Trump will soon be the 3rd president in American history to be impeached. Finally!

Based on Mueller's report detailing ten counts of obstruction of justice and Trump's own appointees/employees testifying about his contact with the foreign government of Ukraine and its president where he sought that country's influence in defeating his political opponent ex-VP Joe Biden, it's a slam dunk.

His conviction depends on the Republicans in the Senate. Will they kowtow to the Trump cult to save their arses, or will they finally stand up and be counted and honor the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

I'm not optimistic, but wonders will never cease.

wishfull thinking

Athos: Not to douse the fire with water BUT: Don't expect Trump to leave Office because you can bet it will not clear the Republicans held Senate. Also, more likely than not, the Impeachment proceeding will drive up Trump's popularity, much like it did for Clinton and he will win a Second Term.....It will probably mean, too, that the Republicans will take back the House. However, I understand the motivation: Democrats are doing this because they believe in it and their beliefs are based on principles and in defense of the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold: I think they understand that some things are bigger and more important than your political career and they feel it an honor to be part of the Impeachment Process.

Chances are repubs will never remove the dufus, but at least it's a chance to expose the lying cheater for what he is and if the people get riled enough they may pressure the congress as it was with Nixon, or vote the fool out! Be embarrassing if it's a close vote in the senate, or the repubs lose the senate.

Dems are doing the right thing though I feel, regardless of the outcome. Sad it came to this too.

Talaniman: I hope it doesn't take 20 years for the country to recover from this rerun of the 1973-'74 Nixon Impeachment process threat.....and I am not entirely sure that the country recovered after those 20 years: The whole process is a spectacle that brings the country down in the world's eyes, emboldens our adversaries, and will embitter roughly 50% of the population. I know that the voting public at large will become very jaded in their view of politicians, in general, as they did in the threatened Impeachment '73-'74 timeframe. Radical elements will use the Impeachment Process as launch point to promote MORE radical ideals and actions. The country is in for a long period of darkness that we may never recover from for many years. However, if Trump has truly been identifies as the "cancer" on the U.S. that everyone claims he is, well, then, he should be Impeached based on principle.

That is what the process is about. The dufus didn't learn from dodge the Nueller Report bullet, that was enough for me, so he only has himself to blame for this latest scandal, and for sure if he escapes this one too, no doubt the fool will try something even more outrageous. We'll see though.

So a another kangaroo court convenes in the open, Trump was wise to pull back in Syria, he can't fight a war overseas and one on the home front at the same time, but this is also what comes of not having term limits on politicians, some become too powerful

Paraclete: What are you referring to in terms of term limits: The POTUS does have term limits......Who are you speaking of here?

So a another kangaroo court convenes in the open, Trump was wise to pull back in Syria, he can't fight a war overseas and one on the home front at the same time, but this is also what comes of not having term limits on politicians, some become too powerful

We fight in court now Clete instead of in the streets or with Armies on our own soil with our fellow citizens and the kangaroos are in the zoo.

I have no idea about the term limits for any politician other than POTUS, which is two terms and out, but all other government term of service is up to the locals and states. If that's what you meant, we can talk! I think that's more a finance issue to be honest.

We fight in court now Clete instead of in the streets or with Armies on our own soil with our fellow citizens and the kangaroos are in the zoo.

I have no idea about the term limits for any politician other than POTUS, which is two terms and out, but all other government term of service is up to the locals and states. If that's what you meant, we can talk! I think that's more a finance issue to be honest.


Hi Tal, I was referring to the House and the Senate and any government for that matter. If time is short there will be more focus on getting something done instead of just obstructing My kangaroos are no in the zoo and they have no place in court

They know they can never impeach him, they just want to keep this farce up long enough to tamper with the election.

They know that they have no chance to win in 2020 against one of the best Presidents ever, so they just want to tarnish him with one plan after another

Hi Tal, I was referring to the House and the Senate and any government for that matter. If time is short there will be more focus on getting something done instead of just obstructing My kangaroos are no in the zoo and they have no place in court

Some don't think time is short, nor is obstructing the other party in power a bad thing. Long have I railed on the elites corrupting the peoples government with their money to achieve what the want. I don't see term limits solving that problem because the elites will just corrupt the new guys and hire the old ones to get what they want...which is MOMONEY incase you didn't know along with the power of influence and CONTROL of the money.

Roos here are in zoo's or preserves...zoo's without cages. Courts are for justice and redress of grievances and the battleground for enemies. We have evolved somewhat.


They know they can never impeach him, they just want to keep this farce up long enough to tamper with the election.

Hello Charles, been a while. I think if Vlad can interfere in the election and get away with it, then so should the citizens.


They know that they have no chance to win in 2020 against one of the best Presidents ever, so they just want to tarnish him with one plan after another

LOL, disagree with "best" label but tarnishing a guy with his own words and antics is fair game don't you think?

Paraclete & Talaniman: You know, I don't bet, BUT, if I did, I would bet that if ALL of The House and ALL of The Senate were to have their finances FLORENSICALLY EXAMINED, we would be WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSMEN OR SENATORS because they (every Repub, Demo, or, even, Libertarian) are guilty as hell of making money/profit/benefitting in some form or another off their government job....EVERY SINGLE ONE! AND YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT!

Of course you're right, but some are greedier than others, but what would you expect in a country where money makes the world go round.

Paraclete & Talaniman: You know, I don't bet, BUT, if I did, I would bet that if ALL of The House and ALL of The Senate were to have their finances FLORENSICALLY EXAMINED, we would be WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSMEN OR SENATORS because they (every Repub, Demo, or, even, Libertarian) are guilty as hell of making money/profit/benefitting in some form or another off their government job....EVERY SINGLE ONE! AND YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT!

Seriously, I don't know if you are right, you think there is not one honest person among them. If that is so, then let Trump rule

Well Sonland has changed his testimony again (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sondland-updates-impeachment-testimony-describing-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/ar-AAJTPJr?ocid=spartanntp)and the GOPS have changed it's defense from no quid, to quid but it's not impeachable. More transcripts to be released.

Trump is sinking deeper and deeper. His "own" are now testifying to what he actually said and intended re Ukraine. And it ain't good.

Soon Giulianni will flip as the noose tightens around his neck. Rudy's loyalty is limited when he gets indicted.

Pompeo and Barr are next. Pompeo has lied about Ukraine and never lifted a finger to help his own people in State. He wants out and wants back in in Kansas, but Kansas doesn't want him. "Oh, the web they weave..."

Barr is keeping his head down as the nation begins to understand what a crook he is. Be patient, AG Barr. Your turn will be sooner than you think.

Athos: No one can testify about what "Trump intended", not possible. You can replace the name "Trump" with any other person's name in the world and another person still cannot testify as to what another person "intended".

The whole Impeachment process appears to really be academic. Definitely, the House is doing what they think is right for justice but the Senate won't back it up.

The S&P Index hit an all time high the other day.....the Dow and Nasdaq hit new records for the second straight day today: This kind of momentum is incredible leverage for Trump's reelection efforts.

What you/we are all going to witness come November. '20, is a contest between an one group on one side holding out that they Impeached a POTUS and one group on the other side showing what they've done for the economy: We'll see who the American People pick......at any rate, no matter who wins, it will be unprecedented!

Athos: No one can testify about what "Trump intended", not possible.

Of course, they can. Trump has said to the people testifying EXACTLY what he intended! Where do you get the idea it's not possible?


The S&P Index hit an all time high the other day.....the Dow and Nasdaq hit new records for the second straight day today:

Trump's base hasn't a clue what the capital markets are. Except maybe for the farmers who are going bankrupt because of Trump's idiotic tariffs.

The dufus is being impeached for bribing a foreign nation to investigate his political foe. Obstruction of justice may be an included offense. He may also have done the same thing with the previous president of Ukraine in 2017.

You still want to argue intent? His intent was personal gain and to get away with it like any nefarious criminal. You don't need intent to prove a criminal act, or a high crime and misdemeanor...and often the cover up is worse than the crime. Is it enough to sway the senate before an election? Sure they can convict him and not remove the dufus from office. Moscow Mitch has said so, already and repubs are already saying it's not so bad!

That's their story so far.

Athos & Talaniman: Forget about it being Trump: I am convinced that you gentlemen truly detest him and I am not a fan boy myself BUT this has to do with the mechanics of "INTENT" and, just for the pure academic discussion, if you are challenged to prove one's INTENT, how do you do it? I think the first element in this argument is that you must be able to say that you were "wronged" in some way....for instance: If you came at me with a knife and cut me, I could say that your "intent" was to do me bodily harm......but, if you came at me with a knife and did not cut me or injure me in any way, it would be much harder to prove your "intent". This is what I am saying is the case with Trump: You pretty much know, intuitively, what his intent was....however, he, more likely than not, probably did not verbalize this "intent" to anyone....so, without being able to read his mind, how do you prove his intent?

Forget intent for a second and just deal with the FACT he attempted to involve another country in our election by starting a vicous smear campaign from another country that is at war with his lover boy Vlad. Vlad wants Ukraine and will benefit from poisoning Americans against them. Do you really think dems will take it lightly that another country smears one of our own? It doesn't have to succeed in finding stuff on the Bidens, just the thought of investigations is enough as we have seen before with HC's own investigation into her emails which repubs used to raise money and smear her, while unknown to America the dufus was himself being investigated as a security risk.

Repubs have been taken over and tansformed into the party of the dufus to do whatever he says and protect him from any threats the dems can mount, ignoring the FACTS and feeding the country a bunch of spin and conspiracy to keep the dufus in power. Forget quid pro quo folks, think bribery and extortion. Poor Lindsay has come out and said he wouldn't consider the FACTS the House is gathering, and that sounds like the fix is in in the Senate already, with Moscow Mitch telling everybody that repubs don't have to remove the dufus despite what he has done.

Bottom line is even if the dufus didn't succeed in robbing the bank, he sure conspired to do so. That's a crime too, and if that's okay for the office of the president, then NEVER arrest any citizen for breaking the law. If that's how you right wingers want to make America great again, I want no part of it. DUMP THE DUFUS and his sycophants!

BIG Breaking News!

Anybody following the Roger Stone Trial? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/roger-stone-trial-steve-bannon-says-stone-access-point-wikileaks-trump-campaign-randy-credico/2517218001/)We get a glimpse into those redacted Mueller Report grand jury notes. Bannon connects the dufus campaign directly to WikiLeaks through Roger Stone! Do I really need to explain the implications of this event?

BIG Breaking News!

Anybody following the Roger Stone Trial? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/roger-stone-trial-steve-bannon-says-stone-access-point-wikileaks-trump-campaign-randy-credico/2517218001/)We get a glimpse into those redacted Mueller Report grand jury notes. Bannon connects the dufus campaign directly to WikiLeaks through Roger Stone! Do I really need to explain the implications of this event?

Russia hacks the DNC server, provides Julian Assange with the emails, Stone coordinates the release with Wikileaks.

Then there's the completely fouled-up mess with Ukraine - Trump, Giulliani, three ambassadors, heroic Army officer, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and more and more with transcripts being released daily, and public hearings to begin next Wednesday.

The House of Cards is tottering.

The "COURT" (i.e. SENATE) is stacked against you: Evidence be damned.....doesn't matter.....DOW set FOUR RECORDS THIS WEEK: MATTERS A BUNCH! People will not walk away from money. Is it right? Doesn't matter.

I don't have stock or play the ponies, and I give the dufus no credit for all that the stock markets does. He walked into it and it's going good for some. That has little to do with his own criminal self enriching words and actions that he will be held account for. Whatever the senate chooses to do about it they will be held in account for their own words, actions, and behavior.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJX2pD.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=747&y=176

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJXwVL.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJTvxP.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=592&y=145

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJOE71.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJt6Je.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJGrkX.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

They're all great, but that last one is PERFECT!

Ha, ha, ha: They are some very good 'toons! How come The Right sucks so bad at making 'toons that provoke laughter? The Right has little in the way of humor.

I know what you mean! (https://politelypatrician.blogspot.com/)

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qzQZ5_ltnf4/W1Nv4XuOTqI/AAAAAAABMi8/jYN3bIiUNP4XvRn8C8H-Pmr36LvfclzBwCLcBGAs/s640/kgb.jpg (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qzQZ5_ltnf4/W1Nv4XuOTqI/AAAAAAABMi8/jYN3bIiUNP4XvRn8C8H-Pmr36LvfclzBwCLcBGAs/s1600/kgb.jpg)

Good grief! That was a rib cage abuser if I ever read one!!!-:)

Breaking News!

Roger Stone found GUILTY! (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roger-stone-verdict-guilty-on-all-7-counts-jury-finds-in-trial-of-longtime-trump-associate-today-2019-11-15/#)

Breaking News!

Roger Stone found GUILTY! (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roger-stone-verdict-guilty-on-all-7-counts-jury-finds-in-trial-of-longtime-trump-associate-today-2019-11-15/#)

The Courts are draining the swamp on behalf of Reptile-in-Chief Trump.

Stone's defense was he was protecting the dufus, and I guess the jury wasn't buying it. The trail also drew a direct line from Stone to Julian Assange and wiki-leaks, and therefore to Vlad and Russia which may blow that NO COLLUSION, No Obstruction argument out of the water. At least the ones who read the Mueller Report and didn't snooze through the hearing would know that.

How that bears on the Dufus conspiracy theory about Ukraine 2016 election interference for the dems hatched by convict Manafort and Vlad and Rudy is unknown for now, but I suspect that that is too on shaky ground. Taking bets that Rudy is the next one who gets caught in the dufus web of lies?

How that bears on the Dufus conspiracy theory about Ukraine 2016 election interference for the dems hatched by convict Manafort and Vlad and Rudy is unknown for now, but I suspect that that is too on shaky ground. Taking bets that Rudy is the next one who gets caught in the dufus web of lies?

That was hatched by one Konstatin Klimnick, a business partner of Paul Manafort and working for Russian intelligence, who told it to Manafort who passed it on to Trump. The reason was to take the heat off Russia for election interference by blaming Ukraine.

Rick Gates, a Manafort deputy, testified to this to Robert Mueller. Gates is scheduled to be sentenced December 18 after many postponements.

The Mueller probe will continue to gain credence as time goes on. It is loaded with facts and names and events.

Giulani is next. He should stay hiding under his bed for the foreseeable future.

DOW CRESTED 28,000 YESTERDAY! NEW RECORD! You don't really think any of this means anything against MONEY do you? People will vote for their pocketbooks. Majority of people give a tinkers's damn about any of the IMPEACHMENT mess.

WANT CHANGE? VOTE 3RD PARTY!

VOTE 3RD PARTY!

What 3rd party?

There is no relevant or viable 3rd party in America.

There is no 3rd Party because the Demos and the Repubs, WHO SUPPOSEDLY ARE 180 DEGREES IN DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION TO ONE ANOTHER, come together, IN UNION, to squash-out and put down any "3rd Party" threat to their monopoly: THIS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF REAL DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, RIGHT? This is something to be proud of......We have long talked about how awful dictatorships are for having only ONE ruling party....so I guess we are twice as good as those because we have TWO RULING PARTIES.

Demos and Repubs have a sandbox: two fat kids that take up all the space....and there is no room for any other kids because their fat arses take up the entire space.

All that might be true Vac, but the bottom line is there have been no compelling personalities to break through the dem/repub monopoly since Ross Peirot. He didn't win but he sure screwed Pappy Bush against Clinton.

Let me know when you get such a person.

All that might be true Vac, but the bottom line is there have been no compelling personalities to break through the dem/repub monopoly since Ross Peirot. He didn't win but he sure screwed Pappy Bush against Clinton.


