Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A reminder of why Mr. McGah's testimony is important to the impeachment proceedings:
During his interviews for the Mueller investigation, Mr. McGahn reported that Mr. Trump repeatedly instructed him to have the special counsel ousted & then told him to deny having been so instructed when word of the action emerged in news reports. He did not carry out either instruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
Not that there's anything wrong with any of that. Firing the special counsel is even more defensible in retrospect than it appeared to be at the time. And concern for PR is par for the course.
I'm uncertain why you believe "Firing the special counsel is even more defensible in retrospect than it appeared to be at the time"?
It wasn't "defended" at the time, & is not being defended now, it continues to be covered up.
"Concern for PR" is concern for public relations?
In both of the cases before the D.C. Court of Appeals, the lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee argued the concealed evidence of previously 'silenced' testimony from key witnesses, & documentary materials could form the basis of new impeachment articles.
Mr. Trump's pattern of misconduct is demonstrated by both inquiries as is his pattern of obstructing justice.
That said, Pelosi forced 20 so something House Democrats in red districts to end their political career by voting for impeachment and there is a super weak and poorly funded Democrat field running for president so the Republican wave is the most likely scenario.
Interesting. So the reality is that 25 house Republican's announced their "retirement ahead" of the 2020 election. Add to that 4 Republican Senators that will not run in 2020. Isn't retirement just code for we know we can't win? In the 2018 election we saw 28 Republican's "retire" ahead of the blue wave that took the house. Maybe just maybe they know something you don't know? Read "The 2020 Congressional Retirement Tracker" in The Atlantic. The article may give you a different perspective vs right wing pablum to soothe the base. I know, reality bites, but it is what it is.
Look, team red can deny that Trump did anything wrong and try to spin it as one "perfect phone call," but it is much more than that. It is why the house turned blue in 2018.
Sondland Trump's million dollar donor "There was a quid pro quo and everyone knew about it." Fact. Bolton didn't want anything to do with "the drug deal being cooked up." Fact. Bolton, Trump's decision to withdraw troops in Syria was based on personal need and not in the best interest of USA. Fact.
Trump will not let anyone that knows what happened testify. Fact. Why? If he was innocent then his people could exonerate him right. Fact. The emails show Pentagon officials were concerned about the legality of with holding aid to Ukraine. Fact. The emails reveal a "clear direction of POTUS to with hold aid. Fact. Mike Duffy is a toxic termite yes man inserted into the OMD to stop the flow of aid circumventing the OMB professionals. Fact. Trump will not let him testify. Fact. The aid was only released after the whistle blower complaint became public knowledge. Fact. Had it not come to light would Trump have continued his pressure for "a favor though?" He still has with Giuliani continuing to try to get dirt in Ukraine. You go ahead and live in your simple one line if it doesn't fit you must acquit world. Go ahead and support a corrupt crook because you like him and have voted with the cult of personality. The rest of the country will move on with out your support. Hence the blue wave in 2018 that wanted a check on a rogue president that constantly obstructs Congress and disrespects the power the we the people voted for in 2018. Hence the article of obstruction of Congress for which we the people impeached him for. The abuse of power? No brainer to those of us who see a con man in action. Yep "the clowns" are doing exactly what we voted them in to do.
Chucksnee, nowhere in your incoherent "Go Team Red" rambling did you reply to my question of had this been Obama and Reid said he would side with the President, would you feel the same way. I think we all know the answer. You are a "Go Team Red" hypocrite through in through. I don't care what your response is, I know the truth. You don't care about the truth and only want Party over Country like those yellow belly sap-sucking cowards Republicans in Congress do.
It was not a ramble, it was stuff that you could not answer.
Yes, I expect the senate majority leader to be on the side of the president....whether reid would have said it out loud, does not matter, he would have been on oabam's side, period.
The same way the is railing about barr being for trump is a bad thing....and all the while holder was obama's "wingman"....everybody is good with that....
Now, go back and provide answers with your "go blue team" mentality....
GO away with your party over country....your team blue just blew that out of the water with that useless impeachment, that goes along with impeach the MF girl....so yea, talk about a hypocrite, your are the spitting image of one.....
He'll be there because the people will vote him a second term, thank to the antics of your drunk no teeth nancy holding a vote. He'll also be there because mitch and the rest will comprehend the useless drivel the house is making up.
