Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Gun Nut]

To elaborate:

Mr Trump's voice can then be heard saying "Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr Parnas, a former associate of Mr Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, had recounted the conversation in media interviews last week.

Mr Trump has said that he does not know Mr Parnas.
After the media report on Friday, Mr Parnas found a digital recording of the comments, his lawyer said, and sent it to the House Intelligence Committee, which is continuing to investigate Mr Trump's conduct.

"I was particularly gratified to see that everything Mr Parnas has been stating about that event was true," Mr Bondy said, referring to the April 30, 2018 dinner.

"It is yet another example of Mr Parnas's version of events being corroborated by evidence in the form of recordings, emails, text messages."

What the fuck? Is everybody in America except LA cops wearing body cams these days?

The reason people are filming things is because the things that are happening are so out of the ordinary, illegal, unethical, and just scream for "picture or it didn't happen".
I know, it's so unfair now-a-days to be a criminal... you just can't get away with it like you are supposed to be able to anymore.

 

[Gun Nut]

I don't think that was your stance during Clinton's impeachment where over 200 Republicans voted to impeach and only 5 Democrats voted to impeach.

I guess all those Democrats are people you don't trust anymore, Keith?

That you believe the circumstances are identical only shows you haven't been paying attention.

It was proved beyond any doubt Clinton lied to the nation. That's far the case the Trump did the same to the American nation, and if you remove the blinkers you'd see that.

same-same... shoot one guy by mistake.. or 15 million Jews on purpose... same-same.
Lie about how your wife's hair looks... lie about raping women.... a lie is a lie.. same-same.

You know, there is this guy that robbed a bank with a cell phone... threatened to call someone that was going to kill the cashier's daughter. He's in jail for using a cell phone.
You have a cell phone, don't you? You haven't used it have you? because using a cell phone puts people in jail. same-same.

You may hold the opinion that lying to congress about cheating on your wife is impeachable, and have strong feelings about Clinton not being removed from office for it.
If so, you must have REALLY strong feelings about Trump being removed for far many more lies about far more serious matters than him having cheated on TWO of his wives and lying about it to the public and getting caught. That was just the one similar one... there are like 10,00 more.

 

[Half-Life]

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

He could be a relevant witness maybe?

Because the crime is so obvious and has been since day one, the republican strategy from that same day one has not wavered. Keep screaming witch-hunt, keep discrediting credible witnesses, keep screaming fake-news, and try to dismiss this thing as quickly as possible so that it just goes away to keep anything new from being known.

If this case was in an actual courtroom Trumpo would be found guilty as hell and every republican ever elected knows that. But it's not a courtroom and it's not an impartial jury.

You gotta give slimy republicans credit because they know they're fucked when it comes to facts. They also know that in an actual courtroom they could never get away with all the shit that is happening.

Are you suggesting that having an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a fair courtroom?

Talk about anti-Constitution. Senate has sole power over the trial. Written plain as day.

Also, you guys believe Boton now? I thought you guys said he was nothing but a liar who can't be trusted on anything? But now that he says something that you guys agree with, you believe him?

This is just like how atheists praise Christians who agree with atheists on Old Earth and evolution, but dismiss Christians who don't think that way. "Those are the good Christians!," they say.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is just like how atheists praise Christians who agree with atheists on Old Earth and evolution, but dismiss Christians who don't think that way. "Those are the good Christians!," they say.

Oh, bullshit, we don't say that about people who accept current science.
We say 'Those are the good scientists.' Whether or not they're good Christains is between them and their god.

And we're not even pretending to be telepathic, so we don't judge people by how they think. We DO judge their arguments based on how they can justify their conclusions. Just like everyone else in the argument.
And if your 'justification' is balls-out wrong, we judge against your argument.
But we won't say that you not knowing WHY we dismiss YEC makes you a bad Christain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

JFC!

Jane Raskin is doing a masterful job defending me in my role as defense counsel. As she pointed out, I did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden. The information RE his outrageous criminal conduct was handed to me, along with a video tape, 4 witnesses &...

...incriminating documents. It was already a fully-intact bribery/extortion case.

So... when umm... I don't know... is any of that shit going to be made public?! Or shall we investigate Giuliani's cover-up into Biden's crimes?