Yes minor parties are very useful in disrupting the electoral process and often achieve the wrong result drawing off vital support

One would assume any candidate for president in the general election is a suitable one but that sure isn't the case especially those 3rd party ones.

BREAKING NEWS

Kurt Volcker testified before the Impeachment committee Tuesday, that Joe Biden had great integrity, and the claims against him are crap, as well as declaring Ukrainian election interference in 2016 is a LIE! Let's remember that Volcker, and Morrison are repub witnesses called by House repubs. This is different from his closed door testimony that the investigations wanted by the dufus from the Ukraine government were legitimate corruption probes.

Vindman, Williams, Volcker, and Morrison all testified the phone call to Zelenskiy was inappropriate and they reported it to the NSA counsel as such, bolstering the dem claim of bribery and extortion by the dufus. So where do repubs and dufus sycophants go from here?

Why, they keep hollering foul to the dems as they've been doing! What else can you do when there is no defense for the bad criminal dufus behavior.

Kurt Volcker is an old Republican hack from way back: Why in the world would you believe ANYTHING he had to say? Kurt Volcker wouldn't know "GREAT INTEGRITY" if "GREAT INTEGRITY" grew a mouth and four legs and walked up and bit him in his arse!

I find it funny that people will yield support to a despicable political hack like Kurt Volcker today when yesterday they would have condemned Kurt Volcker for being a bastard RIGHT WING LOONEY TUNER!

Are you wingers ready to admit I was right yet? The guy in the WH is a lying cheating dufus that corrupts everything and everybody he puts his greedy hands on. Draining the swamp ain't the solution. We have a rat infestation.

Enough testimony let's INDICT!

Are you wingers ready to admit I was right yet? The guy in the WH is a lying cheating dufus that corrupts everything and everybody he puts his greedy hands on. Draining the swamp ain't the solution. We have a rat infestation.

Enough testimony let's INDICT!

Why involve yourselves in exercises in futility? Even if the Repelicans hate TRUMP they are not going to impeach him. No politician voluntarily lets the other party win. The Demonrats are doing this because they have no power to do anything else. Should the Repelicans yield to their inferior intellect? It is a bad idea. However bad Trump might be, they don't have a viable alternative

Never played a team sport? Winning means everybody does their job. It doesn't matter what the senate does, but the House should just do it's job. Even still the team could lose against a better team, but you still have to give it your best shot don't you? Our system has such guidelines and there are always alternatives. That's why we have a prez, VICE prez, and order of succession for any contingency. One thing these hearings have borne out is the dufus keeps everybody in the dark about what he is doing, and with who and is pretty glib for a non experienced politician, but as a mob boss he is particularly skilled.

He would make a great dictator too.

Talaniman: How can Trump be both a "dufus", a glib politician, and a "skilled" crime boss all at the same time? Are these things, by definitions, mutually exclusive of one another?

I do think Trump is "instinctual" about things, life, in general: Known people like this before in my life....one of my four brothers has this "knack", he went through Vietnam "unscathed"....they were "More lucky than good" types but they always seemed to land upright.....I'm not that way but those that are always captured my imagination: Why were they that way? I think its because they are closer to their "animal instincts" than some of us.

Never played a team sport? Winning means everybody does their job. It doesn't matter what the senate does, but the House should just do it's job. Even still the team could lose against a better team, but you still have to give it your best shot don't you? Our system has such guidelines and there are always alternatives. That's why we have a prez, VICE prez, and order of succession for any contingency. One thing these hearings have borne out is the dufus keeps everybody in the dark about what he is doing, and with who and is pretty glib for a non experienced politician, but as a mob boss he is particularly skilled.

He would make a great dictator too.

Tal this is not a game, I think you americans pay too much attention to the "game". What do you mean make a dictator? He acts like a dictator, his rhetoric is like a dictator, make the country great, bomb, terror, threats, all that is missing is invasions

Trump acts like a dictator? That is a stretch.....How can you extrapolate what Trump does to a dictator? If he was a dictator he would go into the Impeachment chamber and slap the hell out of Little Adam Schiff while shutting the process down. Who has Trump bombed, say by comparison: Reagan bombed more, George H. Bush bombed more, Clinton bombed more, George W. Bush bombed more, Obama bombed more.....what are you talking about? "Make America Great" is a dictator's slogan? Really? Where is Trump's terror?

Talaniman: How can Trump be both a "dufus", a glib politician, and a "skilled" crime boss all at the same time? Are these things, by definitions, mutually exclusive of one another?

I do think Trump is "instinctual" about things, life, in general: Known people like this before in my life....one of my four brothers has this "knack", he went through Vietnam "unscathed"....they were "More lucky than good" types but they always seemed to land upright.....I'm not that way but those that are always captured my imagination: Why were they that way? I think its because they are closer to their "animal instincts" than some of us.

It's really simple Vac, he is a salesman, that's how he makes a living whether its a casino, hotel, golf course, university, or his charity. Step right up folks for the greatest show on Earth! You have to admit he keeps both foes and supporters energized and engaged in either his demise, or his rise! Boils down to either you believe his lies, or you don't, and I've been saying he lies all the time, and some WANT to believe them.


Tal this is not a game, I think you americans pay too much attention to the "game". What do you mean make a dictator? He acts like a dictator, his rhetoric is like a dictator, make the country great, bomb, terror, threats, all that is missing is invasions

You don't have to have an invasion to be a dictator, or even bomb someone just get the power to stamp out all the opposition in your country. He does that with his daily diatribe of putting everyone down that opposes him.


Trump acts like a dictator? That is a stretch.....How can you extrapolate what Trump does to a dictator? If he was a dictator he would go into the Impeachment chamber and slap the hell out of Little Adam Schiff while shutting the process down. Who has Trump bombed, say by comparison: Reagan bombed more, George H. Bush bombed more, Clinton bombed more, George W. Bush bombed more, Obama bombed more.....what are you talking about? "Make America Great" is a dictator's slogan? Really? Where is Trump's terror?

No he won't go into these hearings and testify under oath, or let his main men testify either. Lying is what he does and NEVER under oath because that would be a blatant crime now wouldn't it?

Tal; Trump now has his neck in a noose, but we both know the Senate won't kick out the stool, I expect they don't like lynchings.

Vac; as I pointed out Trump is channeling his inner Hitler, honestly; you would think he was using the same speechwriter, make ....... great again, If he drops 1 KT bombs I will drop 1000 KT bombs and wipe ...... off the map, we will win this war. need I go on, as I said, we don't have an invasion yet, I did say yet. and the only reason for that is Trump is distracted by disloyalty and impeachment

That is part of the problem Clete, the dufus has been replacing skilled and experienced workers with people who are loyal to him and will do his bidding (https://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-officials-deemed-withholding-of-aid-to-ukraine-was-illegal-090046566.html) and that is the mark of a wanna be dictator who has to destroy and disrupt the functions of the existing structures and institutions before that can be accomplished.

Often this is done without the advise and consent of the congress, and the Ukraine is but one example.

Yes Tal he believes himself to be invincible, to possess all wisdom, the title he seeks isn't dictator, it is almighty

While the House gets it's report together for the judiciary commitee to form what charges will be filed you think the dufus can just be quiet? Naw that's impossible, but a whole lot of otehr things can surely be "leaked" about the dufus sycophants. I was shocked when I looked up CROWDSTRIKE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrowdStrike)a company the dufus wanted Zelenskiy to investigate was an AMERICAN cyber security firm that has a multitude of fortune 500 companies as clients, including the Republican National Committee.

Further evidence that the dufus doesn't know what he is talking about, or worse, he is determined to get Vlad off the hook for serial cyber attacks on several countries, most notably the US.

Further evidence that the dufus doesn't know what he is talking about, or worse,



“The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming," says the Fox News analyst.

How much more evidence do you need the media has the evidence to convict him and you don't need a House vote or a senate vote. Trump is guilty, but of what, since this isn't a court of law. I think he is guilty of being incredibly stupid, like he didn't know someone was watching, listening, waiting to trap him in an indiscretion

Paraclete: What indiscretion?

Believe me on this: Trump is way too smug! He is almost giddy....and I think that I know why:

1) The "Origins of the Russia Investigation" report is coming out from Barr
2) Inspector Horowitz's report is coming out
3) The Senate's "COUNTERSTRIKE" Impeachment Trial is being planned as I write this....The SENATE WILL CALL UP ALL THE IMPEACHMENT "WITNESSES" and Hunter Biden and OLD BIDEN and what they will do to them will be disgusting!

So, like always: You push Trump and he will pick up a baseball bat and bust your head....one day, the left will finally get this registered in their thick skulls: Trump will always have the last laugh.

3) The Senate's "COUNTERSTRIKE" Impeachment Trial is being planned as I write this....
You know what that ("Counterstrike") is all about?

W.G.: The Senate Trial of the Congress' IMPEACHMENT will be a grand stage setting having little to nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence but more to do with the presentation of a platform to showcase the vast left wing conspiracy that was set in motion to take Trump's Presidency down. There are several Senators who are salivating in the anticipation of interrogating Hunter Biden and OLD Biden on the Senate floor in order to bring to light their dirty dealings in Ukraine. Additionally, there will be much more to come as the Senate Trial will surely have access to evidence gathered from the Attorney General's Office.

THIS SENATE TRIAL WILL NOT BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY! While I support the truth coming out, as well as the exposure or any conspiracy to overturn Trump's Presidency, I don't think the country needs this to Senate "Trial", outside of a Guilty or "Not Guilty" vote....all the "extra" grilling and bloodletting that will surely ensue as Repub Senators take "revenge" on the left will only serve to further divide the country: WE NEED HEALING RIGHT NOW, NOT MORE DEVISIVENESS!

W.G.: The Senate Trial of the Congress' IMPEACHMENT will be a grand stage setting having little to nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence but more to do with the presentation of a platform to showcase the vast left wing conspiracy that was set in motion to take Trump's Presidency down. There are several Senators who are salivating in the anticipation of interrogating Hunter Biden and OLD Biden on the Senate floor in order to bring to light their dirty dealings in Ukraine. Additionally, there will be much more to come as the Senate Trial will surely have access to evidence gathered from the Attorney General's Office.

THIS SENATE TRIAL WILL NOT BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY! While I support the truth coming out, as well as the exposure or any conspiracy to overturn Trump's Presidency, I don't think the country needs this to Senate "Trial", outside of a Guilty or "Not Guilty" vote....all the "extra" grilling and bloodletting that will surely ensue as Repub Senators take "revenge" on the left will only serve to further divide the country: WE NEED HEALING RIGHT NOW, NOT MORE DEVISIVENESS!
So you don't know what it means.

W.G.: No, I used the word "COUNTERSTRIKE" (not to be confused with CLOUDSTRIKER), to describe how much of the Senate will view this "Trial": They view it as an opportunity to "counterstrike" the left and Demos.

W.G.: No, I used the word "COUNTERSTRIKE" (not to be confused with CLOUDSTRIKER), to describe how much of the Senate will view this "Trial": They view it as an opportunity to "counterstrike" the left and Demos.
No, Counterstrike. Apparently, you aren't up on what's being planned.

Please enlighten us

W.G.: The SENATE is REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED! There will be a counterstrike to the IMPEACHMENT proceedings of Democrat controlled Congress: The Republican SENATE intends to take revenge upon Democrats in the Senate Trial, and it will be BLOODY! This the counterstrike I referred to here: ELEPHANTS (Republicans) have long memories!

If the congress cannot compel Mulvaney, Bolton, and Pompeo, or Rudy, AND the dufus to testify, or appear for a deposition, then how do you think the Bidens will testify? A senate trial is a heavy lift for the dems in the house for sure, but I'm sure the case will be made and be compelling and expose the dufus and his bad behavior and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Talaniman: Senate Trial is LEGAL TRIAL (not OPTIONAL)…..young Biden and OLD Biden will be brought up before the Senate, even if its in shackles, kicking and screaming!

I think we may be a ways off from a senate trial though VAC, and if repubs think they can hang their hats on conspiracy theories and have the Bidens testify and not the presidents men, then you may get a big surprise repubs don't like. But you keep holding on to the story it's okay for a president to ask a foreign government to get dirt on his opponent.

Talaniman: Trump may yet get what he wants in Biden dropping out of the race: The REAL Quid Pro Quo may be "OLD Biden, make up your mind: 1) Want to keep running and we'll throw your son's arse in jail or 2) Drop out and we'll leave your son alone to go take care of his new illegitimate son that DNA testing just proved was his. You know it is amazing that Biden is so PRO-ABORTION but when it comes to using ABORTION he can't see his way to do it.....ABORTION is just good for "the masses" of serfs not the high mucky mucks like him.

Remember: There are a host of other REPORTS fixing to be unleashed by Barr and Hororwitz…..When they reveal that the Trump Campaign FISA Warrants were granted on lies told by the FBI to a Federal Judge its going to be an "OH SH&$" moment for the left.

You sure love conspiracy theories and wild speculations, don't you?

Talaniman: Is it that obvious? You know I love the conspiracy theories and wild speculations! Its the only thing exciting in this crazy Body Politic of ours! If we didn't have this 24/7 Circus, this stuff would bore us to tears. And don't even act like you don't like it, too, Talaniman!

From a Libertarian's perspective, this IMPEACHMENT spectacle is amazing to watch: The TWO PARTIES ripping each other's bowels out!

Talaniman: Is it that obvious? You know I love the conspiracy theories and wild speculations! Its the only thing exciting in this crazy Body Politic of ours! If we didn't have this 24/7 Circus, this stuff would bore us to tears. And don't even act like you don't like it, too, Talaniman!

From a Libertarian's perspective, this IMPEACHMENT spectacle is amazing to watch: The TWO PARTIES ripping each other's bowels out!

You know vac, where I come from we don't have a 24/7 circus, I guess that is because we have you to watch. We did have one, back when the left was in power, but once we got the leftists out of power, things are serene and we can concentrate on the real issue, which is China and its espionage and subversion

You sure love conspiracy theories and wild speculations, don't you?

Pretty wild statement for any supporter of the current lib congressional circus to say.

Paraclete: Well you guys have it figured out: We, too, ought to be worrying about Red China and its espionage and subversion, and we have a President who wants to step of the ChiComs throats, as you see him doing it economically.....but we can't get our focus where it should be, which is China, because the left is still too worried about Russia and, now, the Ukraine......What I have never been about to square in all of this is the fact that THE LEFT USED TO LOVE RUSSIA WHEN IT WAS COMMUNIST but, now, that they aren't Communist (not since 1990!), they don't like them....what in the hell gives? I mean Bernie "Red Dog" Sanders went on a honeymoon of one of his three marriages to Communist Russia and Bill and Hillary Clinton went to Communist Russia during the Vietnam conflict (when U.S. Soldiers were being killed by weapons supplied by Communist Russia, no less) but, yet, Hillary is still their darling MOMMA CLINTON! The left in the U.S. is sure enough crazy!!!

You'd be crazy too if you had to listen to the right wing noise machine constantly bleeting about the left. Oh wait, you are crazy, as obviously you are a right wing loony, pretending to not pick sides.

