Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61

Thread: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

  1. #11
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,847

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
    Mulvaney said in one of his press conferences that they were aware they needed to dispense the aid before the end of the fiscal year.
    Either way, the democrats are in the deep weeds right now. They have no direct evidence. The transcript is not a smoking gun quid pro quo. They don't have a single witness saying Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid. Most Americans really hate foreign aid and couldn't care less about the Ukraine. On top of all that, there is the video of Joe bragging about using funding to force the firing of the prosecutor which was the thing Trump referenced in the phone call and asked them to look into. Some of the Senators who think he broke the law don't think it is serious enough to warrant removal.


    In the midst of all that, their golden boy Joe isn;t gaining any traction in the polls and they have Ralphie Blackface stoking a holy war in Virginia over guns. I really do not see how the dems can come out of 2020 not crippled by all this.

  2. #12
    Doctor D
    Oborosen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Heflin, Alabama
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Drawdown View Post
    Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
    Yet those that support impeachment are still so desperate as to make it seem like he "must" be impeached.
    Why do they run?
    Because they have no choice son, such is the way of cowards.
    But even a cornered rat, with no choice, will fight.
    Yes my son, and that should tell you more than you need to know about the coward.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,272

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Drawdown View Post
    To the victor goes the spoils.
    Yep we know you support corruption in Trump. No need for you to continue showing how you support lawlessness in Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logical1 View Post
    Which is greater, the life of the baby or a womans "rights"??????
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxas
    Yes, we know that you don't care Trump bragged about walking in on underage girls naked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And that bothers you because????????

  4. #14
    Guru
    WillyPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,414

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Yet those that support impeachment are still so desperate as to make it seem like he "must" be impeached.
    I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

    Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

    If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
    Ask about my German oranges!

  5. #15
    Doctor D
    Oborosen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Heflin, Alabama
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by WillyPete View Post
    I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

    Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

    If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
    They're most likely waiting to see just how much free press they can squeeze from this, if my understand of Trump is to be taken into consideration.

    Then again, the process of legislation here could have their hands tied as well. I'm not really sure at this point.
    Why do they run?
    Because they have no choice son, such is the way of cowards.
    But even a cornered rat, with no choice, will fight.
    Yes my son, and that should tell you more than you need to know about the coward.

  6. #16
    Sensational
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    48,090
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Drawdown View Post
    Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
    Only one witness had direct knowledge and was called by Schiff, his star witness. This witness testified that Trump made no quid pro quo, bribery or extortion, that Trump instructed that no one else do so, and he had no knowledge of Trump wanted to do so either. Schiff's only witness with any knowledge of anything was actually a witness for Trump's innocence. The ONLY actual witness that is even allowed under the Federal Rules Of Evidence testified to Trump's innocence.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,496

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by WillyPete View Post
    I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

    Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

    If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
    Maybe you can prevail upon Schiff and Pelosi to stop suppressing WB testimony. We're all supposed to have the right to confront our accuser in court. So you should probably ask yourself exactly what the dems are afraid of, while you're asking questions. Considering Schiff's conduct, were he a practicing prosecutor, he'd be disbarred.

  8. #18
    Cult of Scotty Kilmer

    Airyaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    AL
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
    Hasn't aged well has it?

    A few highlights:
    Clinton: lied about getting a blowjob.
    Trump: used the power of the presidency to try to extract personal favors from a foreign government.

    Which one of these is actually a danger to our democracy?
    Unless a good Libertarian candidate emerges, I can support a moderate Dem. Biden, Klobuchar, or Mayor Pete. If it's Bernie, I will abstain. I bet I'm not alone.

  9. #19
    Guru
    WillyPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,414

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Maybe you can prevail upon Schiff and Pelosi to stop suppressing WB testimony. We're all supposed to have the right to confront our accuser in court. So you should probably ask yourself exactly what the dems are afraid of, while you're asking questions. Considering Schiff's conduct, were he a practicing prosecutor, he'd be disbarred.
    The entire point of whistleblower laws is to protect the whistleblower so they are willing to testify at all. They brought in numerous other witnesses to corroborate the whistleblower's information that were questioned. I don't know of any particular allegation that is unique to the whistleblower.

    Doesn't really explain team Trump's behavior, either. Their story doesn't sync up with their actions. If they are innocent victims of a hoax, then they should be chomping at the bit to put accurate information in play.
    Ask about my German oranges!

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,496

    Re: Schumer's thought on impeechment back when

    Quote Originally Posted by WillyPete View Post
    The entire point of whistleblower laws is to protect the whistleblower so they are willing to testify at all. They brought in numerous other witnesses to corroborate the whistleblower's information that were questioned. I don't know of any particular allegation that is unique to the whistleblower.

    Doesn't really explain team Trump's behavior, either. Their story doesn't sync up with their actions. If they are innocent victims of a hoax, then they should be chomping at the bit to put accurate information in play.
    The Whistleblower is protected. As it stands, we don't have WB testimony, so we have no ground upon which to evaluate WB claims. We have only Schiff's assertion that other witnesses support the WB' assertions. Given Schiff's poor track record with truthfulness, I think we need to hear from the WB, if we're going to hear from anybody at all. Further, if we're going to have witnesses, let's hear from the IC IG. A change in WB qualification was made right before this WB stepped forward which makes second hand witnesses suddenly qualified - a coincidence which needs some explanation beyond a shrug. That's a rather unique circumstance.

    Given that the above are already facts in evidence, I doubt any witnesses are necessary. But if we have any, those two should be the first to offer testmony.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •