# Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
I've seen nothing to make me think Halfies' posts are parodies. There are many millions of people who believe and say the very same things he does. Most of them just don't come to sites like this.

So you've actually heard someone use the term "fuddy duddy" in serious conversation? What year was it?

the year of the "no malarkey tour"

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
No, he just claims that women fantasize about being raped by men:

"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused."

" A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously."

"The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their "revolutionary" political meeting."

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8682503/bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy

I imagine you are immediately thinking of ways to discredit this. But, if Trump wrote this....well.....I don't need to tell you what leftists would be saying about it. But Bernie says it and it gets swept away.

Also keep in mind Bernie Sanders was kicked OUT OF A COMMUNE IN 1970 for being too useless. he was using all the stuff and refusing to contribute anything.

So basically, what you're saying is that you had to go back over four decades to find some dirt on Sanders. You got anything more recent? Of course you don't.

The same standard is not applied to Trump. If he said something dumb when he was 7, the media would be all over it. I believe people still call him "Bonespurs" for not going to Vietnam. That was in the late 70's. Guess you guys can't use that against Trump anymore. It's too old.

So his draft dodging bothered you, I guess.. since you don't want that "used" anymore. What else bothers you about him, if you are allowed to say?
You are not even hiding your whataboutism anymore.. you literally begin many of your posts with the actual words, "what about...". It's as if you think that nothing Trump has done or ever will do should ever be looked at or even discussed, at least until every OTHER imaginable possible instance of it is investigated and completely resolved first.
Where does that happen in reality? When you're just flowing with traffic and you are the one getting pulled over for speeding, how does the "everyone else is doing it / why didn't you pull over the other guy" defense work for ya?

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
The same standard is not applied to Trump. If he said something dumb when he was 7, the media would be all over it. I believe people still call him "Bonespurs" for not going to Vietnam. That was in the late 70's. Guess you guys can't use that against Trump anymore. It's too old.

So his draft dodging bothered you, I guess.. since you don't want that "used" anymore. What else bothers you about him, if you are allowed to say?
You are not even hiding your whataboutism anymore.. you literally begin many of your posts with the actual words, "what about...". It's as if you think that nothing Trump has done or ever will do should ever be looked at or even discussed, at least until every OTHER imaginable possible instance of it is investigated and completely resolved first.
Where does that happen in reality? When you're just flowing with traffic and you are the one getting pulled over for speeding, how does the "everyone else is doing it / why didn't you pull over the other guy" defense work for ya?

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

#### Jason Harvestdancer

##### Contributor
What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

So you agree that those murdering car drivers are just as bad as the murdering gun users.. both sides cause death. same same. WHAT ABOUT all the car deaths??? forget any shootings.. don't look there until no one ever dies in or around a car... ever.... look over at the REAL problem of the OTHER causes of death... those people causing vehicular deaths every single day!

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
OK, so I got it wrong. He said, "The polls say." It's still not just him blurting it out.

The polls said he has the most loyal people. HE said that he could do that as HIS way of describing how loyal they are to him. It's not that hard. The key is that he said, "WHERE I could...".. that is the bit of English that says, "What this means to me is..."
For you to be in the realm of correct would require that poll to have asked the question "would you vote for trump even if he shoots someone on 5th avenue". Can you find that poll he was referring to, perhaps?

Regardless.. what matters is that to be a Trump supporter, you have to have a distorted set of "facts"... like, in this example, your "fact" that trump would never have said that.. that someone else said it (people are saying).. or in your case, the "polls" said it.

I think you're really reaching on this one.

No, I am just using basic common sense with common English. You are lying. you are intentionally misrepresenting. Why is the important question at this point. Obviously you want to separate Trump from the statement he made.. blame someone else... I guess you have a problem with what he said, but an even bigger problem with having a problem with anything he said, it seems. That's lying. dishonesty.. being a piece of shit that isn't worth the dirt it stands on... that kind of thing.