Trump could get a second term though it is not gonna be a Reagan landslide but this week I think makes it guzzler. I think with threats of war (let's remember Trump was supposed to pull us out of the Middle East and now is putting boots back on the ground) and the economy (which for the middle class isn't getting much better as well as his criminal nature (though I don't know who is polling what way and the why are they polling that way (no poll looks into the psychology of polling.)
We are just finally getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (not a declared war mind you) two wars that nearly took the entirety of two decades and now we are looking to war in Iran? I know Trump and Iran don't agree and Republicans long didn't want the Obama nuclear agreement but letting Trump tear it up got us here. Also why shoot the general now? I know we had the oil freighter issue over the summer and the worries of US carriers being subject to attacks. But that was months ago. The only thing that is somewhat related was the US Embassy in Iraq by alleged Iranian sympathizers. He struck back on a guess. Remember he second guessed intelligence and says he knew more about ISIS than the Generals. Is this another case or is this just Trump proving to be a warhawk trying to get the typical Republican war to boost his polling?
The economy is trumpeted as being strong and the stock market being high but I notice a LOT of Reaganomics similarities in Trump. In 1984 Reaganomics was looking good but had a few stumbles in 1985, after Reagan was already re-elected in a landslide. In 87/88 we know what happened with S&L and the stock market in general causing a recession. The economy is trending into a recession. Mind you many trumpeting the Trump market thought this was coming in 2015/6 under Obama, but changed their time when Team Red took the White House. I think that is just a coincidence...
In regards to the impeachment, I know my local talk radio show doesn't like Trump but they don't hate Trump. They thought censure is the best method to deal with this. I disagree since Trump did want quid pro quo (spare me the "Go Team Red" garbage canned line of "no quid pro quo" the new e-mails released that were entirely redacted by Trump's fixxer... I mean Attorney General Barr shows that.
As for Nancy, why bring her up? She has little to do with Trump's actions in wanting Ukraine to investigate Biden and Trump holding up congressionally authorized aid money that was being held up for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. I seem to remember you among other Team Reders byatching up a storm about Trump being bugged by Obama and the FBI investigation into.the Trump organization meeting with the "adoption lawyer" who just happened to have dirt on Hillary and perhaps an inside track to Russian ogliarchs. Yeah talk about the whole hypocrisy issue from the reply to my now deleted post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Who cares how long it takes? If this needed swift action, where are the articles still in the house? IT was said many times, this was because of national security....nahhhh lets go on Christmas brake....
There is actually more and more evidence discovered everyday even without all the House interviews. Whether Moscow Mitch wants to use it or not and instead go "Party over Country" is his choice and I hope the people of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky see through that and vote that corrupt idiot out like he should have been years ago...
Sorry for the tangent, the problem is time. Time for Republicans to put up a legitimate candidate. Trump will likely not be President by the end of 2020. I don't know if it will be resignation or if it is health related or what, but I have a feeling he won't be. Is Pence electable, perhaps but I don't think a Christian theocracy is right for America and that is his major policy idea. Then we get into it happening now versus being an October surprise which we all know Trump would say it was a set up to any outlet he can at that point. I mean he is saying it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
There was no gaffe about what he said about Mexico....your posts are case in point...
Let's go and look up the definition of the word gaffe and you tell me if it was or wasn't...
Quote:
A political*gaffe*is an error made by a politician.*Gaffe*is the French for "blunder".
It was but because it was about immigrants, it was fine and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
But here....go apologize to all these people who lost loved ones to illegals....
I feel sorry for their loss. But we all know thoughts and prayers is all they'll ever get. A Republican led Congress couldn't even get a wall built for Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Everything should be thrown out anyway, because there was nothing there....
If there was nothing there, why on God's green Earth would AG Barr redacted two full e-mails and mostly redact a third e-mail? Can't be in the name of national security and who has access to it. Barr is Trump's fixxer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
If there are faults found on any other warrant, everything would be thrown out....
If Trump let his people speak without citing executive privilege maybe we would know it is a nothing burger. The problem is Trump doesn't want the truth coming out like he did with the Mueller Report and investigation. Barr redacted that to show "no collusion and Trump is fully vindicated" when the Mueller Report said he shouldn't and suggested to Congress to further investigate. Speaker Pelosi didn't. It was only AFTER the Ukrainian whistleblower report came out she opened the investigation into impeachment. She didn't with the 10+ allegations in the half redacted Mueller Report. How do you explain that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
That's why the chief justice presides over the senate during an impeachment....
Don't stop Moscow Mitch making it into a farce by not calling witnesses and working with the President...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
How can the senate state what they will do when they don't have anything in their hands....