Iselin 2020!

 

[Gun Nut]

This is just like how atheists praise Christians who agree with atheists on Old Earth and evolution, but dismiss Christians who don't think that way. "Those are the good Christians!," they say.

Oh, bullshit, we don't say that about people who accept current science.
We say 'Those are the good scientists.' Whether or not they're good Christains is between them and their god.

And we're not even pretending to be telepathic, so we don't judge people by how they think. We DO judge their arguments based on how they can justify their conclusions. Just like everyone else in the argument.
And if your 'justification' is balls-out wrong, we judge against your argument.
But we won't say that you not knowing WHY we dismiss YEC makes you a bad Christain.

no.. what makes Half-Life a bad Christian is his dishonesty in discourse. Lying is a sin, even if you are only lying to yourself.

 

[Half-Life]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

I see your unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous Democrat who isn't part of the proceedings of impeachment on a channel notorious for fellating the President unconditionally, and I raise you the findings of Trumps own fucking government..

Let's be very clear. There is no doubt that Trump abused his position using the State Department as if they were part of his campaign team to further his own selfish agenda. Not even Trump's defense(?) team is denying that. The you are ignorant of this suggests a willfulness on your part to ignore facts as opposed to a willingness to make an informed decision. The question is should Trump be allowed to keep his job? Considering that if he tried this kind of bullshit in the private sector, he'd be sacked on the spot, the answer should be obvious.

It's no, by the way. Trump shouldn't be able to keep his job.

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

I also find it odd how a lot of Dems scream to the heavens how we need to stop giving aid to Israel, yet they get angry when aid is stopped to Ukraine. Shows the double standard they have.

Imagine if Bernie Sanders did this exact same thing? You guys would be praising Sanders for trying to investigate corruption by any means possible. Don't deny it. Bernie Bros. would be out in full force defending him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

I see your unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous Democrat who isn't part of the proceedings of impeachment on a channel notorious for fellating the President unconditionally, and I raise you the findings of Trumps own fucking government..

Let's be very clear. There is no doubt that Trump abused his position using the State Department as if they were part of his campaign team to further his own selfish agenda. Not even Trump's defense(?) team is denying that. The you are ignorant of this suggests a willfulness on your part to ignore facts as opposed to a willingness to make an informed decision. The question is should Trump be allowed to keep his job? Considering that if he tried this kind of bullshit in the private sector, he'd be sacked on the spot, the answer should be obvious.

It's no, by the way. Trump shouldn't be able to keep his job.

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

is that why Trump won't release the transcipt of the fone call?

 

[Patooka]

Are you suggesting that having an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a fair courtroom?

Talk about anti-Constitution. Senate has sole power over the trial. Written plain as day.

Meh, fuck your constitution. It's not a magic spell, it doesn't have special powers. Also, for the majority of your nation's history, your constitution promoted some pretty fucking reprehensible values so why you are using it as the poster child for fairness is beyond me. Finally, when a body has "sole power" over something else, it's never a fair system.

Never.

Also, you guys believe Boton now? I thought you guys said he was nothing but a liar who can't be trusted on anything? But now that he says something that you guys agree with, you believe him?

If you thought you were a mind reader, sorry. You're dead fucking wrong. I believe Bolton is a vile unscrupulous cunt who believes it's his mission in life to be a Pax Americana cheerleader. The problem is that he is also reasonably intelligent so he most likely wouldn't lie over something so public and easily verifiable*. So I don't take Bolton at his word. It does, however, gel with:

-Gordon Sondland's sworn testimony
-LtC Alexander Vindman's sworn testimony
-Marie Yovanovitch's sworn testimony
-The findings of the Government Accountability Office
-The "transcript" Trump released
-Trump's Secretary of State admitting on television "We do this all the time"
-Trump's well documented history of every decision he makes transactional
-Leaked recordings of Trump doing exactly what is alleged
-ZERO assertion from is defense team that the events in question did not happen
-Leaked allegations that Trump will target any Republican senator who doesn't tow the party line

...so I'm inclined to believe Bolton on this one. Not because Bolton is the one saying it, but a lot of other people who are not affiliated with him are confirming it. That and Bolton's smart enough to know he can't speak ex cathedra without keeping some receipts.


