Its official, Trump broke the law

[taxme]

16 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

I should point out that the above number is averaged across the country.  The poverty is considerably worse in Trump-voting southern red states.

The American south has always been a poverty zone for decades now. Even the democrats like Obama never changed a bloody thing for those people living in the south. But of course, all the people in poverty in America today is all Trump's fault, right? Liberals? If they showed any intelligence it would be a miracle. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

The Democrats did what they were constitutionally permitted to do.

 

So did the Republicans.

"Elections have consequences" ....the Democrats failed....again.

 

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, Shady said:

You don’t know what you’re talking about.  Constitutionally the senate did exactly what their job is.  To review evidence provided to them by the house.  Its not their job to conduct impeachment proceedings.  It’s the houses job.  

That's right the House's job is to conduct the impeachment and the Senate's job is to conduct the trial according to the impeachment articles, evidence, witnesses and precedent. There is no precedent for a Senate conducting a trial without evidence or witnesses. I clearly know more about what I'm talking about than you do because I don't have my eyes closed, my fingers in my ears and I'm not singing la la la.

There has never been a more succinct demonstration of what The Emperor's New Clothes story was about.
 

Quote

A vain emperor who cares too much about wearing and displaying clothes hires two weavers who claim to make the most beautiful clothes and elaborate patterns. The weavers are con-men who convince the emperor they are using a fine fabric invisible to anyone who is either unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The con lies in that the weavers are actually only pretending to manufacture the clothes. Thus, no one, not even the emperor nor his ministers can see the alleged "clothes", but they all pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions. Finally, the weavers report that the suit is finished and they mime dressing the emperor who then marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Finally, a child in the crowd blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is then taken up by others. The emperor realizes the assertion is true but continues the procession.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

That's right the House's job is to conduct the impeachment and the Senate's job is to conduct the trial according to the impeachment articles, evidence, witnesses and precedent. There is no precedent for a Senate conducting a trial without evidence or witnesses. I clearly know more about what I'm talking about than you do

The house did their "trial", it was an actual joke where they just repeated the exact same lie over and over again:

"Zelenski asked for military aid, Trump immediately asked them for a favour - investigating Biden". I know that you heard that dozens of times now, you just weren't aware of the fact that is an actual lie because you have your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears, singing la la la. Trump asked about crowdstrike at that point, and crowdstrike has absolutely nothing to do with Biden. It only applies to the Russian collusion witch hunt.

Then Zelenski spoke again and the topic went around to the prosecutor (You know - the one who Joe Biden was investigating, because apparently there was something wrong with the fact that the prosecutor was looking into the major scandal at Burisma. Did you know that the new "solid" guy that Biden "put in his place" is not investigating Burisma? Of course you don't, because once again you have your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears, singing la la la.

If the Dems told the truth and made a compelling case of it then there would be room for discussion about going further down the wormhole. That clearly did not happen.

All of the Republicans voted against impeachment, some of the Democrats voted against impeachment as well, and Tulsi Gabbard voted "present". The vote against impeachment had bipartisan support in Congress, the vote against impeachment will have bipartisan support in the Senate, and some of the Senators who vote in favour of impeaching Trump, for no actual crime at all, will be the exact same Senators who voted against impeaching Clinton, and he was found guilty of two felonies and was subsequently disbarred from practicing law.

Now you know these things eyeball, and your opinions in the future should reflect actual knowledge of the whole issue, and not just the CNN/Dem talking points.

FYI, the Senate doesn't exist to be at the whim of serial liars. They all have actual jobs to do. The trial has gone on far too long without a single actual witness corroborating any of the key charges. There have been some liars and some speculators, the President of the Ukraine himself has made that abundantly clear in no uncertain terms.

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

The Democrats did what they were constitutionally permitted to do.

The Dems told the exact same lie over and over again for weeks now, they wasted time for hundreds of congressmen, now they're wasting the time of 100 Senators (not to mention thousands of other people) and they have made another bogus accusation and misled Americans.

There are a lot of people who are too willfully ignorant or who lack the intellectual capacity to correctly interpret the meaning of what was said on the phone call, as per the transcript, and then compare that to the story that the Dems are telling.

I don't like being lied to, neither should you. Nothing the Dems are saying is worth listening to, and that's on almost every topic, not just witch hunt V 2.0. 

