Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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. 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...?

PS

What a lousy pun even for you Clete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

A subpoena is a writ or order to appear in court. 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...?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Name one of any great consequence.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

When Native American Warren

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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

---

Guess that means you can't list one.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.