*before everybody types angrily on the keyboard something along the lines of "Patooka you dumb fucking cunt, did you forget about Boltons' involvement in the Iraq War? Well, no but remember the context. At the time of the invasion, whether or not Saddam had WMD was still very unclear. A lot of people thought he had, at least, a chemical weapons stockpile. Sure, there were detractors asserting WMDs were bullshit, but they were in the minority and unfortunately didn't get the media time that they deserved. So in that instance, Bolton lying about Iraq to further US global dominance was not easily verifiable, it was depressingly ambiguous. Certainly doesn't apply here.

 

[Half-Life]

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

is that why Trump won't release the transcipt of the fone call?

Keith,

Are you saying that even though you don't believe the full transcript was released, you still KNOW there was wrongdoing in a transcript you never saw?

Talk about bias!

 

[Half-Life]

Are you suggesting that having an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a fair courtroom?

Talk about anti-Constitution. Senate has sole power over the trial. Written plain as day.

Meh, fuck your constitution. It's not a magic spell, it doesn't have special powers. Also, for the majority of your nation's history, your constitution promoted some pretty fucking reprehensible values so why you are using it as the poster child for fairness is beyond me. Finally, when a body has "sole power" over something else, it's never a fair system.

Never.

Also, you guys believe Boton now? I thought you guys said he was nothing but a liar who can't be trusted on anything? But now that he says something that you guys agree with, you believe him?

If you thought you were a mind reader, sorry. You're dead fucking wrong. I believe Bolton is a vile unscrupulous cunt who believes it's his mission in life to be a Pax Americana cheerleader. The problem is that he is also reasonably intelligent so he most likely wouldn't lie over something so public and easily verifiable*. So I don't take Bolton at his word. It does, however, gel with:

-Gordon Sondland's sworn testimony
-LtC Alexander Vindman's sworn testimony
-Marie Yovanovitch's sworn testimony
-The findings of the Government Accountability Office
-The "transcript" Trump released
-Trump's Secretary of State admitting on television "We do this all the time"
-Trump's well documented history of every decision he makes transactional
-Leaked recordings of Trump doing exactly what is alleged
-ZERO assertion from is defense team that the events in question did not happen
-Leaked allegations that Trump will target any Republican senator who doesn't tow the party line

...so I'm inclined to believe Bolton on this one. Not because Bolton is the one saying it, but a lot of other people who are not affiliated with him are confirming it. That and Bolton's smart enough to know he can't speak ex cathedra without keeping some receipts.


*before everybody types angrily on the keyboard something along the lines of "Patooka you dumb fucking cunt, did you forget about Boltons' involvement in the Iraq War? Well, no but remember the context. At the time of the invasion, whether or not Saddam had WMD was still very unclear. A lot of people thought he had, at least, a chemical weapons stockpile. Sure, there were detractors asserting WMDs were bullshit, but they were in the minority and unfortunately didn't get the media time that they deserved. So in that instance, Bolton lying about Iraq to further US global dominance was not easily verifiable, it was depressingly ambiguous. Certainly doesn't apply here.

Who lied about the Iraq war? WMD were a serious thing. Suppose Saddam had them and we never went to check. Boy, that would've been a real brainfart, wouldn't it?

Things were getting better over there until Obama decided to pull out, then ISIS grew stronger again. I hate to break it to you guys but "leaving the Middle East" will never bring peace to that region. We've been at War with Islam since 1300. To think, "maybe if we just be real nice to them, they'll stop!" is extremely foolish thinking. It's weak and pathetic.

 

[Patooka]

Who lied about the Iraq war? WMD were a serious thing. Suppose Saddam had them and we never went to check. Boy, that would've been a real brainfart, wouldn't it?

Things were getting better over there until Obama decided to pull out, then ISIS grew stronger again. I hate to break it to you guys but "leaving the Middle East" will never bring peace to that region. We've been at War with Islam since 1300. To think, "maybe if we just be real nice to them, they'll stop!" is extremely foolish thinking. It's weak and pathetic.

Hmm...completely ignored what I said about Bolton with regards to the impeachment (you know, what this thread is all about), just like you ignored the findings of the Government Accountability Office. Can't imagine why.