[Shady]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right the House's job is to conduct the impeachment and the Senate's job is to conduct the trial according to the impeachment articles, evidence, witnesses and precedent. There is no precedent for a Senate conducting a trial without evidence or witnesses. I clearly know more about what I'm talking about than you do because I don't have my eyes closed, my fingers in my ears and I'm not singing la la la.

There has never been a more succinct demonstration of what The Emperor's New Clothes story was about.
 

 

There was evidence.  There were witnesses.  The Democrats called 18 of them.  Their testimony and the evidence examined in the house was available to the senate.  The senate did their constitutional duty.  It’s not the senates fault that Democrats rushes through their process.  Besides, they allowed for zero republican witnesses in the house trial.  Do you think that’s fair?  Why did they do that, and then think republicans would allow for more of their witnesses in the senate.  Get lost.

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The house did their "trial", it was an actual joke where they just repeated the exact same lie over and over again:

No the Senate "did" the trial. The House did the impeachment.

I did especially laugh though when the GOP finally got the lie shrugged and said so what? You've spent months trying not to get it yourself, it must be a relief to finally get past that eh? Doesn't look like Shady is doing as well that way. I guess there's a certain logic to not bothering with evidence or witnesses when the conclusion has been so adamantly predetermined.

Quote

There have been some liars and some speculators, the President of the Ukraine himself has made that abundantly clear in no uncertain terms.

Sure, call him to testify too.

Edited February 1, 2020 by eyeball

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Shady said:

There was evidence.  There were witnesses.  The Democrats called 18 of them.  Their testimony and the evidence examined in the house was available to the senate.  The senate did their constitutional duty.  It’s not the senates fault that Democrats rushes through their process.  

There's still more evidence. There are still more witnesses. The Senate is refusing to see or hear these. Some of these are witnesses and evidence that were not available to the House for reasons that were not it's fault.

Quote

Besides, they allowed for zero republican witnesses in the house trial.  Do you think that’s fair?  Why did they do that, and then think republicans would allow for more of their witnesses in the senate.

They probably did it for some stupid partisan reason peculier to Democrats. What's preventing Republicans from rising above all that and calling these witnesses now?

Quote

Get lost.

Go piss up a rope and just answer the fucking question.

Edited February 1, 2020 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

No the Senate "did" the trial. The House did the impeachment.

I did especially laugh though when the GOP finally got the lie shrugged and said so what? You've spent months trying not to get it yourself, it must be a relief to finally get past that eh? Doesn't look like Shady is doing as well that way. I guess there's a certain logic to not bothering with evidence or witnesses when the conclusion has been so adamantly predetermined.

Sure, call him to testify too.

You know what I meant. It was like a trial. Kangaroo court version.

Anyhow you still never addressed the fact that the Dems just lied every time they talked about the call. 

Pretty bogus, hey?

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

There's still more evidence. There are still more witnesses. The Senate is refusing to see or hear these. Some of these are witnesses and evidence that were not available to the House for reasons that were not it's fault.

There you go like Charlie Brown again, swiping at that football.

The Dems and CNN said probably 1,000x that they had "BOMBSHELL NEW EVIDENCE, TRUMP IS ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHMENT" during the collusion investigation. 

Every time they said that, it was a total lie. They had nothing. 

So now they're saying the exact same thing for the 1,001st time and you're all over it like ugly on an ape lol. Eyeball never learns.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

You know what I meant. It was like a trial. Kangaroo court version.

Anyhow you still never addressed the fact that the Dems just lied every time they talked about the call. 

Pretty bogus, hey?

There's no point addressing what the defence conceded was in fact the truth all along. It happened - so you expended months and terabytes of bandwidth arguing thru your ass for no reason and to no end - get over it.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

There you go like Charlie Brown again, swiping at that football.

Whatever you say Lucy. I honestly have no idea what's bogus and what isn't without evidence and witnesses and neither did you according to the so-what defence/concession Trump's exoneration now rests on.

Quote

The Dems and CNN said probably 1,000x that they had "BOMBSHELL NEW EVIDENCE, TRUMP IS ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHMENT" during the collusion investigation.

For the record, again, Trump WAS impeached. Now he is on the verge of being exonerated - in a slipshod incomplete trial with a deliberate dearth of witnesses. I can only imagine what kind of collusion it would take to get away with that in any other official trial.

Quote

Every time they said that, it was a total lie. They had nothing. 

So now they're saying the exact same thing for the 1,001st time and you're all over it like ugly on an ape lol. Eyeball never learns.