Paraclete: Well you guys have it figured out: We, too, ought to be worrying about Red China and its espionage and subversion, and we have a President who wants to step of the ChiComs throats, as you see him doing it economically.....but we can't get our focus where it should be, which is China, because the left is still too worried about Russia and, now, the Ukraine......What I have never been about to square in all of this is the fact that THE LEFT USED TO LOVE RUSSIA WHEN IT WAS COMMUNIST but, now, that they aren't Communist (not since 1990!), they don't like them....what in the hell gives? I mean Bernie "Red Dog" Sanders went on a honeymoon of one of his three marriages to Communist Russia and Bill and Hillary Clinton went to Communist Russia during the Vietnam conflict (when U.S. Soldiers were being killed by weapons supplied by Communist Russia, no less) but, yet, Hillary is still their darling MOMMA CLINTON! The left in the U.S. is sure enough crazy!!!

No we actually have a Chinese plot to infiltrate our government and subvert our democratic processes. A Chinese spy has defected which makes no sense since he will wind up dead in a dark alley

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-25/chinese-spy-parliament-foreign-interference-in-hong-kong-taiwan/11735176

Talaniman: Not a "Right Winger". However, I don't support Police using illegal means to obtain a conviction......and, likewise, I can't support the use of illegal means to convict a POTUS of something he supposedly did: The FISA Warrants falsification is a real problem because it shows a conspiracy within law enforcement to overturn and elected POTUS.

You'd be crazy too if you had to listen to the right wing noise machine constantly bleeting about the left. Oh wait, you are crazy, as obviously you are a right wing loony, pretending to not pick sides.

Congratulations, Vac. When the folks start calling you "crazy" and "a right wing loony", then it's clear that you have introduced arguments which they have no answers for.

Talaniman: Not a "Right Winger". However, I don't support Police using illegal means to obtain a conviction......and, likewise, I can't support the use of illegal means to convict a POTUS of something he supposedly did: The FISA Warrants falsification is a real problem because it shows a conspiracy within law enforcement to overturn and elected POTUS.

If one person is a conspiracy, what is the dufus and his administration spreading Vlad propaganda, and extorting political favors from foreign government officials? Where is your evidence or probable cause for investigating the Biden's, or why did the dufus go outside official channels to do so? If the dufus has done nothing wrong, why does he order his flunkies not to testify in front of a duly elected congress. So while I can appreciate your concerns and convictions your words and actions don't exactly match.

Biased? Maybe a bit leaning definitely right or in favor of the lying cheating dufus. By the way the dems are going by the constitution and exercising the obligation to inquire to see if the dufus has overstepped his authority and committed high crimes or misdemeanors and the repubs will have and do have the opportunity to exercise theirs, as it seems the conspiracy lies with the dufus, and seems to be a long line of them and a multiple cases can be made for obstruction on many levels.

As many investigations and hearings as HC went through I know repubs can't be hollering that loud though true wingers are always hollering. Feel free to elaborate so I can stop thinking you sound like those loony right wingers and just nutty but not BIASED.

Congratulations, Vac. When the folks start calling you "crazy" and "a right wing loony", then it's clear that you have introduced arguments which they have no answers for.

Your lying cheating dufus is the one with no answers or at least untruthful ones that bear close scrutiny!

Pending appeal, the dufus sycophants must testify to congress! (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/don-mcgahn-must-testify-about-time-as-white-house-lawyer-judge-rules/ar-BBXkcjQ?ocid=spartanntp)

If one person is a conspiracy, what is the dufus and his administration spreading Vlad propaganda, and extorting political favors from foreign government officials? Where is your evidence or probable cause for investigating the Biden's, or why did the dufus go outside official channels to do so? If the dufus has done nothing wrong, why does he order his flunkies not to testify in front of a duly elected congress. So while I can appreciate your concerns and convictions your words and actions don't exactly match.

Biased? Maybe a bit leaning definitely right or in favor of the lying cheating dufus. By the way the dems are going by the constitution and exercising the obligation to inquire to see if the dufus has overstepped his authority and committed high crimes or misdemeanors and the repubs will have and do have the opportunity to exercise theirs, as it seems the conspiracy lies with the dufus, and seems to be a long line of them and a multiple cases can be made for obstruction on many levels.

As many investigations and hearings as HC went through I know repubs can't be hollering that loud though true wingers are always hollering. Feel free to elaborate so I can stop thinking you sound like those loony right wingers and just nutty but not BIASED.


Tal, Trump doesn't need probable cause to investigate something outside the US, do you think CIA is governed by probable cause and rules of evidence, No, they can go on fishing expeditions and so can Trump. Obviously, someone told him something was going on. false lead maybe, but why would an American citizen with some political advantage be operating in the Ukraine?

Don't think your demonrats are righteous, The Clinton crime family and the Biden crime family are just some of the corruption

Why am I not surprised you would be badmouthing us again? At least you have been consistent over the years. Don't worry though we will seperate the truth from the lies no matter how much repubs circle the wagons around the dufus. Repubs call for an investigation of the Biden's then let them go for it and see where it gets them.

I can think of some more kids of famous people to check out while we're at it.

It's very possible that the dems have now realized that impeachment is a losing strategy for them and that a Senate trial, with republicans able to subpoena Schiff, the so called "whistle blower", and Hunter Biden, would be a PR disaster. Even Schiff has somewhat backed off of the idea of an impeachment vote. We'll see what happens. Personally, I would look forward with great eagerness to a Senate trial.

Why am I not surprised you would be badmouthing us again? At least you have been consistent over the years. Don't worry though we will seperate the truth from the lies no matter how much repubs circle the wagons around the dufus. Repubs call for an investigation of the Biden's then let them go for it and see where it gets them.

I can think of some more kids of famous people to check out while we're at it.

Yeh Man, go for it, go get those A listers, and remember to include the politicians. Look, I think we could all do with cleaning the slate from time to time

Unless I miss my guess senators have no sunpoena power during an impeachment trial, but the presidents defense attorneys do. I'll check on that when I get a chance.

Unless I miss my guess senators have no sunpoena power during an impeachment trial, but the presidents defense attorneys do. I'll check on that when I get a chance.

Hey Tal, I notice this process is going nowhere, what is a sunpoena anyway? is that for an outdoor court

A subpoena is a writ or order to appear in court. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subpoena) I don't agree the process is going nowhere as we may have charges drawn and presented in a week or two. Yeah we had more than 10 witnesses who basically said the same thing the dufus words, actions and behavior was inappropriate, dangerous and possibly criminal and irresponsible.

We are finding out now the dufus is holding up funds to Lebanon now, and of course nobody knows why. Wonder if Vlad told him to do it...? (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lifts-mysterious-hold-on-military-aid-lebanon-amid-criticism-2019-12)

PS

What a lousy pun even for you Clete.

A subpoena is a writ or order to appear in court. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subpoena) I don't agree the process is going nowhere as we may have charges drawn and presented in a week or two. Yeah we had more than 10 witnesses who basically said the same thing the dufus words, actions and behavior was inappropriate, dangerous and possibly criminal and irresponsible.

We are finding out now the dufus is holding up funds to Lebanon now, and of course nobody knows why. Wonder if Vlad told him to do it...? (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lifts-mysterious-hold-on-military-aid-lebanon-amid-criticism-2019-12)

PS

What a lousy pun even for you Clete.T

Tal, I have dyslexic fingers too, so get Grammarly, I know what a subpoena is Tal, I just didn't know what a sunpoena is. What is the point of it all when the witnesses all follow the script like good little demoncrats. Have you noticed the political situation in Lebanon lately, I wouldn't be giving them money either you don't know who you are giving it to, maybe Hezbollah

LOL, my bad Clete didn't know I had screwed up the spelling. I just thought it was your humor. It's all good though.

If the dufus was so suspicious, why does he sign those budget expenditures in the first place instead of stopping up the works after all is reviewed and done by those charged with the responsibilities of such? Why are things done so arbitrarily in secret without telling anybody? Come on Clete, all those witnesses aren't some deep state agents whose sole purpose in life is get the dufus. That's just a typical dufus distraction tactic to attack the witnesses or whomever his enemy is and that's anybody that doesn't agree with him or kiss his butt.

Plus the fool lies enough as he shouldn't be trusted in the first place. LOL, those right wing conspiracy theories only work with the loonies as an excuse plus he has his own witnesses doesn't he, to back up his version of things but doesn't allow them to testify. That alone makes him look suspicious, and let's remember he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, so must be held in account. He can tell his side to the judge or in this case, his sycophants in the senate.

That's the whole point of the exercise. Get it all out under oath, and let's see what's what.

That alone makes him look suspicious, and let's remember he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, so must be held in account. He can tell his side to the judge or in this case, his sycophants in the senate.

Yeah. Still waiting for the names of those five people who have first hand knowledge of Trump committing a crime. In fact if you can come up with one name, then be sure to send that to Schiff. He doesn't have any.

The dems should have had enough sense to never have gone in this direction without credible witnesses, but I guess that's what happens when AOC is making the decisions.

It is all a great distraction

Meanwhile:

lisa page erupts over trump mimicking her love making with peter strosk

You want 5 names, okay Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Barr, Perry, Guiliani, and Nunes. Schiff just released the report, along with documents and call logs. (https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf)

Oh sorry that's 7 names. You get a double bonus.

Uhm...they didn't testify, so how can you possibly know what they know? So actually, rather than a double bonus, I got a double zero. Guess the challenge still stands. Just ONE name would be helpful. Just the name of ONE person who has first hand knowledge of a crime by the president. Any witness will do. Just name any one of them. OK...just HALF of a person!! Could you come up with that??? Any one of them whose testimony was more than, "My brother met a lady whose mother goes to the same beauty shop as this guy's wife who heard that the president might have done something wrong." Someone that you suspect doesn't count since, thank goodness, we still live in the United States and operate by the rule of law, not the rule of Tal's Texas suspicions.

Uhm...they didn't testify, so how can you possibly know what they know? So actually, rather than a double bonus, I got a double zero. Guess the challenge still stands. Just ONE name would be helpful. Just the name of ONE person who has first hand knowledge of a crime by the president. Any witness will do. Just name any one of them. OK...just HALF of a person!! Could you come up with that??? Any one of them whose testimony was more than, "My brother met a lady whose mother goes to the same beauty shop as this guy's wife who heard that the president might have done something wrong." Someone that you suspect doesn't count since, thank goodness, we still live in the United States and operate by the rule of law, not the rule of Tal's Texas suspicions.

No that's Tal's Texas Tacos, I think that rule says any Mexican is a good Mexican even if he crosses the border (wall). I know you think the law rules but, actually, all it does is lock up people, Trump rules

I know you think the law rules but, actually, all it does is lock up people, Trump rules

Nah. At the end of the day, the law still rules. And one part of that law says you cannot convict a person without proving their guilt. That has not been done.

Nah. At the end of the day, the law still rules. And one part of that law says you cannot convict a person without proving their guilt. That has not been done.

I don't think that works with impeachment, all you need is enough dills to vote for it, you don't have to prove anything more than suspicion, circumstantial evidence will do, in this case;

Trump spoke to another leader, in the course of the conversation various dealings of a particular company and individuals were discussed. The inference is Trump sought political advantage and may have exercised leverage, which is construed as bribery even though it relates to prior agreements. Trump is guilty of impatience and doing what he has done before in business dealings and somehow the President is supposed to be above all this. History would suggest the US may be slow to hand out the cash for any number of reasons. ask Haiti, they will tell you

Uhm...they didn't testify, so how can you possibly know what they know? So actually, rather than a double bonus, I got a double zero. Guess the challenge still stands. Just ONE name would be helpful. Just the name of ONE person who has first hand knowledge of a crime by the president. Any witness will do. Just name any one of them. OK...just HALF of a person!! Could you come up with that??? Any one of them whose testimony was more than, "My brother met a lady whose mother goes to the same beauty shop as this guy's wife who heard that the president might have done something wrong." Someone that you suspect doesn't count since, thank goodness, we still live in the United States and operate by the rule of law, not the rule of Tal's Texas suspicions.

They obeyed the dufus and defied a lawful subpoena to appear and testify, or turn over documents, which in itself is obstruction and an impeachable offense. So lets just drop the right wing logic and go with the law. Something you wingers know nothing about and think you can hide behind your own ignorance. You can't and dufusites in congress will be hard pressed to hide behind their willful ignorance too.

The dufus counts on your ignorance though, and knows you won't read the Intell Committee Report, because you didn't read the Mueller Report, nor even follow the court cases the dufus keeps losing (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/03/deutsche-bank-trumps-lender-must-turn-over-financial-records/2595336001/)which contains enough EVIDENCE to convict and remove yo' boy if but for Barr's obstructing the investigation into this ever widening conspiracy against the American people.

So don't lose that list I gave you because for sure you will see those names again, and it may grow before your very eyes, blinders, ignorance, and denials not withstanding.

They obeyed the dufus and defied a lawful subpoena to appear and testify, or turn over documents, which in itself is obstruction and an impeachable offense. So lets just drop the right wing logic and go with the law. Something you wingers know nothing about and think you can hide behind your own ignorance. You can't and dufusites in congress will be hard pressed to hide behind their willful ignorance too.

If you want to try and make a case for obstruction then go for it. Good luck. Everyone but you knows that the executive branch is under no obligation to the Congress to answer subpoenas. The dems took their best shot and struck out.


The dufus counts on your ignorance though, and knows you won't read the Intell Committee Report, because you didn't read the Mueller Report, nor even follow the court cases the dufus keeps losing which contains enough EVIDENCE to convict and remove yo' boy if but for Barr's obstructing the investigation into this ever widening conspiracy against the American people.

You sound like the bleating of sheep. No, I won't read the committee's report since it is not the committee's report but rather the rantings of the hyper left wing democrat party which has no case and is prepared to distort the truth to any degree necessary. I've already forgotten the list of names you came up with. I asked for the name of ONE witness who had direct knowledge of the pres breaking the law. You're mad now because you know you don't have one, so you're back to your usual strategy of name calling and presenting yourself as the great repository of all knowledge concerning this case. Well, there is no case. Unless the dems come up with something compelling, it's over. I just hope the Senate is able to get Schiff to testify. The cat will be out of the bag then.


So don't lose that list I gave you because for sure you will see those names again, and it may grow before your very eyes, blinders, ignorance, and denials not withstanding.

Good luck with that.

If you want to try and make a case for obstruction then go for it. Good luck. Everyone but you knows that the executive branch is under no obligation to the Congress to answer subpoenas. The dems took their best shot and struck out.

WRONG! While there is no mechanism for enforcement at present, save a court order, they still are tasked with oversight duties on the executive branch and unfortunately that is a time consuming process.


You sound like the bleating of sheep. No, I won't read the committee's report since it is not the committee's report but rather the rantings of the hyper left wing democrat party which has no case and is prepared to distort the truth to any degree necessary. I've already forgotten the list of names you came up with. I asked for the name of ONE witness who had direct knowledge of the pres breaking the law. You're mad now because you know you don't have one, so you're back to your usual strategy of name calling and presenting yourself as the great repository of all knowledge concerning this case. Well, there is no case. Unless the dems come up with something compelling, it's over. I just hope the Senate is able to get Schiff to testify. The cat will be out of the bag then

I can call names because I did my homework and read the law. Now you do yours so when you try to call names you have the FACTS behind you and not just right wing loony high hopes and feelings. It's not name calling if it's true, whether you like it or NOT! That's why I'm not mad, no reason to be, because I'm not depending on the words of a lying, cheating dufus to understand what's REALITY and what's right wing non informed BS! The sad part though JL is you choose to be ignorant of the law, facts, and evidence!


Good luck with that.

I'd rather go with law, facts, and evidence, thank you, as this process moves forward. Oh yeah, it will move FORWARD, as even more is revealed. The good news is no need to keep holding your nose if you are going to keep your head in the sand with your butt fully exposed to the conditions of the times.

