the remarks publicly on either CNN or Fox. Even suggesting somewhere like on Tucker Carlson as an acceptable outlet. This was to be done to further his electoral chances in 2020. He did not care about general corruption, or even if there was corruption engaged in by the Bidens. He wanted a public announcement so that he could beat his opponent over the head with it for months and months, the same way he was successfully able to do to Clinton.

We have the transcript of the call please show us where that was. no one else can find it not even vindman.

In exchange for this public announcement, he was willing to withhold military aid and an official State Visit, both of which were desperately sought by the Ukrainians. The prior was also very much in our national security interests. So Trump was willing to damage our national security in exchange for receiving something of value that would personally benefit him. Not only is this very much not okay and completely wrong, but it is exactly what is defined as being a High Crime. That makes it very much impeachable.

Show me the evidence. that means 1st hand knowledge. transcripts and other such things. not people with personal biases.

If not for the whistle-blower coming forward and warning of this extreme abuse of power scheme transpiring, we may have never known about this. But the WB filed a report, that was then corroborated by the Trump-appointed IC IG as being both urgent and credible. It was not until this point in time that the Trump administration realized just how screwed they were, and they then opted to release the aid to Ukraine, even without the public announcement being made. However, the cover-up had been in full swing at this point. Following the call that directly implicates Trump in seeking the quid-pro-quo with Zelensky (remember, he did not mention the word 'corruption' one single time on the call) his top administration lackeys scrambled to hide the call on a code-level server that could only be accessed by a select few. But it did not matter by then, because all of the back-channel shenanigans had left a long paper trail of the abuse of power scheme. These are corrupt people, led by the most corrupt of them all in Trump. But they are not geniuses. They are a bunch of morons that felt they were above the rule of law, above the Constitution, and would be capable of doing whatever they needed to do in order to retain power for themselves.

You may not like it. You may even pretend this is not real. But you would be wrong. This is all truth my friend. Trump abused the power granted to him by the people, trying to impact the outcome of the election in his favor, through the use of extortion and foreign interference. THIS. IS. WRONG!

The whistle blower is a known trump hater and worked for biden's campaign. the WB in question lied on his submission form.
the WB talked to schiffs people before even submitting the form. The WB wasn't even on the call admitted he wasn't on the call
and has 0 knowledge of the call or what was said on the call.

we then have the president of the Ukraine itself calling everything you just mentioned a pile of bunk and that there was no pressure
on the phone call at all.

if you are trying to rely on schiff for information you should realize that so far schiff has been one huge strike out.

 

[ludin]

Republicans in the Senate are between a rock and a hard place. Think about.it.

A majority of the republican base is the Deplorables. You see it plainly on this very forum.

So they have 2 choices.

Stick their heads in the sand, refuse to look at the evidence and turn trump loose

Or

Actually review the evidence and make an informed decision on it.

So it is between keeping their phoney baloney jobs and doing the right thing for the American People. What they were hired to do.

you seen to be confusing republicans for leftist again.
in general republican don't go around accusing people of crimes they don't commit.

 

[NebraskaFtball]

eH wrong. this entire thing and all the accusations stem from trump committing quid pro quo.



We have the transcript of the call please show us where that was. no one else can find it not even vindman.



Show me the evidence. that means 1st hand knowledge. transcripts and other such things. not people with personal biases.



The whistle blower is a known trump hater and worked for biden's campaign. the WB in question lied on his submission form.
the WB talked to schiffs people before even submitting the form. The WB wasn't even on the call admitted he wasn't on the call
and has 0 knowledge of the call or what was said on the call.

we then have the president of the Ukraine itself calling everything you just mentioned a pile of bunk and that there was no pressure
on the phone call at all.

if you are trying to rely on schiff for information you should realize that so far schiff has been one huge strike out.

Like I stated, you can pretend this is not real. But it very, very much is. What Trump and company did was wrong. Period. No amount of deflection will erase the facts of this case. It is convenient to argue from an emotional standpoint, as you are doing. But the facts belie your position.

 

[Helix]

But they are going to perform their constitutional duty. It says nowhere in the constitution that the constitutional duty of a Senator in an impeachment trial is voting to remove a president from office. In fact, we have had two impeachments of a president and the precedent is in not removing the president from office. That's why our founders created the high bar of requiring a 2/3's vote to remove. You act like their duty is to vote guilty. It's not.

No, deciding the verdict before the trial in the Senate is not doing one's constitutional duty.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, deciding the verdict before the trial in the Senate is not doing one's constitutional duty.

Then why is the left deciding the verdict before the trial? You've apparently decided the verdict before the trial so why shouldn't the other side? How come you're not waiting to hear the evidence first?

 

[Helix]

Then why is the left deciding the verdict before the trial? You've apparently decided the verdict before the trial so why shouldn't the other side? How come you're not waiting to hear the evidence first?

I'm not a juror.

 

[less right]

Listening to Graham defend this president is like watching fellatio on family TV.