[paraclete]

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

[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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[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.

[paraclete]

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

[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.

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[paraclete]

It is all a great distraction

[Vacuum7]

Meanwhile:

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

[talaniman]

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.

[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.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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?