I don't envy your position my friend. Wouldn't it be easier to just do your own homework?

The time has come to think of other things

The time has come to get rid of this dufus so we can think of other things and making this a more perfect union.

Talaniman: The left started talking IMPEACHMENT since before Trump entered Office....they had a narrative that they wanted filled and have plotted and schemed like hell to fill it since then and they STILL won't fill it because he won't be leaving Office and, in all likelihood, will win another term in 2020. You only have to look at your beloved polls to see that IMPEACHMENT has given Trump the boost he would have not otherwise attained. What in the world makes you think that the left's attempts to remove Trump will end up making things better or make them better if he was actually removed? All it is doing is galvanizing the Right in a way that they have never been cohesively united like before in my memory....the Right has always been nonunified...but not now, after all this IMPEACHMENT stuff.....The left has shaken the hornet's nest and now they will have to walk in the room with it.....nothing about this is going to make it anything any better or in any way help make the U.S. a more perfect union....I can appreciate you desire for this, as it is mine, as well, but the backside of IMPEACHMENT is always a time of demoralization, economic hardship, unsettlement, and poor arse leadership running the country into the ground.

True some have called for impeachment since the last election and to be fair the dufus has failed miserably to bring the country to gether and in the most selfish arrogant way. Now while the right has taken it as a time to celebrate left and moderate heads explode, the left has been slow coalescing behind getting rid of this lying cheating dufus and reigning in the right wing loonies gorging on his steady diet of fat juicy meat while actually deliverying NOTHING except for himself.

At the end of this process we may not change hearts and minds but we can cancel this circus or limit it to late night from its all day long perch. Maybe you wingers will snap out of it and realize the sky isn't falling and that's not red meat you are being fed, but the dufus is peeing on your heads and telling you to love it!

Impeachment is the most effective way to restore sanity from you loons and your loonmaster.

The time has come to think of other things

Amen.

While the dems have been poking the dufus in the butt over this impeachment thing they have been sending Moscow Mitch plenty of legislation to consider, which of course he doesn't have time for, so when repubs have time in the senate to do something else just let me know. In the mean time full steam ahead to dump the dufus.

No more right wing lame excuses for bad lunatic behavior from the top.

Talaniman: There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Trump will be dumped via a Senate vote.

All this IMPEACHMENT stuff is a distraction from the REAL issues facing the nation. Demos have made it plainly obvious that it is more important to harass Trump (harass because that is what it is, everyone knows it has not potential for removal) than it is to try and make the nation stronger economically or in any other respect. Demos are looking to be OBSTRUCTIONIST and the polls are showing that the American people have had a belly full of it. Trump's poll #s are going up: that doesn't portend to be a good sign for Demos.

You mean like the obstruction Moscow Mitch and repubs engaged in vowing to make Obama a one term president as their highest priority? After Obama's re election it was just obstructionism left. Now the right dares whine and holler because we do what the right did rather effectively I might add, so it's a bit late and hypocritical to complain about what America has a belly full of since the dufus numbers have NEVER risen high enough to counteract the numbers against him, or for ending the investigating and removing him. Quite the opposite to be precise. So if you think dems will just stop making a case against the dufus just because the right says so, then you must be INSANE!

Trump, with all of his many flaws, will be reelected because:

1. The economy is very, very good.
2. The dems in the House have done absolutely nothing.
3. The impeachment inquiry is plainly a circus show.
4. The bunch the dems have running for the nomination is the most unexceptional, inept group you can possibly imagine.

And in the meantime, the Obamas just bought a house on Martha's Vineyard for 11.75 million dollars. They have never owned a company. Mr. Obama has never done any work in the private sector. You have to wonder how they can afford that. There's a big problem here. You can get elected to high office with the fed government and in a few years become filthy rich. That just somehow seems not right.

Trump, with all of his many flaws, will be reelected because:

1. The economy is very, very good.
2. The dems in the House have done absolutely nothing.
3. The impeachment inquiry is plainly a circus show.
4. The bunch the dems have running for the nomination is the most unexceptional, inept group you can possibly imagine.

1. Trump has little to do with the economy. In fact, his actions have hurt the economy.
2. The House Democrats have passed over 200 bills which the Republicans under Moscow Mitch have let languish.
3. The impeachment inquiry has proven without a doubt that Trump violated his oath of office for private gain. The Republicans have done NOTHING to challenge those facts except key on process because they have nothing else.
4. The Dem lineup is an exceptional group for the most part far, far better than the nincompoops the Republicans ran in 2016.

Your bias is there for all to see. Keep posting - that will show the viewers what NOT to think.




And in the meantime, the Obamas just bought a house on Martha's Vineyard for 11.75 million dollars. They have never owned a company. Mr. Obama has never done any work in the private sector. You have to wonder how they can afford that. There's a big problem here. You can get elected to high office with the fed government and in a few years become filthy rich. That just somehow seems not right.

Here you go again - misstating (lying?) facts about Obama. How can you hate the guy so much?

Obama earned $3.1 million+ in salary. 7 million in book royalties ("Dream..."), another 9 million in additional book royalties ("Audacity of Hope..."), and more................

Yeah, as you say, there's a big problem here and the big problem is YOU.

1. Trump has little to do with the economy. In fact, his actions have hurt the economy.

What a statement. So unemployment would be at 2% without Trump? It's amazing how Trump deserves no credit, and yet you libs on this board fall all over yourselves to give credit to Obama for the tepid economy we had in EIGHT years with him.

2. The House Democrats have passed over 200 bills which the Republicans under Moscow Mitch have let languish.

Name one of any great consequence. While you're at it, tell us what they're doing to balance the federal budget.


3. The impeachment inquiry has proven without a doubt that Trump violated his oath of office for private gain. The Republicans have done NOTHING to challenge those facts except key on process because they have nothing else.

There is no real evidence of an impeachable offense. It's over.


4. The Dem lineup is an exceptional group for the most part far, far better than the nincompoops the Republicans ran in 2016.

When Native American Warren, Socialist Sanders, and "my son is an oil tycoon" Biden are the front-runners, then you are in trouble.

As to the house the Obamas bought, I don't care what they live in. The point is that you can be elected to federal office and leave a very wealthy person. I think that's a dangerous trend. You think that since Obama profited from it, then it must be OK.


Here you go again - misstating (lying?) facts about Obama


I misstated nothing. I think it's a problem when a man who has never had a job in private business can leave the WH and buy a 12 million dollar house. I didn't suggest he did anything improper. He sold two books and made millions. Good for him, but the idea of the private citizen "serving" in office has gone by the wayside. It seems that people who couldn't cut it in private business can become millionaires by "serving" in elected office.

Still waiting on that long promised response to my question. Perhaps I should restate it in case your memory is bad. Do you believe what Jesus said about hell in Matthew 25?

Name one of any great consequence.

Hahahahaha - down from "absolutely nothing". What a card you are!


There is no real evidence of an impeachable offense. It's over.

Hahahahahah. Gad, you're funny - you're killing me.


When Native American Warren

So you hate Native Americans, too, by disparaging Warren with that remark? You're some piece of work.


Socialist Sanders, and "I can't remember where I am" Biden are the front-runners, then you are in trouble.

That's the best you can do? Insults? Your love of Trump is revealed in your imitation of his tactics.


As to the house the Obamas bought, I don't care what they live in.

WOW! You sure fooled anyone viewing your comment. The reality is you don't care because your comment was shown to be the lie you intended. You got caught.


The point is that you can be elected to federal office and leave a very wealthy person.

Hardly unique to Obama, or hadn't you noticed?


You think that since Obama profited from it, then it must be OK.

Yes, legitimate profits from book sales and salaries are perfectly ok. What, you don't think so? What are you - some sort of socialist? Go back to Russia.

What a statement. So unemployment would be at 2% without Trump? It's amazing how Trump deserves no credit, and yet you libs on this board fall all over yourselves to give credit to Obama for the tepid economy we had in EIGHT years with him.

You say tepid, I say healthy and growing, and obviously better than he found it despite you righties whining and hollering about it, and NO DOUBT if HC had been elected (Read that as anybody, repub, dem, or Garfield Goose) they would benefit as much as the dufus is now.


Name one of any great consequence. While you're at it, tell us what they're doing to balance the federal budget.


Hmm, that's debatable if the bills this House has passed and Moscow Mitch has sat on is of substance or not, but for sure when repubs had the congress from 2012-2018, they only have a rich guy tax cut to tout and nothing else, and that's a fact the right is only to willing to ignore, as well as the dubious effects of those cuts on the economy NOW.


There is no real evidence of an impeachable offense. It's over.


Of course that's the rights talking points and only shared by them who are as a fact a minority of the total population so keep talking and whining about it, since that's ALL you can do about it.


When Native American Warren, Socialist Sanders, and "my son is an oil tycoon" Biden are the front-runners, then you are in trouble.

All better than the dufus for sure!


As to the house the Obamas bought, I don't care what they live in. The point is that you can be elected to federal office and leave a very wealthy person. I think that's a dangerous trend. You think that since Obama profited from it, then it must be OK.

I misstated nothing. I think it's a problem when a man who has never had a job in private business can leave the WH and buy a 12 million dollar house. I didn't suggest he did anything improper. He sold two books and made millions. Good for him, but the idea of the private citizen "serving" in office has gone by the wayside. It seems that people who couldn't cut it in private business can become millionaires by "serving" in elected office.

The first lady Michelle Obama was a successful hospital administrator before Obama was elected and besides being a prez is an extremely successful author before and after being the prez so to say his wealth was accrued just because he was prez is extremely stupid and who says that just a business man can be wealthy? Is that what you righties think, or is it just you being too lazy to do your homework and assuming that is the case. What else can we expect from those that ignore the dufus inherited his wealth in the first place.


Still waiting on that long promised response to my question. Perhaps I should restate it in case your memory is bad. Do you believe what Jesus said about hell in Matthew 25?

What's it to you since you've been stuck on this question for so long.

So many responses! So much opportunity!


Name one of any great consequence.
Hahahahaha - down from "absolutely nothing". What a card you are!

Guess that means you can't list one.



There is no real evidence of an impeachable offense. It's over.
Hahahahahah. Gad, you're funny - you're killing me.

You said there were five names. You couldn't even list one.


When Native American Warren
So you hate Native Americans, too, by disparaging Warren with that remark? You're some piece of work.

What do you call it when a person claims Native American heritage in order to get a job when, in fact, she doesn't really have any? As far as hating them, only one of us has ever worked for a native tribe for five years educating their young people. If you're not sure who that was, I'll give you a hint. It was not you. And I really despise it when some two-bit politician tries to claim native heritage. I wish you would as well.


Hardly unique to Obama, or hadn't you noticed?

I didn't say it was unique to Obama, or hadn't you noticed?

Still waiting on that long promised response to my question. Perhaps I should restate it in case your memory is bad. Do you believe what Jesus said about hell in Matthew 25?

BTW, it was really scummy of you to try and start one of your arguments on a post where a young lady asked a serious question about hell. I referred her to the Bible. I realize you are afraid of the Bible, but to try and argue on her post was flat wrong.


You say tepid, I say healthy and growing, and obviously better than he found it despite you righties whining and hollering about it, and NO DOUBT if HC had been elected (Read that as anybody, repub, dem, or Garfield Goose) they would benefit as much as the dufus is now.

Slowest recovery from a recession ever, and you call that "healthy and growing"? Hmm. And yeah, you can speculate about what we would have if HC had been elected. With Trump we don't have to speculate. We have some of the lowest unemployment numbers in history. Now THAT'S what you can call "healthy and growing." Solid GDP growth, historic low unemployment, and low inflation. It is so amazing that even liberals should be jumping up and down rejoicing.


Hmm, that's debatable if the bills this House has passed and Moscow Mitch has sat on is of substance or not,

So Athos didn't know of any, and now you don't know of any. Hmm.


Of course that's the rights talking points and only shared by them who are as a fact a minority of the total population so keep talking and whining about it, since that's ALL you can do about it.

Athos said there were five people who had direct knowledge of a crime. I asked for those five and got nothing. I then asked for just one and got nothing, and I even told you just half of a name would be something to discuss, and still got nothing. Now why do I get nothing? Because that's what there is in the way of evidence. Nothing. You call that right wing spin, but I call it the plain cold truth.

Athos said there were five people who had direct knowledge of a crime. I asked for those five and got nothing. I then asked for just one and got nothing, and I even told you just half of a name would be something to discuss, and still got nothing. Now why do I get nothing? Because that's what there is in the way of evidence. Nothing. You call that right wing spin, but I call it the plain cold truth.

I gave you seven of the 12 that I had and though we have subpoenaed them, the dufus instructed them not to testify before congress or turn over any documents and so we wait for a court to compel cooperation. That's a lousy way to conduct oversight as put forth in the Constitution, but it's the process and system we got. It's either a stall tactic or something to hide as if it clears up everything in favor of the dufus then what's the problem?

The dufus is the problem of course!



Slowest recovery from a recession ever, and you call that "healthy and growing"? Hmm. And yeah, you can speculate about what we would have if HC had been elected. With Trump we don't have to speculate. We have some of the lowest unemployment numbers in history. Now THAT'S what you can call "healthy and growing." Solid GDP growth, historic low unemployment, and low inflation. It is so amazing that even liberals should be jumping up and down rejoicing.

Wasn't a recession but a global financial meltdown. Just one question though and that's how do you know House passed legislation was so inconsequential? Do you have a list? Or are you making just blanket statements with no basis in FACT?

Bet it's the latter.

I gave you seven of the 12 that I had and though we have subpoenaed them, the dufus instructed them not to testify before congress or turn over any documents and so we wait for a court to compel cooperation. That's a lousy way to conduct oversight as put forth in the Constitution, but it's the process and system we got. It's either a stall tactic or something to hide as if it clears up everything in favor of the dufus then what's the problem?

That's fine if you want to argue that, but the fact remains that of those who testified, you cannot list even one who had direct knowledge of a crime. To try and impeach a pres on the basis of that flimsy "evidence" is "a lousy way to conduct oversight".


Wasn't a recession but a global financial meltdown. Just one question though and that's how do you know House passed legislation was so inconsequential? Do you have a list? Or are you making just blanket statements with no basis in FACT?

It was not a "global meltdown". Now you can try and make the argument that Obama avoided a global meltdown, and you might have a good point there, but I don't think you will find many people who agree with you on your claim that one actually existed. As to what the House has passed, I simply asked if either of you knew of anything of consequence they have done. Plainly you don't. They wasted all of their time and energy on this dead end impeachment process. Shame. Now if they had stood and opposed the ridiculously excessive spending that is giving us a trillion dollar budget deficit in a time of national prosperity, then I would have applauded them.

That's fine if you want to argue that, but the fact remains that of those who testified, you cannot list even one who had direct knowledge of a crime. To try and impeach a pres on the basis of that flimsy "evidence" is "a lousy way to conduct oversight".

I don't think it's an even fair proposition to claim NO evidence then no DIRECT evidence while you prevent testimony of witnesses. Ordinary citizens would have no choice but to answer a lawful subpoena, so why is the executive branch exempt? Now maybe you think firing ambassadors and turning relations with a foreign government over to your private attorney is good for the country, but I do not, nor did the witnesses who testified and filed complaints about those events. I also cited in this forum the specific law that was skirted to with hold funds that were authorized and signed by the dufus before he put his hold on as well as his own words in his transcript memo which you DON"T feel is evidence but I do. Dems agree, repubs do not.

LOL, and maybe it looks funny to everyone, but Biden working for Burisma isn't illegal, but a simple request by the DOJ is how a formal investigation into an American working in a foreign country is initiated, so where was that? Why is that? Repubs care little for such small process considerations that have been formalized into law or treaty agreements for YEARS.