Just kidding, we all know why.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

is that why Trump won't release the transcipt of the fone call?

Keith,

Are you saying that even though you don't believe the full transcript was released, you still KNOW there was wrongdoing in a transcript you never saw?

Talk about bias!

No, i am saying that IFF Bonespurs were innocent, he would have no reason not to release the transcript, testify, allow documents, allow others to testify.
One or two cases MIGHT include sensitive info, but to release the memo and lie about what it is? That seems like clear obstruction.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Who lied about the Iraq war?

Bush. He said thrrre WERE WMDs on manufactured evidence, and tgat Saddam was part of 911.

WMD were a serious thing. Suppose Saddam had them and we never went to check.

Check? We invaded, on the pretext of grabbing the weapons we wee assured were there.

Boy, that would've been a real brainfart, wouldn't it?

you mean, maybe, a diplomatic solution tgat could be resolved in less than 20 years?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

is that why Trump won't release the transcipt of the fone call?

Keith,

Are you saying that even though you don't believe the full transcript was released, you still KNOW there was wrongdoing in a transcript you never saw?

Talk about bias!

Also, there is wrongdoing in the memo
And
Sonderland testified that the full transcript was not released.
That's that guy who gave how muchbtonTrump's inaguration?

 

[Jarhyn]

Keith,

Are you saying that even though you don't believe the full transcript was released, you still KNOW there was wrongdoing in a transcript you never saw?

Talk about bias!

No, i am saying that IFF Bonespurs were innocent, he would have no reason not to release the transcript, testify, allow documents, allow others to testify.
One or two cases MIGHT include sensitive info, but to release the memo and lie about what it is? That seems like clear obstruction.

So, I applaud the use of IFF, but it may (who am I kidding, WILL) go over the heads of some that you have directed it at.

IFF: if, and only if; not only If A then B, but also if !A then !B; that A implies B and B implies A.

If he were to have freely testified and cooperated, that would have implied innocence. But that ship has sailed. Then, didn't he just this last week brag about how he withheld all material, and that is why he could be exhonerated for obstruction?

The idiot brags about obstruction as the reason that he should be cleared of obstruction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

What evidence do you have that Clinton did anything wrong?

Case closed.

 

[Half-Life]

Fox News just showed a part of the trial and I forget who it was but he asked a Democrat on the stand, "Do you have any evidence of Trump committing any crime at all?" The woman responded, "No."

Case closed.

What evidence do you have that Clinton did anything wrong?

Case closed.

He lied under oath. Since when did lying under oath become "no big deal?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is your link being mentioned in the impeachment trial as evidence? If not, perhaps it isn't great evidence.

is that why Trump won't release the transcipt of the fone call?

Keith,

Are you saying that even though you don't believe the full transcript was released, you still KNOW there was wrongdoing in a transcript you never saw?

Talk about bias!

In civil trials it's standard to presume that missing evidence says what the other side claims it says. His Flatulence's refusal to produce it, nor to give a good reason not to produce it, basically says it's incriminating.

 

[Half-Life]

Who lied about the Iraq war? WMD were a serious thing. Suppose Saddam had them and we never went to check. Boy, that would've been a real brainfart, wouldn't it?

Things were getting better over there until Obama decided to pull out, then ISIS grew stronger again. I hate to break it to you guys but "leaving the Middle East" will never bring peace to that region. We've been at War with Islam since 1300. To think, "maybe if we just be real nice to them, they'll stop!" is extremely foolish thinking. It's weak and pathetic.

Hmm...completely ignored what I said about Bolton with regards to the impeachment (you know, what this thread is all about), just like you ignored the findings of the Government Accountability Office. Can't imagine why.

Just kidding, we all know why.

I know you guys think Bolton has a bombshell. But, I hate to break it to you guys. If you're trying to sell a book, you have to make it juicy. His lies about Trump are certainly juicy enough to sell copies of his books to Dems who only believe Bolton when he says something that makes Trump look bad.

By the way, Bolton is refusing to testify. Kind of shows he doesn't even believe what he says. Fox News already dismissed his findings as "juicy gossip to sell copies."

You need more evidence than someone's say so guys.