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.
First of all, and most important of all, it should never be considered illegal to withhold my hard-earned and forcefully-extracted taxpayer money to a corrupt foreign government.
LOL, except trump was using YOUR hard-earned and forcefully-extracted taxpayer money to extract from a vulnerable ally a personal favor benefiting only HIM, endangering YOUR national security and subverting YOUR government. Sucker!
Good post. Fox News is terrific about creating a bubble which gives them all the questions, the answers and a total framework with which to form a political outlook. It also neglects to air specific news items. I wouldn't be surprised if they chose not to air the fact that the GAO (General Accounting Office) accused Trump of breaking the law. I'm virtually certain that Federalist Paper #65 in which Alexander Hamilton would impeach a President for misconduct never made it onto Fox.
The bottom line is that they don't see the contradictions, because the contradictions are never aired.
I've seen some silly nonsense posted on these forums and this is right up there at the top.
Why is it that only Democrats talk about Fox News? Because they are the only ones stupid enough to believe the pundits on the MSM and think that everyone must be doing it.
Bottom line. The Impeachment is sham, and that sham is being put to rest in the US Senate where there's some actual adults. Even a caveman without TV can figure that out. You don't like it. Too bad.
Here is my bottom line. I knew Back then, during the impeachment hearings, that the house democrats were counting on the public having amnesia about the way they were conducting the House hearings.
In fact, I think that is the REAL reason Pelosi wouldn’t turn over the articles of impeachment until she absolutely had to. So it would put more time between the house hearings and the senate trial, giving people more time to forget.
And clearly, from the OP, it worked on the people who already wanted to see Trump impeached.
It is the responsibility of republicans to keep reminding them, so that this tainted process is not permitted to remove a duly elected president.
Here is my bottom line. I knew Back then, during the impeachment hearings, that the house democrats were counting on the public having amnesia about the way they were conducting the House hearings.
In fact, I think that is the REAL reason Pelosi wouldn’t turn over the articles of impeachment until she absolutely had to. So it would put more time between the house hearings and the senate trial, giving people more time to forget.
And clearly, from the OP, it worked on the people who already wanted to see Trump impeached.
It is the responsibility of republicans to keep reminding them, so that this tainted process is not permitted to remove a duly elected president.
Because Republicans think once they get a president in there, he should be able to do anything he wants. Anything.
Here is my bottom line. I knew Back then, during the impeachment hearings, that the house democrats were counting on the public having amnesia about the way they were conducting the House hearings.
In fact, I think that is the REAL reason Pelosi wouldn’t turn over the articles of impeachment until she absolutely had to. So it would put more time between the house hearings and the senate trial, giving people more time to forget.
And clearly, from the OP, it worked on the people who already wanted to see Trump impeached.
It is the responsibility of republicans to keep reminding them, so that this tainted process is not permitted to remove a duly elected president.
Nixon and Clinton were duly elected yet impeached. And Nixon left office beforehand so his legacy would not include removal from office by impeachment. It's still a stain on him. Clinton lied to congress about sex and republicans wanted him impeached. And here we have Trump, which many believe used his power to abuse and bully people in our country and our allies. Republicans just don't care. Why did Trump block everyone in his administration from testifying about their knowledge of what really happened in Ukraine
Please, just the specific question. Let's not do the "Yes, but Obama..."
This is specifically about what's being said about the impeachment hearings, with so much contradiction and hypocrisy coming from the Republicans and their defenders.
They complain that the impeachment push has been dragging on for years - then complain that it's being rushed.
They complain that they don't have the opportunity to bring witnesses - then bar people from testifying.
They complain that the testimony is only second-hand or third-hand - but then don't press to question the people who were first-hand witnesses.
Think about if it had been reversed. What if Bill Clinton had refused to testify? What if Hillary had stonewalled for all those Benghazi hearings and just called them a witch hunt? Or even, for any trial at all, even for a minor burglary, what if no witnesses were allowed? Doesn't any of this seem illogical, unfair, and contrary to all legal norms (just as it was shown that it also is contrary to all proviso impeachment procedures)?
I'll answer your question, I can live with it because the President has the right and obligation to find out corruption from another country who we are giving taxpayer's money to--especially if it involves and benefited US politicians. Does it matter that it happens to be his political rival that's implicated in the corruption? Hell no.
How do you live with the fact that your lead manager, Schiff, is a known liar, who has twisted and bent many things in order to make Trump look bad?
If Schiff's case is so strong why take so much time to repeat same info over and over again?
Answer: Because if you don't have a case, you repeat the same info over and over again until people starts believing it, in this case that won't happen though, but nice try.
Please, just the specific question. Let's not do the "Yes, but Obama..."
This is specifically about what's being said about the impeachment hearings, with so much contradiction and hypocrisy coming from the Republicans and their defenders.
They complain that the impeachment push has been dragging on for years - then complain that it's being rushed.
They complain that they don't have the opportunity to bring witnesses - then bar people from testifying.
They complain that the testimony is only second-hand or third-hand - but then don't press to question the people who were first-hand witnesses.
Think about if it had been reversed. What if Bill Clinton had refused to testify? What if Hillary had stonewalled for all those Benghazi hearings and just called them a witch hunt? Or even, for any trial at all, even for a minor burglary, what if no witnesses were allowed? Doesn't any of this seem illogical, unfair, and contrary to all legal norms (just as it was shown that it also is contrary to all proviso impeachment procedures)?
For most Trump supporters it comes down to the following.
Build the wall
Stop abortion
Drive the gays back underground.
Nothing else matters.
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.