That's really because repubs have only worried about the power of the dufus to throw them under the bus during the next election, so must protect the dufus and kiss his butt and doing their job has been totally lost a long time ago.


It was not a "global meltdown". Now you can try and make the argument that Obama avoided a global meltdown, and you might have a good point there, but I don't think you will find many people who agree with you on your claim that one actually existed. As to what the House has passed, I simply asked if either of you knew of anything of consequence they have done. Plainly you don't. They wasted all of their time and energy on this dead end impeachment process. Shame. Now if they had stood and opposed the ridiculously excessive spending that is giving us a trillion dollar budget deficit in a time of national prosperity, then I would have applauded them.

The shame of debating right wing low information folks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–08) such as yourself is the lack of acknowledgment of historic facts (https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress) and the utter reluctance to do your own homework and glamming on to your own irrelevant talking points. LOL, have you forgotten the repubs haven't done anything to balance a budget when they controlled the government?

I don't think it's an even fair proposition to claim NO evidence then no DIRECT evidence while you prevent testimony of witnesses. Ordinary citizens would have no choice but to answer a lawful subpoena, so why is the executive branch exempt? Now maybe you think firing ambassadors and turning relations with a foreign government over to your private attorney is good for the country, but I do not, nor did the witnesses who testified and filed complaints about those events. I also cited in this forum the specific law that was skirted to with hold funds that were authorized and signed by the dufus before he put his hold on as well as his own words in his transcript memo which you DON"T feel is evidence but I do. Dems agree, repubs do not.

There is no real evidence of a crime. You are making an appeal to what you THINK some witnesses MIGHT would say, but that is child's play. As to the legality of withholding the funds, that is not what he is charged with. If you want to go for that then fine, but if Obama did it as well then are you willing to condemn him? We KNOW that Biden did it as Obama's VP because he admits to it on tape.


LOL, and maybe it looks funny to everyone, but Biden working for Burisma isn't illegal, but a simple request by the DOJ is how a formal investigation into an American working in a foreign country is initiated, so where was that? Why is that? Repubs care little for such small process considerations that have been formalized into law or treaty agreements for YEARS.

Him working for Burisma is not a crime, so I agree with that much of what you said. But if you are trying to say that HB working for a major oil/gas company when he knows NOTHING about oil/gas production or about business management is not a suspicious looking arrangement, then that is a politically driven opinion. He admitted that he only got the job because of his last name, and his father was a major player in Ukrainian foreign policy, so yeah, that looks smelly.


The shame of debating right wing low information folks such as yourself is the lack of acknowledgment of historic facts and the utter reluctance to do your own homework and glamming on to your own irrelevant talking points. LOL, have you forgotten the repubs haven't done anything to balance a budget when they controlled the government?

Once again, when you run out of information, then you start slinging mud. I would think you would get embarrassed of such childish antics after a while. At any rate, I'll call you out on this one. Tell me why you say it was a "global financial meltdown." Let's hear your evidence. Oh wait. I forgot that you don't consider evidence to be important. Sorry for that oversight.

Regarding Obama's worklife:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School of the University of Chicago. In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062.

Athos: You told jlisenbe "What are you - some sort of socialist? Go back to Russia." Why did you say that? JL is definitely not a filthy socialist. And, also, why would you tell jlisenbe to "go back to Russia?" Am I missing something here because I didn't think jlisenbe was from Russia...I believe jlisenbe is from the great state of Mississippi. Additionally, Russia is not a socialist country since they broke the shackles of communism back in 1990...for 29 years, Russia has flourished under some form of capitalism and, while it has been a struggle, they definitely aren't socialist.

There is no real evidence of a crime. You are making an appeal to what you THINK some witnesses MIGHT would say, but that is child's play. As to the legality of withholding the funds, that is not what he is charged with. If you want to go for that then fine, but if Obama did it as well then are you willing to condemn him? We KNOW that Biden did it as Obama's VP because he admits to it on tape.

There doesn't have to be a crime for a president to be impeached, and a simple google searched would have told you that. In regard to witness testimony, that's what subpoenas are for so it doesn't matter what one thinks they will say the prudent thing to do is to get what they do say under oath and go from there. You need to do your homework on that Biden distraction my friend and stop taking the dufus's word for it because it's a FALSE. Everybody wanted the Ukrainian dude fired because he WOULDN'T investigate corruption because he was corrupt himself. Him and his cronies took money to STOP investigations of corrupt Ukrainian officials in government and businesses tied to Russia. Look it up my gosh and end the lies and ignorance of you right wing loons!


Him working for Burisma is not a crime, so I agree with that much of what you said. But if you are trying to say that HB working for a major oil/gas company when he knows NOTHING about oil/gas production or about business management is not a suspicious looking arrangement, then that is a politically driven opinion. He admitted that he only got the job because of his last name, and his father was a major player in Ukrainian foreign policy, so yeah, that looks smelly.

Actually he was brought on for law and regulation compliance so no gas production expertise needed. Maybe that changes nothing for you, but you would have known that with a simple Google search too. I find it hilarious that of all the people on the board of Burisma, including Americans, Biden is the only one you have a problem with at the behest of the dufus looking for dirt on his political opponent. You have bothered looking that up either.


Once again, when you run out of information, then you start slinging mud. I would think you would get embarrassed of such childish antics after a while. At any rate, I'll call you out on this one. Tell me why you say it was a "global financial meltdown." Let's hear your evidence. Oh wait. I forgot that you don't consider evidence to be important. Sorry for that oversight.

Yeah I guess you missed my links embedded in my mudslinging. Dude, you just can't be that lazy or loose about historic FACTS. Can YOU?

There doesn't have to be a crime for a president to be impeached, and a simple google searched would have told you that.

That's true, and I'm glad to see that you are evidently agreeing that this impeachment is pure partisan politics at its worst. Thankfully, the American people are seeing through this ridiculous charade.


You need to do your homework on that Biden distraction my friend and stop taking the dufus's word for it because it's a FALSE. Everybody wanted the Ukrainian dude fired because he WOULDN'T investigate corruption because he was corrupt himself. Him and his cronies took money to STOP investigations of corrupt Ukrainian officials in government and businesses tied to Russia. Look it up my gosh and end the lies and ignorance of you right wing loons!

First of all, I have no idea what Trump has said about this. I never listen to him. As to lies, you find the lie I have said about this and we can talk about it. Otherwise you are the one doing the lying. So you've been called out on this. Show where I have lied or find something else useful and honest to say. This business of you and your buddy athos wanting to call everything and anything a lie gets old. You can never back the statement up.

I'd still love to know why you think Burisma would have hired a guy just recently kicked out of the navy for drug use who knew NOTHING about oil and gas, and who had no practical experience at all in business. Why do you think they hired him??? I'm not saying it was illegal, but I am saying it stinks to the high heavens.

Athos: You told jlisenbe "What are you - some sort of socialist? Go back to Russia." Why did you say that? JL is definitely not a filthy socialist. And, also, why would you tell jlisenbe to "go back to Russia?"

Vac, after a while you just consider the source. Of the three liberal amigos on this board, the only one you can have anything approaching an open conversation with is Tal.

Vac, after a while you just consider the source. Of the three liberal amigos on this board, the only one you can have anything approaching an open conversation with is Tal.

Of the two of three Stooges on this board, you and V7, neither one can recognize a comment made in jest.

Of the two of three Stooges on this board, you and V7, neither one can recognize a comment made in jest.Of the two of three Stooges on this board, you and V7, neither one can recognize a comment made in jest.

Right. "I called you a liar, but golly gee whiz, I was just kidding!" That's how teenagers operate.

Still waiting on that long promised response to my question....... hell in Matthew 25?

I missed this first time around. That topic has gone to the bottom of my to-do pile. But never fear, it's coming, it's coming. Stand by.

Just to nip this little Bible quoting squabble in the bud



41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

BTW, it was really scummy of you to try and start one of your arguments on a post where a young lady asked a serious question about hell. I referred her to the Bible

The scumminess is all yours, my friend, since you were the one who began connecting hell with belief in Christ, not me. Had the thread continued, it was only a matter of time before you tried to infect her with your pernicious belief.

The rest of your thread isn't worth replying to since you are being corrected so effectively by others.





Right. "I called you a liar, but golly gee whiz, I was just kidding!" That's how teenagers operate.

Geez, you really can't read! The jest comment was in re V7's comment on Russia and socialism. You haven't lost your bad tendency to change horses in midstream. I thought by now, you're realize it never works.

That's true, and I'm glad to see that you are evidently agreeing that this impeachment is pure partisan politics at its worst. Thankfully, the American people are seeing through this ridiculous charade.

Partisan yes because the dufus has completely subverted the repub party into his sycophant rubber stamp.


First of all, I have no idea what Trump has said about this. I never listen to him. As to lies, you find the lie I have said about this and we can talk about it. Otherwise you are the one doing the lying. So you've been called out on this. Show where I have lied or find something else useful and honest to say. This business of you and your buddy athos wanting to call everything and anything a lie gets old. You can never back the statement up.


I've never called you a lie, but specifically always say the dufus is a liar (Or the right wing loons, so which are you?) so you show me where I referenced YOU lying before you go calling me out. I'll leave it at that for now!


I'd still love to know why you think Burisma would have hired a guy just recently kicked out of the navy for drug use who knew NOTHING about oil and gas, and who had no practical experience at all in business. Why do you think they hired him??? I'm not saying it was illegal, but I am saying it stinks to the high heavens.

They hired a number of Americans for their board and ex politicians no doubt in my mind to give legitimacy for their corruption, and corrupt or not it's a practice for many businesses, both foreign and domestic to hire "important influential CONNECTED" people who may be good for business.

The scumminess is all yours, my friend, since you were the one who began connecting hell with belief in Christ, not me. Had the thread continued, it was only a matter of time before you tried to infect her with your pernicious belief.

Actually that was first begun in the Bible, that book which you are so afraid of.


The rest of your thread isn't worth replying to since you are being corrected so effectively by others.

I.e. you have no answers.


Geez, you really can't read! The jest comment was in re V7's comment on Russia and socialism. You haven't lost your bad tendency to change horses in midstream. I thought by now, you're realize it never works.

I get it. You weren't specific, so it's my fault. Sure. That makes sense.


I've never called you a lie, but specifically always say the dufus is a liar (Or the right wing loons, so which are you?) so you show me where I referenced YOU lying before you go calling me out. I'll leave it at that for now!

Yes, you did. Your quote is, "Look it up my gosh andend the lies and ignorance of you right wing loons!" But you are clarifying your statement, so fine.


They hired a number of Americans for their board and ex politicians no doubt in my mind to give legitimacy for their corruption, and corrupt or not it's a practice for many businesses, both foreign and domestic to hire "important influential CONNECTED" people who may be good for business.

Maybe so, but HB himself said he only got the job because of his last name. BTW, I could find no other names of Americans named to that board. Perhaps you have a better source.

Be glad to provide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings)a link as well as some clarity. (https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/17/fact-check-hunter-biden-ukraine-burisma-payments/)

From 1st link


Taras Burdeinyi is the chief executive officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer) of Burisma Holdings,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-delo061114-1) and Alan Apter is chairman of the board of directors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-rfi270919-2) As of 14 October 2019, the members of the board of directors, in order of seniority, are Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwaśniewski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Kwa%C5%9Bniewski), Joseph Cofer Black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cofer_Black) , Karina Zlochevska, Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina Pericleous.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-rfi270919-2)[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-board-34) Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former president of Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland), joined the board in January 2014.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-dw160514-32)[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-pravda-33) In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cofer_Black), former director of the Counterterrorism Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterterrorism_Center) of the Central Intelligence Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) (1999–2002) in the George W. Bush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) administration and former Ambassador-at-Large (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador-at-Large) for counter-terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-terrorism) (2002–2004), was appointed to the board.[35] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-35) Karina Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, was also appointed in February 2016.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-rfi270919-2).In April 2014, Devon Archer (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devon_Archer&action=edit&redlink=1), a former senior adviser to the John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_2004_presidential_campaign), and Hunter Biden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden), an attorney and the son of then-US vice president Joe Biden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden), joined the board.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-dw160514-32)[36] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-bbc140514-36) Archer left the company in 2018[37] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-gospa061019-37) and Biden left in April 2019, when his term as a director expired.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings#cite_note-reuters240919-8)

Fron the 2nd link

Numerous (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/on-bidens-and-ukraine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake)media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hunter-biden-says-role-with-ukraine-firm-was-poor-judgment-but-not-improper/2019/10/15/2aca7ade-eef0-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html)outlets (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-anticorruption-effort-in-ukraine-overlapped-with-sons-work-in-country-11569189782)
have stated Hunter Biden was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work with Burisma, but available financial records show no direct payments from the company to him. The frequently cited figure stems from payments Hunter Biden received from Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a New York-based
capital management firm (https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/6-facts-about-hunter-bidens-business-dealings-in-china/)
owned and controlled by longtime business partner Devon Archer.

Devon Archer is a scumbag!

Rather than depending on undependable others to state my views, and despite the fact that I have plainly stated this just a week or two ago, let me say that I do not contend that people go to hell because of a lack of faith in Christ. People go to hell because they have sinned and are under the judgement of God. It is by faith in Christ that forgiveness is given, and it is strictly by grace, which is to say it is wholly undeserved by us.

The judgement of God is proportional to a person's offenses. This is clearly stated in Luke 12:41ff, Matthew 10:15 and 11:22, Luke 12:47,48, and Hebrews 10:29. I have no idea how that enters into the concept of hell, but it would certainly be a just thing for God to do.

It is also clear that no one can be saved by their good works, which is to say by being "good". This is clearly taught in the first five chapters of Romans and is, in fact, the entire reason for the existence of that passage. Paul sums up the argument in 5:1 where he states, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." It is also plainly stated in John 3:16 and a multitude of other places. The passage "around" John 3:16 (15 to 21), is a particularly beautiful passage to me.

That there is a hell is clear from Matthew 25 where it is stated it is both eternal and fiery. It is also clearly taught in Matthew 13:41-43 and Luke 13:26-30.

That the judgement of God is going to be a terrible event is clear from Rev. 20:11-15. "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

You can also go back and read the two passages which were quoted from Aquinas, both of which clearly show the essential nature of faith in Christ.

have stated Hunter Biden was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work with Burisma, but available financial records show no direct payments from the company to him. The frequently cited figure stems from payments Hunter Biden received from Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a New York-based

Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest he worked for free.

Rather than depending on undependable others to state my views, and despite the fact that I have plainly stated this just a week or two ago, let me say that I do not contend that people go to hell because of a lack of faith in Christ. People go to hell because they have sinned and are under the judgement of God. It is by faith in Christ that forgiveness is given, and it is strictly by grace, which is to say it is wholly undeserved by us.

The judgement of God is proportional to a person's offenses. This is clearly stated in Luke 12:41ff, Matthew 10:15 and 11:22, Luke 12:47,48, and Hebrews 10:29. I have no idea how that enters into the concept of hell, but it would certainly be a just thing for God to do.

It is also clear that no one can be saved by their good works, which is to say by being "good". This is clearly taught in the first five chapters of Romans and is, in fact, the entire reason for the existence of that passage. Paul sums up the argument in 5:1 where he states, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." It is also plainly stated in John 3:16 and a multitude of other places. The passage "around" John 3:16 (15 to 21), is a particularly beautiful passage to me.

