Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[ZiprHead]

So, this means he is inerrable?
Yes, he is wrong. His suggestion that a President can do anything to get re-elected, because it is in the "public interest" is ridiculous, at best.

If it's in the interest of the American people, it should be allowed. As I said, if Biden is proven to be corrupt, that could hugely influence whether or not people want to vote for the guy. Suppressing his corruption is lying to the people and not allowing them to make an informed decision.

This is what Dersh was talking about.

It would be in the interest of the American people if all the old, infirm, and disabled were executed so they would no longer be a burden. I take it you would be okay with that.

Trump has Barr in his hip pocket. He could have had Biden investigated 'til the cows come home. But no, he wants the too corrupt to give money to Ukraine to do the investigation.

 

[Half-Life]

So, this means he is inerrable?
Yes, he is wrong. His suggestion that a President can do anything to get re-elected, because it is in the "public interest" is ridiculous, at best.

If it's in the interest of the American people, it should be allowed. As I said, if Biden is proven to be corrupt, that could hugely influence whether or not people want to vote for the guy. Suppressing his corruption is lying to the people and not allowing them to make an informed decision.

This is what Dersh was talking about.

It would be in the interest of the American people if all the old, infirm, and disabled were executed so they would no longer be a burden. I take it you would be okay with that.

Trump has Barr in his hip pocket. He could have had Biden investigated 'til the cows come home. But no, he wants the too corrupt to give money to Ukraine to do the investigation.

Why do you seem like you're so against the truth about Biden coming up? You wouldn't be a Biden cultist, would you? As I've been told, cultists are bad...

 

[ZiprHead]

It would be in the interest of the American people if all the old, infirm, and disabled were executed so they would no longer be a burden. I take it you would be okay with that.

Trump has Barr in his hip pocket. He could have had Biden investigated 'til the cows come home. But no, he wants the too corrupt to give money to Ukraine to do the investigation.

Why do you seem like you're so against the truth about Biden coming up? You wouldn't be a Biden cultist, would you? As I've been told, cultists are bad...

Where do you get that idea? I just said Trump is able to have Biden investigated anytime he wants.Funny that he's been there three years and he only wanted Biden investigated when he became a candidate against Trump.

BTW, since polls are now showing majority support for Trump's removal, it would be in Americans interest to have him removed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We should also investigate Ted Cruz's father for killing JFK but only when he does well against President Dear Leader in the polls.

 

[steve_bank]

Dershowitz is capitalizing on the conflict. He is now on a new conservative podcast. I think he is an opportunist.

 

[Jarhyn]

It would be in the interest of the American people if all the old, infirm, and disabled were executed so they would no longer be a burden. I take it you would be okay with that.

Trump has Barr in his hip pocket. He could have had Biden investigated 'til the cows come home. But no, he wants the too corrupt to give money to Ukraine to do the investigation.

Why do you seem like you're so against the truth about Biden coming up? You wouldn't be a Biden cultist, would you? As I've been told, cultists are bad...

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Apparently the latest buzz on impeachment is how Bolton will spill the beans on Trump.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think it will make a difference if witness like Bolton, Pompeo, etc. testify? What do you prefer?

I think it has fascinating implications. I think the man is awful, and I will continue to think he is awful whether his testimony damages or helps Trump, because I think he is awful.

If his testimony hurts Trump, people who a year ago thought he was awful would have what opinion about him?

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently the latest buzz on impeachment is how Bolton will spill the beans on Trump.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think it will make a difference if witness like Bolton, Pompeo, etc. testify? What do you prefer?

I think it has fascinating implications. I think the man is awful, and I will continue to think he is awful whether his testimony damages or helps Trump, because I think he is awful.

If his testimony hurts Trump, people who a year ago thought he was awful would have what opinion about him?

He's still an awful neocon warhawk. I don't remember anyone accusing him of dishonesty or lacking in integrity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be open, the whole thing bothers me on multiple levels. Though I disagree with Trump on 90% of things, his non-interventionist pretension versus Bolton's neoconservative imperialism begins to cause a problem. This is because I half agree with being anti-war and do not appreciate how often the Dem Party has been subverted by centrist leaders who become hawkish. The form of Dem Party lately has become one of "national security" and while it is a pretense by some to expose Trumplican hypocrisy, they are giving credence to the concepts and rightward leaders like Hillary and Biden. Those forces have aligned to the neocons before. Now they are labeling every anti-war candidate a Russian asset or at least once removed from working with one. The truth is that the war hawks have a terrible record of being right on foreign policy. So it's complicated and worriesome. It is important to unify against Trump, even with neocons, but it's just as important to not allow neocon assets to take charge.

 

[ZiprHead]

Parnas Lawyer: Giuliani Delivered Graham Letter Calling for Sanctions on Ukrainian Officials

In late 2018, Rudy Giuliani said he delivered an unusual missive to Sen. Lindsey Graham, according to the lawyer of one of his ex-associates: a letter calling for sanctions on a host of Ukrainian government officials, including one widely viewed in the West as a brave reformer and another who helmed the company where Hunter Biden was a board member.