I've never had much if any reason to believe either side for decades now. Did you know I even regard Obama as being a war criminal?  On second thought don't ask, your poor head would explode if you were forced to defend Obama. You just can't seem to accept it when someone isn't unequivocally or uninhibitedly with you on your side no matter what.  Are you Donald Trump by any chance?

Edited February 2, 2020 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

There's no point addressing what the defence conceded was in fact the truth all along. It happened - so you expended months and terabytes of bandwidth arguing thru your ass for no reason and to no end - get over it.

Whatever you say Lucy. I honestly have no idea what's bogus and what isn't without evidence and witnesses and neither did you according to the so-what defence/concession Trump's exoneration now rests on.

For the record, again, Trump WAS impeached. Now he is on the verge of being exonerated - in a slipshod incomplete trial with a deliberate dearth of witnesses. I can only imagine what kind of collusion it would take to get away with that in any other official trial.

I've never had much if any reason to believe either side for decades now. Did you know I even regard Obama as being a war criminal?  On second thought don't ask, your poor head would explode if you were forced to defend Obama. You just can't seem to accept it when someone isn't unequivocally or uninhibitedly with you on your side no matter what.  Are you Donald Trump by any chance?

For the record, the end result is that once again you were sucked in by the Dems, period. They never had an actual case to begin with, they just had to overreact to keep Biden's fat out of the fire. 

Re: Obama, he was a slick talker and an actual piece of crap. 

I was sucked in, just like everyone else, thinking that it would be good for America to have their first black President. He was divisive, had bad instincts, he was weak when he needed to be strong, and the only smart thing he ever did was get Bush's second stimulus pkg through.

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

For the record, the end result is that once again you were sucked in by the Dems, period.

How did they suck me in the 1st time, did you not see where I clearly said I have no reason to trust them? Your weird way of looking at things sure suck you into believing and saying things that are profoundly ill-informed...its hilarious listening to you go on about how easily everyone is duped by CNN.

Quote

Re: Obama, he was a slick talker and an actual piece of crap. 

I was sucked in, just like everyone else, thinking that it would be good for America to have their first black President. He was divisive, had bad instincts, he was weak when he needed to be strong, and the only smart thing he ever did was get Bush's second stimulus pkg through.

I knew everything I needed to know about him when he started killing people extra-judicially and signed onto the 5 Eyes. You weren't troubled by these at all? How come? Careful now, this is where you might have to defend him.

Your capacity for self-delusion when squirming around to escape the corners you think yourself into is legendary around here. I mean for God's sake man, you even called Argus a lefty .

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I knew everything I needed to know about him when he started killing people extra-judicially and signed onto the 5 Eyes.

 

Shouldn't have taken that long from Canada....never trust an American president from the day they are inaugurated. 

It's in the job description.

[godzilla]

Alexander: Trump's Ukraine actions 'wrong,' 'inappropriate,' but not impeachable

Ernst: Trump's learned his lesson on foreign interference

So, the Senate finds that Donald Tyrant is guilty as charged... But its no big deal.

They're making the "perfect call" a tough sell. No victory lap during the State of the Union speech i guess. Trump will try anyways... Lol!

[Yzermandius19]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

There's still more evidence. There are still more witnesses. The Senate is refusing to see or hear these. Some of these are witnesses and evidence that were not available to the House for reasons that were not it's fault.

Wrong, those witnesses are available to the House, they could call them right now if they wanted to, they simply do not have the balls to call them. The House is refusing to hear them, the Senate is saying, "if you want to call those witnesses, then call them yourselves and get back to us".

This narrative that the House couldn't call the witnesses they wanted to is a lie, they simply wanted to rush impeachment and said they had enough evidence they didn't need to call any more witnesses, but then the second it's in the Senate's hands, they demand more witnesses and evidence, and try to pretend like if the Senate doesn't go along with them that it's all their fault the witnesses didn't get called, and you fell for it.

This is on House Democrats, but you hate Trump so much that you automatically side with anyone who is against him and blame his supporters, hence blaming Senate Republicans for a lack of witnesses and evidence instead of the House Democrats, when it's clearly the latter's fault.

It's the House's job to investigate, and the Senate's job to hold the trial, doing the House's job for the House on top of their own job, that is not on the Senate, the House Dems just want to pretend it is to cover for their own incompetence.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, godzilla said:

So, the Senate finds that Donald Tyrant is guilty as charged... But its no big deal.