What does it even mean to say that "the polls" said something? The "polls" said that some percentage of people indicated they would vote for Trump. I know for a fact that you have no belief whatsoever that the polls said anything else... because you are obviously a liar and cannot be trusted. nothing you say has any value.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

#### Elixir

What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?

He brought them The Server with the 33,000 buttery males on it.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
What I find telling is that, "what about" and "both sides" implies that they know it's wrong. That they think that it's wrong when "the other side did it". Well two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe if "both sides" do something wrong, then your side has an obligation to be better, rather than merely lowering the bar.

Well yeah. Every time I've said "both sides" I am pretty explicit (not implicit) about both sides being corrupt, that they are both wrong, that they should both stop doing what they are doing.

What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?
Joe Biden allowed his son to use the untainted *snicker* reputation of the office of the VP of the US as cover for Burisma to attempt to pretty up their overall PR image which was rather tainted. Hunter Biden was not the only political member of the board. I don't believe Hunter Biden did anything wrong... or anything at all. His last name (relative to the VP of the US) was meant to be used as a shield to protect for the corporation and certainly worth the pittance they gave him (relative to their revenue). The bonus issue was a potential presumption of conflict of interest with anything on Ukraine or Burisma that comes across Biden's desk. Even at $50k a month, that amounts to$0.6 million a year.