That there is a hell is clear from Matthew 25 where it is stated it is both eternal and fiery. It is also clearly taught in Matthew 13:41-43 and Luke 13:26-30.

That the judgement of God is going to be a terrible event is clear from Rev. 20:11-15. "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

You can also go back and read the two passages which were quoted from Aquinas, both of which clearly show the essential nature of faith in Christ.

You are a master at changing horses mid stream. The original proposition (now many months ago) was that UNBELIEVERS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS ARE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

For months you never once denied you believed that. In fact, you quoted Bible verse after Bible verse that you claimed supported that position. Each one of those verses was debunked by me as not meeting the conditions of your belief.

When the absurdity of your belief was pointed out again and again, you softened a bit. Then your claim became that possibly (possibly?) babies were excluded from going to hell. If abortion is murder, what in God's name do you call that aborted baby when as an unbeliever it spends eternity in hell undergoing torture?

I even went so far as to post your claim on the Christianity board but you got no help there. As someone who has read Aquinas for years, I stand by what I wrote as opposed to your three minutes on Wikipedia.

Finally, in a convoluted comment, you seemed to say that there was a difference between how an unbeliever would wind up in hell. It was a distinction without a difference.

You're now saying in the above post that hell exists and that the judgement of God is a terrible thing. THAT WAS NEVER THE ORIGINAL POINT OF DISPUTE.

Many times I have called your claim absurd. I see now that your are finally understanding the absurdity. Babies and those who never heard of Jesus obviously do not wind up in hell being endlessly tortured because they are not believers.
This sounds more like Moloch than Jesus.

What you need to do is stop defending a weak position by skating around the original dispute, and come right out and say that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest he worked for free.
No, please read more carefully. Hunter was paid by Rosemont Seneca Bohai for his work with Burisma. You do know what Hunter did to earn that money, right?

I even went so far as to post your claim on the Christianity board but you got no help there. As someone who has read Aquinas for years, I stand by what I wrote as opposed to your three minutes on Wikipedia.

Then you can't read English. He plainly did not support your position. He flatly stated, in fact, that belief in "The Faith" was essential. If you've read Aquinas for years, then you would have come up with something that supported your false belief.

As to all the false nonsense you posted about what I have supposedly said, I notice that you posted no quotes from me and no scripture. Your rant proves nothing. In fact, it is your constant work of fiction that caused me to post what I just did. Notice that I said I couldn't depend on those who are undependable?

In the meantime, we continue to wait for your long promised opinion of the words of Christ.

As to all the false nonsense you posted about what I have supposedly said

Fine. Here's your chance to correct the record.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL WHERE THEY ARE ETERNALLY PUNISHED?

Simple enough. A yes or no will do.

No, please read more carefully. Hunter was paid by Rosemont Seneca Bohai for his work with Burisma. You do know what Hunter did to earn that money, right?

You do know that there are a variety of sources which say that Biden was paid by Burisma? Even Tal said that, "Numerous media outlets have stated Hunter Biden was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work with Burisma."

If it was indeed Rosemont Seneca, do you find it a bit strange that they paid HB to be on the board of Burisma and not the company itself?

Read this and tell me how you feel about Rosemont Seneca.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/

Do you believe that unbelievers go to hell where they are eternally punished?

Gosh you don't listen. We've already had this talk. Saying that unbelievers go to hell, which is an accurate statement, is not the same as saying they go to hell BECAUSE of their unbelief. I would not word it that way, however. I would say that sinners are under the judgement of God and will someday go to hell, but Christ came to save those who put their faith in Him. As I stated earlier, "Paul sums up the argument in 5:1 where he states, 'Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.'" That's why it's called the "good news".

Now if you want to contradict that, then you should begin with the Bible. In fact, you might want to gather up your courage and begin with what Jesus said about hell in Matthew 25.

Saying that unbelievers go to hell, which is an accurate statement

You're halfway there. Are these unbelievers who go to hell eternally punished? Yes or no will do.

Saying that unbelievers go to hell, which is an accurate statement, is not the same as saying they go to hell BECAUSE of their unbelief.
If unbelievers don't go to hell because of their unbelief, why then do they go to hell?

You're halfway there. Are these unbelievers who go to hell eternally punished? Yes or no will do.

Nah. It's time for you to pull your britches up and speak on Matthew 25. In doing so, you will answer your question yourself. It's a win-win. Have a little courage and you will find what you seek. Here is the passage.

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



If unbelievers don't go to hell because of their unbelief, why then do they go to hell?


Read what I posted several posts above. You'll find the answer there. In fact, I'll make it easy on you.

Rather than depending on undependable others to state my views, and despite the fact that I have plainly stated this just a week or two ago, let me say that I do not contend that people go to hell because of a lack of faith in Christ. People go to hell because they have sinned and are under the judgement of God. It is by faith in Christ that forgiveness is given, and it is strictly by grace, which is to say it is wholly undeserved by us.

The judgement of God is proportional to a person's offenses. This is clearly stated in Luke 12:41ff, Matthew 10:15 and 11:22, Luke 12:47,48, and Hebrews 10:29. I have no idea how that enters into the concept of hell, but it would certainly be a just thing for God to do.

It is also clear that no one can be saved by their good works, which is to say by being "good". This is clearly taught in the first five chapters of Romans and is, in fact, the entire reason for the existence of that passage. Paul sums up the argument in 5:1 where he states, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." It is also plainly stated in John 3:16 and a multitude of other places. The passage "around" John 3:16 (15 to 21), is a particularly beautiful passage to me.

That there is a hell is clear from Matthew 25 where it is stated it is both eternal and fiery. It is also clearly taught in Matthew 13:41-43 and Luke 13:26-30.

That the judgement of God is going to be a terrible event is clear from Rev. 20:11-15. "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

You can also go back and read the two passages which were quoted from Aquinas, both of which clearly show the essential nature of faith in Christ.

Nah. (To the question - Are unbelievers eternally punished?)

Well, well, well. That's a far cry from your original position which was UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL WHERE THEY ARE ETERNALLY PUNISHED.

"Nah" isn't much of an apology, but it will have to do.

There's no need now to go into Matthew 25 since you have rescinded your belief. But I will do it anyway. It may help to reinforce your revised belief.

So fearful. Sad. You cannot bring yourself to address Matthew 25, and now it's on display for all to see. Such a fearful person you are. What a shame. Well, maybe someday.

As for me, I've changed nothing. Again, you have many words but no quotes from me. No quotes. No scriptures. No stand. No courage. That's you. But if you want to demonstrate that is not you, then take a stand. I hope you will and address the passage. I hope my description of you is proven wrong. Otherwise, then you are guilty as charged.

You cannot bring yourself to address Matthew 25,

Still can't read? Here's what I wrote.

There's no need now to go into Matthew 25 since you have rescinded your belief. But I will do it anyway. It may help to reinforce your revised belief.

There's no need now to go into Matthew 25 since you have rescinded your belief. But I will do it anyway. It may help to reinforce your revised belief.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but I have rescinded nothing. I believe as I did when this whole deal started. Hell is eternal, and I've said nothing to the contrary. Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of my "Nah".

Can I read? That made me laugh. I can't read your response to the Matthew passage because, well, it doesn't exist. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Honestly, you are such a puzzle. So full of questions but so fearful of answers. Always tomorrow. "Some day I will." Well, who knows. Anyone who believes Aquinas saw no need for faith in Christ might still be able to summon the courage.

Athos: If you are so unfortunate to go to HELL you are guaranteed that you will experience ETERNAL PUNISHMENT: THAT'S THE DEFINIION OF HELL!

The definition of hell is best summed up in 4 more years of the dufus words, antics and behavior.

The definition of hell is best summed up in 4 more years of the dufus words, antics and behavior.

If that's true, then it would turn out that hell is not eternal but only four years long. (<;

For the humor impaired, that was a joke.

apparently it is no joke for those who are politically challenged

I thought that was rather good humor although rather rare. 8D

Hope you wingers still are in a humorous mood after two articles of impeachment will be filed against the dufus and the IG reports said no spying on the dufus campaign and the investigations were justified.

Of course the dufus claims the report said there was spying and his ratings are through the roof after Pelosi announced the charges, while Barr said the report was lousy.

It does seem that there will be articles of impeachment filed. Now if they can just come up with some evidence...

It does seem that there will be articles of impeachment filed. Now if they can just come up with some evidence...

You know they don't need to do that, The senate will vote without evidence and it will all be for nothing

Plenty of evidence, but some wouldn't know it if it bit them in the arse, or would deny it like they have been doing, or wouldn't care because they are sycophants who will do as the dufus tells them to do, or the worse lot will believe whatever lies the dufus tells them.

You know how it goes with you wingers. Loonies don't have to make sense just plenty of noise.

Hey, don't include me in this, I stay near the centre. I agree with you that Dump does strange things, like he doesn't think rationally, but this blatant political process isn't helping anyone

You know they don't need to do that, The senate will vote without evidence and it will all be for nothing Just about right.


Plenty of evidence, but some wouldn't know it if it bit them in the arse, or would deny it like they have been doing, or wouldn't care because they are sycophants who will do as the dufus tells them to do, or the worse lot will believe whatever lies the dufus tells them.

You know how it goes with you wingers. Loonies don't have to make sense just plenty of noise.

Yeah, just like you had the names of five people who had first hand knowledge of the president's guilt, except that, of course, then you didn't. And you just knew that Kavanaugh had to be guilty, except, of course, you had no evidence. And you think we make noise??? Noise and name-calling is all you have, so that's all you go with. Loud noise to cover up ignorance and dishonesty.

You have a very simple and corrupt philosophy of justice. If it benefits you and the liberal left wing of the dem party, then it must surely be true. If it is a negative for Trump or for conservative values, then it must be correct. But if it's bad for the liberal dems, even it it's true, then it must be false. What a strange world you live in.

jlisenbe: You said the "liberal left wing of the Democrat Party: Is there a CONSERVATIVE WING? Is there, even, a CENTER WING (Moderate)? From where I am standing, the ENTIRE Democrat Party is liberal and left wing!

jlisenbe: You said the "liberal left wing of the Democrat Party: Is there a CONSERVATIVE WING? Is there, even, a CENTER WING (Moderate)? From where I am standing, the ENTIRE Democrat Party is liberal and left wing!

Probably pretty accurate.

Yeah, just like you had the names of five people who had first hand knowledge of the president's guilt, except that, of course, then you didn't. And you just knew that Kavanaugh had to be guilty, except, of course, you had no evidence. And you think we make noise??? Noise and name-calling is all you have, so that's all you go with. Loud noise to cover up ignorance and dishonesty.

For the record, I had 7, and still do except they aren't allowed to testify even after being warned this would be seen as obstruction with corrupt intent. It was ignored and here e are. Personally, I would have still tried to go through the courts, but the appeal in the McGahm court case to testify will be heard in January and by extension apply to the other names as well. We will see.


You have a very simple and corrupt philosophy of justice. If it benefits you and the liberal left wing of the dem party, then it must surely be true. If it is a negative for Trump or for conservative values, then it must be correct. But if it's bad for the liberal dems, even it it's true, then it must be false. What a strange world you live in.

Truth is best found through investigation my friend. That should apply to left and right so your hodgepodge of words has no meaning or context unless you can specifically express it.

For the record, I had 7, and still do except they aren't allowed to testify
For the record, you've got zilch. You have no idea what any of those people know or what they would say.


Truth is best found through investigation my friend. That should apply to left and right so your hodgepodge of words has no meaning or context unless you can specifically express it.

I saw your sense of "justice" during the Kavanaugh hearings. No evidence other than the testimony of a woman who had a hundred holes in her story, but the dems still wanted to loudly proclaim him guilty. Why? So you could keep him off the Supreme Court. He was a conservative, so to all of you he was guilty. Thus we see liberal dem "justice".

For the record, you've got zilch. You have no idea what any of those people know or what they would say.

Shouldn't we find out? Of course we should so let's get about it.


I saw your sense of "justice" during the Kavanaugh hearings. No evidence other than the testimony of a woman who had a hundred holes in her story, but the dems still wanted to loudly proclaim him guilty. Why? So you could keep him off the Supreme Court. He was a conservative, so to all of you he was guilty. Thus we see liberal dem "justice".

There you go again. You guys had the votes to push the drunkard frat boy to SCOTUS and stop and limit any investigation so you got what you wanted that time. So we all see conservative "justice " too! Haven't heard one repub say whether getting a foreign country involved in our elections is wrong though. Wonder why that is? Maybe you can address that question for us JL.

While your at it, what was the evidence to investigate Hunter Biden again? Besides to smear his daddy who happens to be running for president? That's not evidence you know, just a political ploy to sling mud.

What are you going to find out Tal? nothing you don't already know. You are going to impeach Trump for being an idiot, yes , he is guilty, but it isn't grounds for impeachment

The dufus isn't being impeached for being an idiot. He is being impeached for breaking the LAW, that says that you cannot use your office to invite a foreign nation to influence our election. He is being impeached because he is preventing the congress from investigating his breaking of the law. Now the righties can tell you whatever they please but that doesn't change those FACTS. He abused the public trust and tried to hide it to a degree that was more egregious than Nixon, or Clinton.

Maybe the righties can stomach such behavior, and it would not be the first time, but if we do not protect our laws, our elections then I fail to see the point in insisting everybody else but the dufus abide by them. He crossed the line and should be held into account especially given this may well be his second offense, just like everybody else.

He is NOT above the law Clete, that's the whole point of our society as hard as that is to tell sometimes.

BOTTOM LINE: Just like Hillary's E-mails, Biden's problem is parallel: IF YOU WERN'T DIRTY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE Wouldn't BE ANY DIRT TO "DIG UP"! We can't help it that BIDEN committed dirty acts in a FOREIGN COUNTRY! Just because he committed criminal acts in a foreign country doesn't mean that you can't go after him. Just because Biden declares himself a Presidential Candidate doesn't "SHIELD" him from being investigated. The POTUS has every right to protect the U.S. from CRIMINAL ELEMENTS LIKE BIDEN! He is not going to be able hide behind the cloak of Presidential Candidate: Its the right of the POTUS to go after criminals!

Maybe so, but then again it's the dems job to go after a dirty dufus.

The dufus isn't being impeached for being an idiot. He is being impeached for breaking the LAW, that says that you cannot use your office to invite a foreign nation to influence our election. He is being impeached because he is preventing the congress from investigating his breaking of the law. Now the righties can tell you whatever they please but that doesn't change those FACTS. He abused the public trust and tried to hide it to a degree that was more egregious than Nixon, or Clinton.

Maybe the righties can stomach such behavior, and it would not be the first time, but if we do not protect our laws, our elections then I fail to see the point in insisting everybody else but the dufus abide by them. He crossed the line and should be held into account especially given this may well be his second offense, just like everybody else.

He is NOT above the law Clete, that's the whole point of our society as hard as that is to tell sometimes.


Investigations were made Tal, but the demonrats weren't satisfied and then Trump had the temerity to accuse one of their sacred cows of illegal activity and influence peddling. He should have allowed someone else to make the request, but we all know Trump doesn't trust anyone. Has he abused his office? probably

Here's the reality.

Dems. "Mr. Trump, you're guilty."
Trump. "Where is your evidence?"
Dems. "We don't need evidence. We hate you because you defeated our liberal darling, so that's good enough for us."