Then explain Senator McConnell saying he will conduct the impeachment in accordance with the President? Moscow Mitch undercutted this point weeks ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Nancy is trying to write the senate rules and clearly stated she would not provide the articles until she is satisfied...to bad...and damn, that sounds like quid pro quo...
So does that excuse Moscow Mitch making the impeachment a sham of a trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
There is a clear difference, people died in benghazi....
And Obama was exonerated, no error to his name same with Hillary actually... Though I only mentioned it because Obama was investigated for it nearly a dozen times and it went no where. Trump got busted and it is continually shown. In reality I know you and others defending Trump were not over Obama investigating Trump and Obama using the IRS to target conservative groups (though they hit more liberal 501(C)s and it was a look into the rash of 501(C)s rather than just one political leaning.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Nope....wrong again...
Care to explain or is this some bon mart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Does not meet the criteria...period end of story, no matter how you twist it....
How? You are quick to dismiss it but you don't say why it don't meet the criteria. Is this because in your heart you know I'm right or is it because if you make a point, it will be blown out of the water so you just say it don't and hope nobody calls your bluff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
So, do you think she gave a damn about any evidence?
She did and Trump was blocking it, hence Obstruction of Congress was put on her desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
If the house could not find anything after 3 years, no need to provide anything....if you're a prosecutor, the judge would have thrown this out before wasting their time....
Your definition of nothing and my definition are not the same. I have seen cases go forth with less actually, we all have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
don't know, I know that nancy had to basically tell them to shut up with that flick of the wrist when she said the initial impeachment was approved...
I don't know, Pelosi had that emotionless look and tone she normally does. She didn't seem like she was happy she impeached Trump. I'm sure behind closed doors she was pounding back the bubbly, but it didn't show much. Maybe her affect is just hard for me to read and you can...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
It was not a ramble, it was stuff that you could not answer.
Yes, I expect the senate majority leader to be on the side of the president....whether reid would have said it out loud, does not matter, he would have been on oabam's side, period.
The same way the is railing about barr being for trump is a bad thing....and all the while holder was obama's "wingman"....everybody is good with that....
Now, go back and provide answers with your "go blue team" mentality....
GO away with your party over country....your team blue just blew that out of the water with that useless impeachment, that goes along with impeach the MF girl....so yea, talk about a hypocrite, your are the spitting image of one.....
Come up with your own cheap or just stick to calling us grubbers. And yes it was full of ramble and rhetoric.
FYI if you paid attention, I'm not "Go Team Blue". I have criticized Obama, Rep. Talib, Speaker Pelosi and don't want Biden, Gabbard, Mayor Pete or Mayor Bloomberg as nominee. In fact Pelosi, Biden, Gabbard, Mayor Pete even Mayor Bloomberg as Corpocrats. Hell, I complain about CNN being coprocrats too when they complain about Medicare for all and other Sanders/Warren ideas.
As for your view, I'll concede that you would be on the otherside of me in what a fair impeachment of a Senate majority party President would and should be. I doubt you would be consistent but I'll take you at your word.
There is actually more and more evidence discovered everyday even without all the House interviews. Whether Moscow Mitch wants to use it or not and instead go "Party over Country" is his choice and I hope the people of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky see through that and vote that corrupt idiot out like he should have been years ago...
Sorry for the tangent, the problem is time. Time for Republicans to put up a legitimate candidate. Trump will likely not be President by the end of 2020. I don't know if it will be resignation or if it is health related or what, but I have a feeling he won't be. Is Pence electable, perhaps but I don't think a Christian theocracy is right for America and that is his major policy idea. Then we get into it happening now versus being an October surprise which we all know Trump would say it was a set up to any outlet he can at that point. I mean he is saying it now.
Don't stop Moscow Mitch making it into a farce by not calling witnesses and working with the President...
Then explain Senator McConnell saying he will conduct the impeachment in accordance with the President? Moscow Mitch undercutted this point weeks ago.
So does that excuse Moscow Mitch making the impeachment a sham of a trial?
She did and Trump was blocking it, hence Obstruction of Congress was put on her desk.
As for your view, I'll concede that you would be on the otherside of me in what a fair impeachment of a Senate majority party President would and should be. I doubt you would be consistent but I'll take you at your word.
lol every Senate Democrat running for President has said Trump should be removed before the Senate receives the Articles. Any you want fair? Your post is full of gibberish.
lol every Senate Democrat running for President has said Trump should be removed before the Senate receives the Articles. Any you want fair? Your post is full of gibberish.