Trump on the other hand conspired to strong arm an ally's newly elected President to collude with him in order to present a fake corruption investigation (after Giuliani found nothing himself) into one of Trump's political opponents in the 2020 Presidential Election. He did this by using around $400 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress. Did I mention that the President of the United States released the smoking gun transcript? That any equivalence is being attempted is just stupid. 1) Biden's issue is gray, Trump's is black and white. 2) There is no evidence supporting that Biden's son broke rules, Trump released the transcript proving the accusation 3) The magnitude of money involved is substantial Moore meet Coulter. #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter. No... this isn't a joke. It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part. President Trump in parts said: Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text. #### southernhybrid ##### Contributor I just read most of that letter before I saw you had posted that link. The man is totally unhinged! #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor Let's see... Final: Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. Trump's Dictation: You are full of shit! You think Americans are too stupid to not notice how full of shit you are. #### abaddon ##### Veteran Member Trump's Dictation: You are full of shit! You think Americans are too stupid to not notice how full of shit you are. Probably "you must be bleeding out of your 'somewhere'" in there too, and other of his presidential euphemisms that make so many Americans identify him as "one of us". #### Elixir ##### Made in America QUESTION Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public). Anyhow, the question: If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it? Giving Moscow Mitch total controlof the impeachment narrative at this point would be a terrible mistake IMHO. Cheato is going to continue to ramp up his election rigging activities as long as there is no vote to convict/remove him. The billions of rubles that certain people (named stuff like Firtash and Deripaska might be hesitant to spend otherwise, will certainly be enthusiastically forthcoming for investment in the TrumPutin propaganda machine, voting machine hacking, voter roll alterations etc., as soon as Cheato is crowing about his "total exoneration". I believe he will probably "win" re-election if that is the story from now to November. #### Don2 (Don1 Revised) ##### Contributor Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public. Anyhow, the question: If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it? I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think Constitutionally the Republicans could do something in the Senate in theory, but traditionally and due to precedents and rules set up in practice they cannot. So, for example the case files and evidence would need to be transferred, but in theory the Russianpublicans could vote anyway. Also, traditionally various House leaders act as prosecutors in the Senate. If they don't show up with those buckets of evidence, a trial could start in theory but could it really? I think the rules would need to be rewritten and too risky to try with chief justice watching close by. Last edited: #### Elixir ##### Made in America Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public. Anyhow, the question: If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it? I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think Constitutionally the Republicans could do something in the Senate in theory, but traditionally and due to precedents and rules set up in practice they cannot. So, for example the case files and evidence would need to be transferred, but in theory the Russianpublicans could vote anyway. Also, traditionally various House leaders act as prosecutors in the Senate. If they don't show up with those buckets of evidence, a trial could start in theory but could it really? I think the rules would need to be rewritten and risky to do with chief justice watching close by. Hmmm. You think, constitutionally, in theory... sounds a little short of totally conclusive. I guess there's no law (that anyone here knows of) to prevent Moscow Mitch from rounding up his minions and holding whatever ritual devotion ceremony he wants. He can even call it whatever he wants - "The Holy Total Exoneration and Coronation Ceremony" if it strikes his fancy. But would that constitute an acquittal? Is this shit going to go on until Trumpism is declared the State religion by SCOTUS? #### Don2 (Don1 Revised) ##### Contributor President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter. No... this isn't a joke. It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part. President Trump in parts said: Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text. Just to add on to this post that has a link to the letter... Here is some fact checking of the letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment-letter-to-pelosi/index.html #### Koyaanisqatsi ##### Veteran Member President Trump broke out the thesaurus and wrote Speaker Pelosi a letter. No... this isn't a joke. It appears to be a letter that Trump dictated in part, and staffers had to fill in gaps. This is my favorite part. President Trump in parts said: Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. I can imagine people trying to piece together the original text. Just to add on to this post that has a link to the letter... Here is some fact checking of the letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment-letter-to-pelosi/index.html Jesus. Even when he takes his time (meaning, gets others to write his shit for him), he gets it profoundly wrong. #### Half-Life ##### Banned Banned I think you're really reaching on this one. No, I am just using basic common sense with common English. You are lying. you are intentionally misrepresenting. Why is the important question at this point. Obviously you want to separate Trump from the statement he made.. blame someone else... I guess you have a problem with what he said, but an even bigger problem with having a problem with anything he said, it seems. That's lying. dishonesty.. being a piece of shit that isn't worth the dirt it stands on... that kind of thing. What does it even mean to say that "the polls" said something? The "polls" said that some percentage of people indicated they would vote for Trump. I know for a fact that you have no belief whatsoever that the polls said anything else... because you are obviously a liar and cannot be trusted. nothing you say has any value. I just watched the video clip and it certainly looks like he was saying it in jest. He obviously never did it to prove it and we know he never will. People are so sensitive to comedy these days. I hate the PC world. #### Half-Life ##### Banned Banned What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation? Joe Biden allowed his son to use the untainted *snicker* reputation of the office of the VP of the US as cover for Burisma to attempt to pretty up their overall PR image which was rather tainted. Hunter Biden was not the only political member of the board. I don't believe Hunter Biden did anything wrong... or anything at all. His last name (relative to the VP of the US) was meant to be used as a shield to protect for the corporation and certainly worth the pittance they gave him (relative to their revenue). The bonus issue was a potential presumption of conflict of interest with anything on Ukraine or Burisma that comes across Biden's desk. Even at$50k a month, that amounts to $0.6 million a year. Trump on the other hand conspired to strong arm an ally's newly elected President to collude with him in order to present a fake corruption investigation (after Giuliani found nothing himself) into one of Trump's political opponents in the 2020 Presidential Election. He did this by using around$400 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress. Did I mention that the President of the United States released the smoking gun transcript?

That any equivalence is being attempted is just stupid.

1) Biden's issue is gray, Trump's is black and white.
2) There is no evidence supporting that Biden's son broke rules, Trump released the transcript proving the accusation
3) The magnitude of money involved is substantial

Moore meet Coulter.

Fox News was laughing about how "Obama was sending pallets of cash to Iran!! No impeachment! No investigation! Nothing from the Democrats! We all know if Trump did that, Dems would be screaming their heads off!!" The guy was almost in tears from laughing.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
What did Joe Biden do that was wrong in the Ukraine situation?
Joe Biden allowed his son to use the untainted *snicker* reputation of the office of the VP of the US as cover for Burisma to attempt to pretty up their overall PR image which was rather tainted. Hunter Biden was not the only political member of the board. I don't believe Hunter Biden did anything wrong... or anything at all. His last name (relative to the VP of the US) was meant to be used as a shield to protect for the corporation and certainly worth the pittance they gave him (relative to their revenue). The bonus issue was a potential presumption of conflict of interest with anything on Ukraine or Burisma that comes across Biden's desk. Even at $50k a month, that amounts to$0.6 million a year.