Investigations were made Tal, but the demonrats weren't satisfied and then Trump had the temerity to accuse one of their sacred cows of illegal activity and influence peddling. He should have allowed someone else to make the request, but we all know Trump doesn't trust anyone. Has he abused his office? probably

He had that chance Clete and if I'm not mistaken the fool could have just made a formal request through the DOJ to the Ukraine government to start an investigation but NOOOOO, he just full out asked a foreign government for an investigation into his political opponent and the repubs deny that was the wrong thing to do. Then we could have impeached DOJ AG for playing political partisan games. No impeachment, and the dems would have no choice but to wait for a judge to finally hand down a judgement for testimony, and documents and the election would probably be over by then.

No doubt the dufus has abused his office, and his oath, and his country.


Here's the reality.

Dems. "Mr. Trump, you're guilty."
Trump. "Where is your evidence?"
Dems. "We don't need evidence. We hate you because you defeated our liberal darling, so that's good enough for us."

We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate. That's how it works. So your spin is silly even if I took it as twisted humor which I don't. Hating a guy is no excuse for bad behavior no matter how you spin it.

We don't need evidence

That is plainly your motto. I don't think the American people will go for such an outrageous view of justice.

Talaniman: You sure the JAPANESE haven't secretly taken over the Democrat Party? The DEMOCRAT PARTY SHOULD BE RENAMED "PARTY OF KAMIKAZE" because they are committed so hard to leftist ideals that they are bashing their collective brains out on the suicide mission of trying to remove Trump from Office knowing full well, well beforehand, that their attemp will be in vain. The whole Democrat fiasco of the IMPEACHMENT Inquiry is a total POLITICAL EXERCISE, it has nothing to do with justice, as proven by no need for evidence and as proven by no need to Due Process: YOU KNOOW IT IS SIMPLY DESIGNED AS AN ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE TRUMP FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS: AND IT IS FAILING IN THAT ATTEMP! FAILING BIG TIME!

Demos launch and Impeachment missile at Trump.....missile is steered by incompetent Little Adam Schiff and Jerry "The Penguin" Nadler and missile misses by a country mile: Trump is found not guilty in Senate Trial. Entire Impeachment Inquiry is ACADEMIC! Demos knew going into all this that they had NO CHANCE of removing Trump from Office because they knew they couldn't get past the Senate. All Demos did was lose voters, lose elections, guarantee Trump's reelection, and do what they do best: SPEND TONS OF TAXPAYER $$$s!

That is plainly your motto. I don't think the American people will go for such an outrageous view of justice.

Half the country supported the impeachment inquiry, and that number is unchanged as the vote in a few days for articles of impeachment against the dufus. Let me clarify my previous statement as it should have read you don't need evidence to start an investigation. Thank you for pointing that out as justice is in the process of being done. The senate get's it's chance soon to decide what must be done and that's the process of justice.


Talaniman: You sure the JAPANESE haven't secretly taken over the Democrat Party? The DEMOCRAT PARTY SHOULD BE RENAMED "PARTY OF KAMIKAZE" because they are committed so hard to leftist ideals that they are bashing their collective brains out on the suicide mission of trying to remove Trump from Office knowing full well, well beforehand, that their attemp will be in vain. The whole Democrat fiasco of the IMPEACHMENT Inquiry is a total POLITICAL EXERCISE, it has nothing to do with justice, as proven by no need for evidence and as proven by no need to Due Process: YOU KNOOW IT IS SIMPLY DESIGNED AS AN ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE TRUMP FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS: AND IT IS FAILING IN THAT ATTEMP! FAILING BIG TIME!

Demos launch and Impeachment missile at Trump.....missile is steered by incompetent Little Adam Schiff and Jerry "The Penguin" Nadler and missile misses by a country mile: Trump is found not guilty in Senate Trial. Entire Impeachment Inquiry is ACADEMIC! Demos knew going into all this that they had NO CHANCE of removing Trump from Office because they knew they couldn't get past the Senate. All Demos did was lose voters, lose elections, guarantee Trump's reelection, and do what they do best: SPEND TONS OF TAXPAYER $$$s!

For all that rant and rave you left out the attempt by the dufus to connect the Biden's and Ukraine corruption to tarnish them for the purpose of re electing the dufus.

That is plainly your motto. I don't think the American people will go for such an outrageous view of justice.
Tal didn't say that. You chopped off his sentence to make it untrue. He actually said: "We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate."

That's how it works, btw.

Tal didn't say that. You chopped off his sentence to make it untrue. He actually said: "We don't need evidence to bring articles of impeachment, just a vote and then it goes to the senate."

You are appealing to context, but even at that, it still has the same meaning. "We don't need evidence" in a legal proceeding, which impeachment clearly is, is still an outrageous view of justice. It is admitting that a person can be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors without evidence. In what way do you agree with that?

Now if you want to make it purely political then your statement would make more sense, but God help us if all of this boils down to nothing more than politics. I can think of nothing more wretched than that. That a political party would attempt to basically depose a duly elected president simply out of political expedience would do violence to everything a democratic republic stands for.

You are appealing to context, but even at that, it still has the same meaning. "We don't need evidence" in a legal proceeding, which impeachment clearly is, is still an outrageous view of justice. It is admitting that a person can be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors without evidence. In what way do you agree with that?
No! Get a grip! The evidence will be presented elsewhere, NOT YET! There's no charge at this point.

No! Get a grip! The evidence will be presented elsewhere, NOT YET!

So that's how it works now? Accuse him of guilt, brand him as guilty, and then try to find evidence? What an interesting perspective you have.

Me get a grip?? What are all those exclamation marks about? You seem rather stirred up.

So that's how it works now? Accuse him of guilt, brand him as guilty, and then try to find evidence? What an interesting perspective you have.

You've never had a civics or US government course apparently. Please read up on how this works.


Me get a grip?? What are all those exclamation marks about? You seem rather stirred up.
Oh, yes, I'm stirred up!!!! We teachers get stirred up when people don't do research.

You've never had a civics or US government course apparently. Please read up on how this works.

I see. You can't explain it, so I need to look it up. Right.


Oh, yes, I'm stirred up!!!! We teachers get stirred up when people don't do research.

Just read my comment above again. It works here as well.

Just so you'll know, I'm well aware that the House functions somewhat like a grand jury in impeachment. If they have evidence of a crime, they can vote on impeachment and, if passed, it is then passed to the Senate where what could be referred to as a trial takes place. If 2/3 of the Senate can be convinced the president is guilty, then he/she is removed from office. But to send articles of impeachment simply because you don't like someone is both absurd and despicable. Sorry that your liberal dogma prevents you from seeing that.

JL, tal explained it!!!!

The impeachment process in U.S. government was first suggested by Benjamin Franklin (https://www.thoughtco.com/story-of-benjamin-franklin-1989852) during the Constitutional Convention (https://www.thoughtco.com/constitutional-convention-105426) in 1787. Noting that the traditional mechanism for removing “obnoxious” chief executives — like kings — from power had been assassination, Franklin glibly suggested the impeachment process as a more rational and preferable method.



The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.


https://www.thoughtco.com/impeachment-the-unthinkable-process-3322171

This was real easy to find, JL. Be sure to fist-bump your reference librarian!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.

Thank you for repeating what I had already said. The difference is that I wrote mine without having to go to some cheesy website and was thus able to write my own summary. You just copied what someone else wrote. And you really think you warrant a fist bump for that?

I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.

Thank you for repeating what I had already said. The difference is that I wrote mine without having to go to some cheesy website and was thus able to write my own summary. You just copied what someone else wrote. And you really think you warrant a fist bump for that?
I'm not your reference librarian. Plus I'm retired.

I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.
You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"

You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"

OK, I'll ask you. Which witnesses had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump? Something more than, "I think he wanted to...", or "My brother said he heard my friend say that Trump might have..." I'd also like to know if you think the fact the both the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said there was no quid-pro-quo should be considered pretty weighty evidence. Hmmm?

And talk about just throwing your ethics and honesty out the window, your "Facts be damned" quote was taken so far out of context, and so dishonestly, that you just lost a couple of weeks worth of fist bumps. Rep. Collins was saying, and this is very clear, that the dems, "don't care...facts be damned." You really should be ashamed to have so completely misrepresented the truth.

Pick up this video at about the one minute mark. Maybe this is why you are not my reference librarian. Do I have to do all the work around here???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH62Wmbli0

The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.

In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine. (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/09/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-corruption-rudy-giuliani-joe-biden-229828)

Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.

OK, I'll ask you. Which witnesses had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump? Something more than, "I think he wanted to...", or "My brother said he heard my friend say that Trump might have..." I'd also like to know if you think the fact the both the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said there was no quid-pro-quo should be considered pretty weighty evidence. Hmmm?

And talk about just throwing your ethics and honesty out the window, your "Facts be damned" quote was taken so far out of context, and so dishonestly, that you just lost a couple of weeks worth of fist bumps. Rep. Collins was saying, and this is very clear, that the dems, "don't care...facts be damned." You really should be ashamed to have so completely misrepresented the truth.

Pick up this video at about the one minute mark. Maybe this is why you are not my reference librarian. Do I have to do all the work around here???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH62Wmbli0
I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!

Do you like this website?????

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462958-white-house-releases-transcript-of-trump-call-to-ukraine

The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.

In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine.

Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.

Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.

When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.


I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!

I'm sure that's how it was.


Do you like this website?????

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...all-to-ukraine

The one that is a mouthpiece for the democrat party and is dated 9/25? That one?

You must start paying much, much better attention.

You must start paying much, much better attention.
My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

Very sorry you are having difficulties. I always encourage people to post, but be prepared to have your material challenged.

My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

Sorry to hear that WG, look after yourself and don't let the bastards get to you

Very sorry you are having difficulties. I always encourage people to post, but be prepared to have your material challenged.
This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....

W.G.: Sorry to hear you are having a rough stretch....get some rest....believe me: We'll still be arguing when you get back! You won't miss much! Get well, W.G.!

Hamilton did warn us about the perils of Impeachment being "weaponized"! He know that potential existed.

This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....

Yes indeed. You know how to give and take.

Hope you feel better soon and that God's healing virtue will be yours.

Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.


We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez. His attack dog Barr had two weeks to spin his yarn we know now is not only grossly inaccurate but obviously deceptive. Unfortunately Mueller's lackluster hearing performance didn't catch everybody's attention either, and was further spun by the right as nothing to see here and taken as no collusion, no obstruction by the liar in chief to his masses.

Obstruction was laid out as dull as it was, as was Russian interference, but what was missed is Mueller's decline to dig any further into the dufus's alleged conspiracy citing obstruction, destroying documents and non cooperation by his inner circle to explain all those mysterious contacts with Russian government agents. Barr did the same thing with the WB testimony, and the latest justice department report from last week aided by his handpicked special investigator in spinning everything in the dufus's favor. Of course only the right ignores those facts to parrot the dufus version of events and allows him to not just get away with it but keep doing it, fine by you right? You get to holler no evidence and ignoring the evidence against him, while at the same time smearing the dufus opponents without any evidence at all. As my evidence against the right wing loony allegation of smear tactics I submit the obvious hollering about the Bidens yet no formal charges or call for investigation by DOJ, even after Ukraine has said a formal request is needed as per the Treaty between the USA and Ukraine. That just let's me know that all that the dufus wanted was political talking points against his political foe. The right wing noise machine has embraced this wholeheartedly, and quite willingly, and without ANY evidence which only points out the utter HYPOCRISY of you and the rest of your loons.



When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.


All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned, and REPUBS don't want them question because the gig would be up for the dufus. Of course you guys can have that can you?


Yes indeed. You know how to give and take.

Hope you feel better soon and that God's healing virtue will be yours.

I echo that sentiment.

WG's link has not been proved false at all and continues to be factually true as evidenced by the articles of impeachment, so I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it. I know that suggestion falls on deaf ears.

We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez

All the liberal dems were excited about Mueller UNTIL his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken, and then it was time to bring in the First Army of Excuses.


All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?


but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned, It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.

All the liberal dems were excited about Mueller UNTIL his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken, and then it was time to bring in the First Army of Excuses.

False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.


So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?


The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.


It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.

You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law. You prefer to ignore the obvious and look deeper into an issue and lie to yourselves and yes the American people do see through those lies which is why there is this public political conflict that you can only OBSTRUCT the finding of FACT, subvert the TRUTH, and deny the country JUSTICE, by screwing up the process.

As evidence Moscow Mitch has announced he will cooperate with the WH to guarantee the dufus cannot be removed. Under what rule of law are the accused and the JURY allowed to fix the outcome of a trial? Only in right wing loony land of course.

The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.

"Your honor, on the basis of the weak and paltry "evidence" we have thus far presented, we are now absolutely certain that if we could just bring in some more witnesses to say who knows what, that we could prove our case." Please pardon me for laughing.


False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.

I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."

They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.


You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law.

Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.

"Your honor, on the basis of the weak and paltry "evidence" we have thus far presented, we are now absolutely certain that if we could just bring in some more witnesses to say who knows what, that we could prove our case." Please pardon me for laughing.

It is I who is doing the laughing at your paltry parroting of right wing spin. An excuse for the dufus to obstruct and I sorely wish the dems would call the dufus bluff and take time to proceed through the court system as any reasonable prosecutor would do. I understand though given this artificial time line the dems have made though to just add that as obstruction since any REASONABLE person who had EVIDENCE of his innocents would certainly want everyone and his mama to know and end this case. That's NOT what the dufus is doing. What's he hiding, and if he has the TRUTH why hide it?


I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."

Mueller cannot charge a sitting president of anything because of DOJ policy and has said so MANY times, and why he did NOT recommend charges. Without LINKS to back up what you say I will dismiss YOUR opinion of what the Times has written! I will point out he convicted everybody he DID charge since they had NO such DOJ executive protection. That should tell you something dude, along with the fact there are a few pending and active court cases still open.


They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.


NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.


Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.

I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?

NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.


My apologies. I intended to include the link and just failed to do so. Here you are. It's also true that Mueller could have simply said there was overwhelming evidence of obstruction, but then explain that he declined to prosecute per DOJ policies. Wonder why he didn't do that??? Also note that you lib dems spent a year and a half loudly hollering that Trump had colluded with the Russkies to win the election. After Mueller shot you down on that, then you picked another pig trail to go down. You might as well just admit that you hate the guy because he beat your liberal darling and will do practically anything, ethical or not, to be rid of him.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-obstruction-justice-legal-analysis-mueller-20190419-story.html



I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?

So if they can't show guilt, by your own admission, then why are they proceeding? "Your honor, we plainly cannot prove the accused to be guilty, but we hate him and want to cause him discomfort, so we intend to proceed with the trial." What do you suppose any decent judge would then do? You know what that person would do and so do I. "Case dismissed!"

Thanks for the links and I read it differently with the added details they provide and I think it's a shame Mueller presented evidence but did NOT deem to comment or pursue it, and we know Barr said nothing to see here so it's dead. The same argument he makes for not investigating the referall fron the IG about the WB, and boohooing IG Horowitz findings in that report. Some pattern has emerged that clearly shows his protection of the exec instead of doing his job. That's as bad as Moscow Mitch saying he will work with the WH to protect the dufus no mattter what.

The dufus subverted our government and took it over without firing a shot. As to how far the courts can go with what is before them...we'll see. No I doubt the case can be dismissed unless you guys retake the house. Weboth can agree we are in full scale civil war though I bet. Glad I don't have to shoot my right wing fellow Americans though so that's a good thing.

Aside: Thank you for your healing thoughts and prayers. What I have is aplastic anemia (red cell aplasia), the rarest form of anemia. My red blood cells are fewer in number and don't do what they're supposed to do. It can be cured only with stem cells implanted in my bone marrow. (I'm too old to qualify.) Otherwise, occasional transfusions are given until they don't work any longer.