And Moscow Mitch saying he will work with the President in the impeachment proceedings even before the Senate gets the articles of impeachment is any less screwy? Your reply is full of gibberish. You neglected to defend McConnell's stance nor say what I am wrong on.
Trump could get a second term though it is not gonna be a Reagan landslide but this week I think makes it guzzler. I think with threats of war (let's remember Trump was supposed to pull us out of the Middle East and now is putting boots back on the ground) and the economy (which for the middle class isn't getting much better as well as his criminal nature (though I don't know who is polling what way and the why are they polling that way (no poll looks into the psychology of polling.)
We are just finally getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (not a declared war mind you) two wars that nearly took the entirety of two decades and now we are looking to war in Iran? I know Trump and Iran don't agree and Republicans long didn't want the Obama nuclear agreement but letting Trump tear it up got us here. Also why shoot the general now? I know we had the oil freighter issue over the summer and the worries of US carriers being subject to attacks. But that was months ago. The only thing that is somewhat related was the US Embassy in Iraq by alleged Iranian sympathizers. He struck back on a guess. Remember he second guessed intelligence and says he knew more about ISIS than the Generals. Is this another case or is this just Trump proving to be a warhawk trying to get the typical Republican war to boost his polling?
The economy is trumpeted as being strong and the stock market being high but I notice a LOT of Reaganomics similarities in Trump. In 1984 Reaganomics was looking good but had a few stumbles in 1985, after Reagan was already re-elected in a landslide. In 87/88 we know what happened with S&L and the stock market in general causing a recession. The economy is trending into a recession. Mind you many trumpeting the Trump market thought this was coming in 2015/6 under Obama, but changed their time when Team Red took the White House. I think that is just a coincidence...
In regards to the impeachment, I know my local talk radio show doesn't like Trump but they don't hate Trump. They thought censure is the best method to deal with this. I disagree since Trump did want quid pro quo (spare me the "Go Team Red" garbage canned line of "no quid pro quo" the new e-mails released that were entirely redacted by Trump's fixxer... I mean Attorney General Barr shows that.
As for Nancy, why bring her up? She has little to do with Trump's actions in wanting Ukraine to investigate Biden and Trump holding up congressionally authorized aid money that was being held up for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. I seem to remember you among other Team Reders byatching up a storm about Trump being bugged by Obama and the FBI investigation into.the Trump organization meeting with the "adoption lawyer" who just happened to have dirt on Hillary and perhaps an inside track to Russian ogliarchs. Yeah talk about the whole hypocrisy issue from the reply to my now deleted post.
To the bold, the only thing worth responding to in your useless drivel...
I had nothing to do with that....I don't give a damn what anyone says to me and I damn sure won't report anyone...same as I don't put anyone on "ignore" either....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
There is actually more and more evidence discovered everyday even without all the House interviews. Whether Moscow Mitch wants to use it or not and instead go "Party over Country" is his choice and I hope the people of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky see through that and vote that corrupt idiot out like he should have been years ago...
Yet the vote has been made...can you add to something that has already been voted on?
He is not going party over country, he is going to use what the house sent him, you know those pesky articles of impeachment....that was supposed to be enough to convict trump.....if so, why the need for more evidence..so yea...the left, you and your ilk have put party over country for 3 years now....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Sorry for the tangent, the problem is time. Time for Republicans to put up a legitimate candidate. Trump will likely not be President by the end of 2020. I don't know if it will be resignation or if it is health related or what, but I have a feeling he won't be. Is Pence electable, perhaps but I don't think a Christian theocracy is right for America and that is his major policy idea. Then we get into it happening now versus being an October surprise which we all know Trump would say it was a set up to any outlet he can at that point. I mean he is saying it now.
Like I said earlier, trump will be there, and now almost a guarantee with this stuff you and your ilk tried for over 3 years....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Let's go and look up the definition of the word gaffe and you tell me if it was or wasn't...
Call it what you want....you disagree with it, therefore it's wrong....you leftist of you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
It was but because it was about immigrants, it was fine and truth.
So, how was he wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I feel sorry for their loss. But we all know thoughts and prayers is all they'll ever get. A Republican led Congress couldn't even get a wall built for Trump.
Yet, its you and your ilk that don't want to build the wall....yea, a repub congress all because of mccain who also hated trump, or maybe you forgot that....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
If there was nothing there, why on God's green Earth would AG Barr redacted two full e-mails and mostly redact a third e-mail? Can't be in the name of national security and who has access to it. Barr is Trump's fixxer.