Trump on the other hand conspired to strong arm an ally's newly elected President to collude with him in order to present a fake corruption investigation (after Giuliani found nothing himself) into one of Trump's political opponents in the 2020 Presidential Election. He did this by using around \$400 million in aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress. Did I mention that the President of the United States released the smoking gun transcript?

That any equivalence is being attempted is just stupid.

1) Biden's issue is gray, Trump's is black and white.
2) There is no evidence supporting that Biden's son broke rules, Trump released the transcript proving the accusation
3) The magnitude of money involved is substantial

Moore meet Coulter.

Fox News was laughing about how "Obama was sending pallets of cash to Iran!! No impeachment! No investigation! Nothing from the Democrats! We all know if Trump did that, Dems would be screaming their heads off!!" The guy was almost in tears from laughing.

What a pathetic attempt at false equivalence.

#### angelo

##### Deleted
The LP waited until there was an impeachment process before they took a position you support, so you have to say "well they didn't support it when it was just suspicion." You'll go to any length, won't you?

The LP had a position not to impeach earlier. Insults do not improve your argument.

There's no doubt that some on the left were wanting impeachment from day one. This is making the task very difficult now that there are actual reasons for impeachment. I hate Trump. However, he won the election. Wanting to impeach Trump from day one empowered his allies and the people who voted for him, creating numerous conspiracy theories (that were baloney) that motivated Trumpsters and closed their ears to rational debate.

We need to pursue impeachment now because we can't allow it to stand that a president can blackmail countries into helping him/her. We can't allow it to stand. But impeachment is going to hurt the dems and make it more difficult to defeat Trump in 2020.

I hope and think so. Not forgetting American efforts to interfere with Russian elections not all that long ago!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...s-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/

#### angelo

##### Deleted
Fox News was laughing about how "Obama was sending pallets of cash to Iran!! No impeachment! No investigation! Nothing from the Democrats! We all know if Trump did that, Dems would be screaming their heads off!!" The guy was almost in tears from laughing.

What a pathetic attempt at false equivalence.

There's nothing false about Hussain Obama's kneeling to Islam and the payment of a minimum of of 1.5 billion USD to Iran's mullahs.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Fox News was laughing about how "Obama was sending pallets of cash to Iran!! No impeachment! No investigation! Nothing from the Democrats! We all know if Trump did that, Dems would be screaming their heads off!!" The guy was almost in tears from laughing.

What a pathetic attempt at false equivalence.

There's nothing false about Hussain Obama's kneeling to Islam and the payment of a minimum of of 1.5 billion USD to Iran's mullahs.

Multilateral nuclear weapons disarmament deal verses shakedown of new President of ally. Today on... We Will Say Anything... to distract from Trump’s certain guilt.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
How does, "but other people have murdered dozens of people too" get someone off of death row?

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
I think you're really reaching on this one.

No, I am just using basic common sense with common English. You are lying. you are intentionally misrepresenting. Why is the important question at this point. Obviously you want to separate Trump from the statement he made.. blame someone else... I guess you have a problem with what he said, but an even bigger problem with having a problem with anything he said, it seems. That's lying. dishonesty.. being a piece of shit that isn't worth the dirt it stands on... that kind of thing.

What does it even mean to say that "the polls" said something? The "polls" said that some percentage of people indicated they would vote for Trump. I know for a fact that you have no belief whatsoever that the polls said anything else... because you are obviously a liar and cannot be trusted. nothing you say has any value.

I just watched the video clip and it certainly looks like he was saying it in jest. He obviously never did it to prove it and we know he never will.

People are so sensitive to comedy these days. I hate the PC world.