Joseph Bondy, the attorney for Lev Parnas, an indicted Florida businessman involved in the U.S.-Ukraine saga, told The Daily Beast that Giuliani showed his client the letter and told him he delivered it to Sen. Graham (the letter misspelled the South Carolina Republican’s first name as “Lingsey”). Bondy said Giuliani also showed Parnas a second, similar letter addressed to Sigal Mandelker, who at the time was a top official at the Treasury Department.

 

[Half-Life]

It would be in the interest of the American people if all the old, infirm, and disabled were executed so they would no longer be a burden. I take it you would be okay with that.

Trump has Barr in his hip pocket. He could have had Biden investigated 'til the cows come home. But no, he wants the too corrupt to give money to Ukraine to do the investigation.

Why do you seem like you're so against the truth about Biden coming up? You wouldn't be a Biden cultist, would you? As I've been told, cultists are bad...

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

The House cannot prove guilt beyond doubt. That would be a trial. The Senate has to do the trial.

The House proves the case with a preponderance of evidence, like a grand jury or arrest warrant affidavit. So they proved impeachment is reasonable, but not the trial.

The Senate must Constitutionally have a trial. A trial is different than House procedure and needs more evidence because the burden is higher.

Traitor Russianpublicans are afraid.

 

[ZiprHead]

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

I see you used quotation marks there. Who said that?

 

[Half-Life]

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

I see you used quotation marks there. Who said that?

I don't know. One of the guys with glasses. I had my back turned toward the computer away from the TV. I forget his name.

 

[Half-Life]

Because it is a red herring in the conversation about if TRUMP committed a crime or abused his office

If you shoot a guy randomly in the street and that guy turns out to be a time traveling Hitler, you still just committed first degree murder.

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

Nailed to the wall. History will not be kind to the Democrats for this sham.

The House cannot prove guilt beyond doubt. That would be a trial. The Senate has to do the trial.

The House proves the case with a preponderance of evidence, like a grand jury or arrest warrant affidavit. So they proved impeachment is reasonable, but not the trial.

The Senate must Constitutionally have a trial. A trial is different than House procedure and needs more evidence because the burden is higher.

Traitor Russianpublicans are afraid.

I thought they were doing the trial right now? I was told, "It's past the Senate and in the house for trial now."

You guys are confusing.

 

[Patooka]

The impeachment trial just mentioned, "The Dems have said they proved their case over and over. They claim it's fully proven. But, now they want witnesses? I thought they claimed it's already fully proven!"

I see you used quotation marks there. Who said that?

I don't know. One of the guys with glasses. I had my back turned toward the computer away from the TV. I forget his name.

In legal terms that is called hearsay. It's generally dismissed as bullshit.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know. One of the guys with glasses. I had my back turned toward the computer away from the TV. I forget his name.

In legal terms that is called hearsay. It's generally dismissed as bullshit.

I think the problem you are facing is like trying to tell someone that never scoops their cat's box that their house reeks of cat piss and turds. When you live in an environment like that for so long, you stop being able to sense the problem.

When all you do all day is vomit up cow shit, you become unaware of the persistent bullshit stank of all that you vomit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The House cannot prove guilt beyond doubt. That would be a trial. The Senate has to do the trial.

The House proves the case with a preponderance of evidence, like a grand jury or arrest warrant affidavit. So they proved impeachment is reasonable, but not the trial.

The Senate must Constitutionally have a trial. A trial is different than House procedure and needs more evidence because the burden is higher.

Traitor Russianpublicans are afraid.

I thought they were doing the trial right now? I was told, "It's past the Senate and in the house for trial now."

You guys are confusing.

no. Just that the dems would not likely actually say they've proven their case. The House just investigated. Not tried.
So whoever you quoted was probably talking out his ass.... at least partly because he didn't use a name.
Like, 'Schiff testified' or Pelosi told CNN,' or Biden says...' see? That would be a direct quote, not vague bullshit hearsay.

 

[Ford]

Just so we're abreast of the latest developments, Alan Dershowitz argued today that if Trump felt it was in the national interest, it cannot therefore be an impeachable offense. Seriously:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment...If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

We're entering into Dear Leader territory here.

 

[blastula]

Of course they said they proved their case because they have proved it and because they are arguing for a conviction in the trial now. They're the prosecutors, so duh they said they proved it.

The abuse case was settled as soon as the the phone record was released; all the other evidence just further confirmed it. The dems want to call Bolton and other witnesses because the gop is playing pretend that it hasn't been proven, so dems have to try to rub their nose in still more damning shit until they will admit it. Chances are slim even if Bolton testifies - they'll still just play pretend it's not bad enough for impeachment. It's all so absurd how this works.