Wow. Sounds like a tough deal. Sometimes it seems like the price of getting older. You get to stay alive, but have to deal with illness or just plain ole age-related slowing down. Yet we know that God still does miracles and still heals, so that's my prayer for you, and that He will draw you ever nearer to Him.

Addendum: I'm 66 so I'm not too far behind you.

"The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well."

Sort of like electing the dufus, known for cheating, and can't believe he is cheating again, even after he gets caught.

Sort of like electing the dufus, known for cheating,

Yeah, like we should have elected that paragon of virtue and truth-telling, Hillary "Wipe the Hard Drive Clean" Clinton?

Lets see now, HC's charity wasn't disbanded and the Clintons weren't barred from charity work, or running college scams and forced to give the money back, or kicked off the federal program for renting to poor people for scamming the government, or barred from borrowing money from most American banks, or even bankrupting a casino, I mean these are all court DOCUMENTED financial FACTS, the dufus actually did this stuff. So yeah you should have voted for HC over the dufus as a simple no brainer, and she could have taken credit for the best economy we ever had, while you tried to impeach HER!

It's not like you haven't been smearing the woman for decades with NO evidence, or maybe not enough to CHARGE her of anything, let alone convict. You haven't even got her to court to at least cut a deal like the dufus has done many times before and after he was elected. Voting for HC would at least saved you the trouble of rigging the senate to keep the dufus, as Moscow Mitch has announced he was going to do after we lay those articles of impeachment on his lap.

You righties have always known the fix was in, and counted on it as your only hope, when the dufus was caught lying, cheating, and stealing yet again, so save the fool so he can keep lying cheating and stealing. You need more EVIDENCE that's what he has done, did do, or will do again?

It's not like you haven't been smearing the woman for decades with NO evidence, or maybe not enough to CHARGE her of anything.

That's exactly what your dems in the House are doing with Trump, so why are you whining about it?

As to Clinton, there is no doubt at all that she wiped her hard drive clean and thus destroyed evidence. There is also no doubt that she had classified information on her unsecure, toy email server.

Anyone ever figure out why the Sec of State would have needed her own personal email server to carry out, among other things, official gov business? Or why she needed to take a hammer and destroy her dozen or so government cell phones? Do we have any answers on that? Do you care, or is it OK with you since she is, after all, a liberal dem?

The Constitution lays out very specific terms for impeachment ;Bribery, Treason, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors. Any article of impeachment that is outside those four crimes is completely unconstitutional.There are no specific crime in the 2 articles of impeachment the toad Nadler crafted .End of discussion . The Dems would like to turn the impeachment process into the Parlimentary vote of no confidence . Sorry you won't get away with it . The Senate will overwhelmingly acquit .

OR


“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” Federalist #33

I will let pass what we are doing to the dufus since no conservative or repub will recognize the presented cause of our concerns either by denial or design (Or BOTH), but after decades of experience with both the right wing and foreign powers like Russia China and Iran she obviously thought it prudent to be responsible for her own privacy and professional electronics, and given the cyber capabilities of stated governments in hackig business and governments it turned out to be wise, and more importantly correct since she not just survived the very public variety of investigations, both personal and professional, and was cleared of wrong doing, unlike the dufus who has been cleared of NOTHING ever.

Wait a minute, a conservative administration cleared a liberal dem of wrong doing and you're asking me to explain? Explain how conservative investigations going back decades on many allegations have turned up NOTHING on HC after many hats she has worn in service to the country. Heck she sat for 11 hours for a repub hearing so when the dufus has matchhhed that achievement then call me will ya!

The Constitution lays out very specific terms for impeachment ;Bribery, Treason, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors. Any article of impeachment that is outside those four crimes is completely unconstitutional.There are no specific crime in the 2 articles of impeachment the toad Nadler crafted .End of discussion . The Dems would like to turn the impeachment process into the Parlimentary vote of no confidence . Sorry you won't get away with it . The Senate will overwhelmingly acquit .

OR



“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” Federalist #33


Under the constitution, abuse of power would easily be found applicable as a high crime, or misdemeanor, and there is nothing as tyrannical as not answering a lawful congressional subpoena, or obstructing the congresses article II oversight responsibility. If what you posted were remotely true Tomder, Moscow Mitch would have said so. They just won't convict because the fix is in, and the outcome has already been rigged and ANNOUNCED. That borders on unlawful in and of itself.

The process of setting up the guidelines and structure of the senate trial should be interesting too, as contrary to popular belief Moscow man doesn't have unfettered authority and senate dems may hold more power than believed, as much as the WH for sure.

the dufus who has been cleared of NOTHING ever.
You are completely wrong. He has no responsibility under law to be cleared of anything. The burden of proof is on the dems who are accusing him. They have completely failed.


Wait a minute, a conservative administration cleared a liberal dem of wrong doing and you're asking me to explain? Explain how conservative investigations going back decades on many allegations have turned up NOTHING on HC after many hats she has worn in service to the country. Heck she sat for 11 hours for a repub hearing so when the dufus has matchhhed that achievement then call me will ya!

I'm not accusing her of a crime. I'm just wondering if you have ever thought about those strange circumstances. Why did she need a personal email server? Why did she wipe the hard drive clean? Why did she need to physically destroy about a dozen or so cell phones? Does any of that strike you as STRANGE?

Not nearly as strange as asking Russia if you're listening and suddenly the DNC has been hacked, and even repubs thought it was disgusting at the time, but not the dufus! Nor as strange as Barr spinning the Mueler Report before its release prompting Mueller to write him of his misrepresentation. I also find it very strange that after that whole debacle and the day after Mueller's dry a$$ testimony (Yet FACTUALLY accurate, though criticized for PERFORMANCE) the dufus is asking the Ukraine government for a favor that repubs don't think is strange and wants his political foe's son investigated without one shred of evidence (you know that EVIDENCE thing you insist on?), and outside of official government channels agreed to and ratified by treaty, along with an seeming admission of Ukraine interference in the 2016 election, again with NO evidence of such events. Now that's some strange stuff.

I wonder how anyone would NOT take extra precaution after 30 years of being a target for EVERYTHING they do and yes a bit strange but not that far from understandable one would CTOA from such allegations and assaults which were rather effective consider everybody that has been hacked over the years.

Stranger still though was the dufus using those stolen emails to grind the DNC every chance he got, along with the public statements especially in Helsinki standing besides Vlad, yeah some really, really strange,, hard to ignore stuff that just keeps happening. So when I add it up then the dufus has done far more stranger stuff than HC, and where you can be suspicious of any politician, the dufus KEEPS me suspicious and wary all the time. I could list so much more if I cared to remember it all, but my point is clear, the dufus has always done some questionable stuff and continues with questionable stuff. I'll wrap this up with the campaign workers Mueller has sent to jail, and can't help but wonder if he hadn't quit early, right after Barr was named and confirmed AG, who else he would have gone after,

That's just the stuff we know of and more keeps being revealed. Plus I hate his policies but that's besides the point and totally irrelevant to the strange stuff he does did, and I feel will do some more. Call me liberal, but even a conservative has to see some of this stuff rather strange if not downright suspicious.



You are completely wrong. He has no responsibility under law to be cleared of anything. The burden of proof is on the dems who are accusing him. They have completely failed.

No I meant his court settlements as outlined above. He likely won't be convicted in the senate give Moscow Mitch said the fix was in to keep the dufus in office no matter what the dems present.

Hey, ya'll, been watching the Stock Market lately? How about the Unemployment #'s? How about how Red China is caving to the tariffs? No, you haven't been watching? Wow! Living under a rock or watching the Impeachment fiasco?

With things going as good as they are in this nation, why in the name of God would anyone want to remove this POTUS?

It is plainly obvious that removing the POTUS is a wrong move for the country: For the 1st time in the longest time, we are GETTING BETTER AND BETTER, STRONGER AND STRONGER! Why does that bother some of you?

It is an illusion

Tal, what a wonderful list of accusations against Trump. Now if you can just demonstrate guilt.

V7 said: "How about how Red China is caving to the tariffs?"

Um, China is raising the prices of their goods and raising their own tariffs to be greater than ours. No caving is going on.

V7 said: "How about how Red China is caving to the tariffs?"

Um, China is raising the prices of their goods and raising their own tariffs to be greater than ours. No caving is going on.

Ok progress now if we could just rid of those stupid tariffs and get back to business

W.G.: Red China LIFTED tariffs on U.S. soybeans and pork! Even communist slime has to eat......UPSHOT of this: TRUMP IS WINNING, AGAIN!

How come you don't want to talk about the how the ECONOMY is doing? Remember, one of the left's patron Saint's, James Carville, said during the Lewinsky scandal: "Nobody cares about Impeachment! It's the ECONOMY stupid!"

W.G.: Red China LIFTED tariffs on U.S. soybeans and pork! Even communist slime has to eat......UPSHOT of this: TRUMP IS WINNING, AGAIN!

How come you don't want to talk about the how the ECONOMY is doing? Remember, one of the left's patron Saint's, James Carville, said during the Lewinsky scandal: "Nobody cares about Impeachment! It's the ECONOMY stupid!"

It isn't hard to win when you caused the problem in the first place, all that is happening is that things are going back to the status quo

Forget it, Vac. I appreciate you trying, but some people are addicted to complaining.

Very perceptive of you Clete, create a crisis with bluster, talk tough, solve it for a zero sum game and take credit for it. The noise from the peanut gallery bears that out.

Very perceptive of you Clete, create a crisis with bluster, talk tough, solve it for a zero sum game and take credit for it. The noise from the peanut gallery bears that out.

Yes Tal it seems to be the way politics is played in your land, but consider, term limits, no Pelosi, etc and maybe no crisis

consider, term limits

There has been a lot of talk about term limits. Are they used anywhere else? If so, what has that experience been like? They do hold a certain appeal.

Less bluster more debate, and better cooperation would help. Also eliminate all this campaigning and the money to do it, could improve things I think.

Less bluster more debate, and better cooperation would help. Also eliminate all this campaigning and the money to do it, could improve things I think.

I'm with you there and I think it could apply to many places

Also eliminate all this campaigning and the money to do it, could improve things I think.

Haven't courts already ruled that unconstitutional?

Haven't courts already ruled that unconstitutional?

I begin to wonder whether any action in your country is constitutional. who is in charge? The ghosts of the founders or the elected officials

who is in charge?

Who is in charge? It's this little thing called "the law". God help us if that ever ceases to be the case.

Who is in charge? It's this little thing called "the law". God help us if that ever ceases to be the case.

I don't think he will help you. I doubt rebellion was his idea

I don't think he will help you. I doubt rebellion was his idea

Thankfully, God is not controlled by what you think.

Thankfully, God is not controlled by what you think.

Thankfully he is not controlled by any human agency

Haven't courts already ruled that unconstitutional?

Despite the alleged utter stupidity of humans, some are very good at adapting ways to get around the law, and even stretch it to the limits. Then there is the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling which guaranteed rich guys could spend whatever they wanted on whomever they wanted. So the notion of what's legal and illegal is still up in the air because there are always loopholes abound, and smart humans to exploit them to the max.


Thankfully he is not controlled by any human agency

That won't stop humans from invoking his name to further their agenda.

Then there is the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling which guaranteed rich guys could spend whatever they wanted on whomever they wanted.

No, it didn't. There are limits on what an individual or business can give to a political campaign. The Citizens United case had more to do with political advocacy groups and was a freedom of speech issue.

Your hero, President Obama, had the usual "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" response to this decision.

President Obama leveled perhaps the most vocal criticism of the Citizens United decision by directly taking on the Supreme Court, saying the five majority justices “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists.”

Obama lashed out at the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said during his address to a joint session of Congress.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people," the president said. "And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

In the 2012 presidential contest, however, Obama softened his stance on super PACs and encouraged his fundraisers to bring in contributions to a super PAC that was supporting his candidacy.

If you can't beat 'em join 'em! Be foolish to go into a political campaign with handcuffs on now wouldn't it. (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/citizens-united/)

Looks like MO"MONEY to me!

The answer to all of that would be to have a truly fact loving, adversarial, unbiased national news media, which is exactly what we don't have.

We have one but many don't know how to use it or recognize FACTS. I can specify that right wing loonies will dismiss the FACTS much preferring validation over truth. That's pretty hard core and extreme in many regards and ignores over half the country. FACT is the right wing is not the majority of people in this country. To be fair, neither repubs or dems are either.

We have one but many don't know how to use it or recognize FACTS.

We do? Which one??? CNN, the network that provided HC with debate questions prior to the event to give her an advantage over rivals???

Take media as a whole and do your own homework for a change and let me know what you get. Nitpicking talking points is not something that helps you because you even screw that up.

Oh those stubborn facts!

FACTS aren't stubborn, people are.

Yes those demonrats are stubborn but they concocted a reason for impeachment that has just been knocked on its head. Trump has every right to appeal to a court when subpoena is delivered by Congress, it is not obstruction. beginning to wonder, who has the better lawyers?

Ok one down, one to go

The Dufus has the senate!

The Dufus has the senate!

Much better than that, he has the law. I have a feeling this is going to turn out badly for the dems come 2020.

That's what the senate trial should be about. Did the dufus commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Moscow Mitch says before the House vote the fix is in already so things will go very quickly in the dufus favor. The very definition of a kangaroo court, even as Rudy has said very publicly he got our Ukraine ambassador fired because she was in the way of the dufus re election scheme. I think the only law the dufus has on his side is the one he makes up as he goes along.

Senate repubs want those "protected" 1st account witnesses to testify, repubs want no witnesses and a quick vote. Tell me all about fair and impartial and the law! Tell me about the FACTS that repubs don't want to face.

These are crocodile tears by the Demos: The Senate Trial hasn't even begun and they are already crying the blues about unfairness: They don't have a leg to stand on to talk about UNFAIRNESS after the way they, through Little Adam Schiff and The Human Penguin Nadler, have conducted the House Impeachment Inquiry, so this is all entirely disingenuous.

You think the Senate Trial should be about HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS? Well, that's funny because neither one of the violations the House Inquiry named fit either of those definitions.

And why in the name of unholy hell would anyone buy into the plea for sympathy by the Demos complaining that the Senate has already made up its mind about which way its voting without the evidence being presented? ISN'T THAT WHAT THE DEMOS DID EVEN BEFORE TRUMP EVER TOOK OFFICE: THEY WERE ALREADY CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT AS SOON AS THE 2016 ELECTION WAS OVER......CRY ME A RIVER!

Can't deny we were not just shocked and extremely appalled by the dufus election, but can you blame us? Who would have thought a lying, cheating, bad mouthing, bully, racist could win a presidential election in America? Okay he won, but I think the dems have the same right to oppose the repubs agenda and work to make him a one term president as repubs did when Obama was elected. I just hope we are better at it than the repubs were. I think we are. Regardless looks like the dems are going to bring it!

Like we care what you guys and the dufus do about it!

Who would have thought a lying, cheating, bad mouthing, bully, racist could win a presidential election in America?

She didn't win.

He did though, even after his corrupt ways had been exposed.

You would have to say the same thing if HC had won. They are two birds of a feather. The difference is that Trump actually has some idea of how to get things to work.

You would have to say the same thing if HC had won. They are two birds of a feather. The difference is that Trump actually has some idea of how to get things to work.
Listen to me carefully. Read my lips. HC DIDN'T become president. She's not an issue. No, trump has no clue how things work, not only finances but also human emotions and disabilities and LBGTQIA issues and racial concerns. He has made that manifestly clear.

Oh, did I mention women's and children's issues? I'm sure I will think of more.... Every video of him is a SNL performance.