There were 17 MISTAKES in all those warrants combined....that's why...
Get off the "fixxer" rant....another useless drivel leftist meme...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
If Trump let his people speak without citing executive privilege maybe we would know it is a nothing burger. The problem is Trump doesn't want the truth coming out like he did with the Mueller Report and investigation. Barr redacted that to show "no collusion and Trump is fully vindicated" when the Mueller Report said he shouldn't and suggested to Congress to further investigate. Speaker Pelosi didn't. It was only AFTER the Ukrainian whistleblower report came out she opened the investigation into impeachment. She didn't with the 10+ allegations in the half redacted Mueller Report. How do you explain that?
What about those that did testify? Maybe you already forgot about those that trump ALSO told not to testify? What did they bring to the table...ZERO...nothing...nota...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Don't stop Moscow Mitch making it into a farce by not calling witnesses and working with the President...
Mitch can do what ever he wants, just as your boy "pencil neck" did in the house.....
If the house had done it's job, the senate would not have to finish, which they have no need to finish just do nancy not doing her job and rushing the vote...oh well, suck it up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Then explain Senator McConnell saying he will conduct the impeachment in accordance with the President? Moscow Mitch undercutted this point weeks ago.
As I said before, the senate leader should always side with the president (notice how I did not say R or D).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
So does that excuse Moscow Mitch making the impeachment a sham of a trial?
It's been a sham trial since day one.....even nancy said it had to be non-partisan....no need to bring up the 2 votes that nancy said they did not have to vote for impeachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
And Obama was exonerated, no error to his name same with Hillary actually... Though I only mentioned it because Obama was investigated for it nearly a dozen times and it went no where. Trump got busted and it is continually shown. In reality I know you and others defending Trump were not over Obama investigating Trump and Obama using the IRS to target conservative groups (though they hit more liberal 501(C)s and it was a look into the rash of 501(C)s rather than just one political leaning.)
What has trump been busted over? And at least you admit that obama was investigated for weaponizing the IRS....there maybe hope for you yet....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Care to explain or is this some bon mart?
The IRS said they were sorry....can you understand that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
How? You are quick to dismiss it but you don't say why it don't meet the criteria. Is this because in your heart you know I'm right or is it because if you make a point, it will be blown out of the water so you just say it don't and hope nobody calls your bluff?
Because under this clause you have to be given something...as in a gift, not that you own a hotel and someone from another country stays there.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
She did and Trump was blocking it, hence Obstruction of Congress was put on her desk.
LOL, is that why long before she said Impeach the MF? Now you are just digging....period....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Your definition of nothing and my definition are not the same. I have seen cases go forth with less actually, we all have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I don't know, Pelosi had that emotionless look and tone she normally does. She didn't seem like she was happy she impeached Trump. I'm sure behind closed doors she was pounding back the bubbly, but it didn't show much. Maybe her affect is just hard for me to read and you can...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Come up with your own cheap or just stick to calling us grubbers. And yes it was full of ramble and rhetoric.
Sorry gruber....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
FYI if you paid attention, I'm not "Go Team Blue". I have criticized Obama, Rep. Talib, Speaker Pelosi and don't want Biden, Gabbard, Mayor Pete or Mayor Bloomberg as nominee. In fact Pelosi, Biden, Gabbard, Mayor Pete even Mayor Bloomberg as Corpocrats. Hell, I complain about CNN being coprocrats too when they complain about Medicare for all and other Sanders/Warren ideas.
Im paying attention, that's why I'm calling you out on "go team blue"....try to stay up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
As for your view, I'll concede that you would be on the otherside of me in what a fair impeachment of a Senate majority party President would and should be. I doubt you would be consistent but I'll take you at your word.
There were a few things I agreed with about obama...."poof" their went you head....becasue I stand up for the person who was put in charge, and doing what they were put in charge for...does not make them wrong...
Do I agree with trump on everything....nope...POOF again....
Do all White House officials have absolute immunity from “being compelled to testify before Congress if the President orders them not to do so"?
This is not just Donald Trump & his current staff members, this is for them, & for going forward.
I would say he does. When the population believes that he is a divinely appointed king and the ruling political party agrees, there's no more checks and balances. Trump is absolute dictator in America.
I would say he does. When the population believes that he is a divinely appointed king and the ruling political party agrees, there's no more checks and balances. Trump is absolute dictator in America.
WoW.
Maybe you should take a break from the forum. Try some yoga.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