They're making the "perfect call" a tough sell. No victory lap during the State of the Union speech i guess. Trump will try anyways... Lol!

 

Yep...same as Bill Clinton...guilty but not removed from office....imagine that.

[Yzermandius19]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep...same as Bill Clinton...guilty but not removed from office....imagine that.

Who could have possibly seen this coming? Those who didn't just start following US politics when Trump was elected, that's who.

[ReeferMadness]

On 2/1/2020 at 11:53 AM, taxme said:

The American south has always been a poverty zone for decades now. Even the democrats like Obama never changed a bloody thing for those people living in the south. But of course, all the people in poverty in America today is all Trump's fault, right? Liberals? If they showed any intelligence it would be a miracle. 

I don't recall saying it was all Trump's fault.  I'm no huge fan of Obama or either Clinton. 

US politics is one enormous cesspool.  The country is deeply dysfunctional.

But far and away, Trump is worse than either Obama or the Clintons and the red states are, on average, far worse than the blue ones.

 

[godzilla]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

This narrative that the House couldn't call the witnesses they wanted to is a lie, they simply wanted to rush impeachment and said they had enough evidence they didn't need to call any more witnesses, but then the second it's in the Senate's hands, they demand more witnesses and evidence, and try to pretend like if the Senate doesn't go along with them that it's all their fault the witnesses didn't get called, and you fell for it.

With all due respect, what planet does that history come from?

The house started to sepeona individuals close to the action and the WH blocked every one of them. Then in court the WH argued that the courts weren't the place to rule on the matter but that that was the arena of the Senate! And the D's were congizant of it being an election year and, as admitted by a number of Senate republicans now, they had enough proof. Then in the Senate, the WH argued that the courts were where the issue of sepeonas was supposed to play out. Complete two face!

I'd bet money that the House moves on those supeones now. They got nothing to lose.

Edited February 3, 2020 by godzilla

[Rue]

17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep...same as Bill Clinton...guilty but not removed from office....imagine that.

Imagine that? No. However you clearly seem to be imagine that a blow job is the equivalent to  engaging in a conflict of interest and asking a foreign government to investigate your political foe and the processes of both impeachments were the same.

In regards to whether the processes were the same here is analysis of the two:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/24/trump-impeachment-clinton-compare-partisan-divide-difference/4547459002/

Based on the above there are as anyone can see very clear differences. As well since you addressed the issue its interesting you have no issues with Ken Starr's about face:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/27/kenneth-starr-trump-impeachment-trial

Finally does the following sound like the Trump impeachment process?:

"During Clinton’s impeachment trial, senators ultimately heard video excerpts from three witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, who were subpoenaed to appear for taped off-site depositions. Vernon Jordan Jr. and Sidney Blumenthal had also testified.

However, during impeachment proceedings against Clinton in the House of Representatives, Republicans had access to testimony from other interviews collected by then-special counsel Ken Starr.

Clinton also provided more than 90,000 pages of documents and other information ahead of his trial, according to a Clinton White House response to a referral from the Office of Independent Counsel. By contrast, the Trump White House have not provided documents or complied with subpoenas for more than 70 records, the House wrote in its impeachment inquiry report."

cite:https://time.com/5768920/trump-impeachment-trial-rules/

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Rue

[godzilla]

And Rubio now says Tyrant Trump is guilty... But an impeachable offence does not mean that a president is removed... Whatever that means.

Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed

[Yzermandius19]

Bill Clinton actually committed a crime, Donald Trump did not. They have less on Trump than they had on Clinton, expecting impeachment to go any other way is called being a political noob indulging in wishful thinking.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Shady]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Imagine that? No. However you clearly seem to be imagine that a blow job is the equivalent to  engaging in a conflict of interest and asking a foreign government to investigate your political foe and the processes of both impeachments were the same.

It wasn't about a blowjob, it was about somebody else's sexual harassment lawsuit.  Regardless, if Democrats wanted witnesses in the senate too, they should have allow Republicans to call witnesses in the house, or at the very least allow for cross examination of their witnesses.  They allowed for neither.  So go pound sand.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Bill Clinton actually committed a crime, Donald Trump did not. They have less on Trump than they had on Clinton, expecting impeachment to go any other way is called being a political noob indulging in wishful thinking.

 

Yah for sure a consensual blow job is a serious crime, asking a foreign country to investigate someone running against you for office is not. 

I find your reasoning hard to swallow.