You brought this up and then complain it was brought up.. that's quite the backpedal fail. Why did you bring it up? The worst aspect of what he said is that it was rather ominous and inappropriate.. not like anyone is impeaching him over it. I think you brought it up to try and re-write the history of him saying something that was a little stupid to say... your attempt to reframe the fact he made that up as him repeating something that someone else said was important to you for some reason... My only guess is that you find it important that he not have said that... so you are ashamed or concerned with him having said that... ok. that's fair. no need to lie about it, though.

#### Treedbear

##### Veteran Member
Moscow Mitch says he is not going to allow further witnesses to testify at the circus trial. At least nobody with the first hand knowledge the Repubs are demanding (because they really really want more evidence, saying there's not enough to impeach because he never said "I want a Quid Fucking Pro Fucking QUO!" in public).

Anyhow, the question:
If a vote is taken on the House floor on Wednesday and Trump is impeached, does the Senate automatically gain purvue, or can the House sit on it?

Giving Moscow Mitch total controlof the impeachment narrative at this point would be a terrible mistake IMHO. Cheato is going to continue to ramp up his election rigging activities as long as there is no vote to convict/remove him. The billions of rubles that certain people (named stuff like Firtash and Deripaska might be hesitant to spend otherwise, will certainly be enthusiastically forthcoming for investment in the TrumPutin propaganda machine, voting machine hacking, voter roll alterations etc., as soon as Cheato is crowing about his "total exoneration". I believe he will probably "win" re-election if that is the story from now to November.

Impeachment in the United States
If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution or district attorney in a standard criminal trial. Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

Seems like there's room to manuever. Kind of like when McConnell delayed the vote for Obama's SCOTUS nominee.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned

Economy is BOOMING, Record low unemployment overall, record low unemployment for blacks and Latinos, signed an executive order to combat anti-semitism....but he's a racist Nazi who hates Jews and minorities!!!

Do Nothing Unhinged Democrats indeed.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member

Economy is BOOMING, Record low unemployment overall, record low unemployment for blacks and Latinos, signed an executive order to combat anti-semitism....but he's a racist Nazi who hates Jews and minorities!!!

Do Nothing Unhinged Democrats indeed.

The economy is going well so we should allow law breaking? How does that work?

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned

Economy is BOOMING, Record low unemployment overall, record low unemployment for blacks and Latinos, signed an executive order to combat anti-semitism....but he's a racist Nazi who hates Jews and minorities!!!

Do Nothing Unhinged Democrats indeed.

The economy is going well so we should allow law breaking? How does that work?

What law breaking?

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
The economy is going well so we should allow law breaking? How does that work?

What law breaking?

The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
The economy is going well so we should allow law breaking? How does that work?

What law breaking?

The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

Is this true or did I just make up a crime against you?

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

Is this true or did I just make up a crime against you?

Yes, you did just make up a crime against me. What does that have to do with Bonespur's crimes?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

Is this true or did I just make up a crime against you?

What evidence xan you supply? Maybe he released a transcript of the murder?
Restaged the murder on National TV?

Did his aide say, 'he did it, move on'?

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

Is this true or did I just make up a crime against you?

What evidence xan you supply? Maybe he released a transcript of the murder?
Restaged the murder on National TV?

Did his aide say, 'he did it, move on'?

Not an impeachable offense. Plenty of Presidents have asked foreign leaders to do a favor for America. It's definitely a sham witch hunt.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
The statutes are listed in the articles of impeachment.

Is this true or did I just make up a crime against you?

Yes, you did just make up a crime against me. What does that have to do with Bonespur's crimes?

I was hoping you'd know.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
What evidence xan you supply? Maybe he released a transcript of the murder?
Restaged the murder on National TV?

Did his aide say, 'he did it, move on'?

Not an impeachable offense. Plenty of Presidents have asked foreign leaders to do a favor for America. It's definitely a sham witch hunt.
it was not a favor for America. If it were, the focus would have been on the investigation, not the announcement.
And it would not have been coordinated with his personal lawyer.
And it would not have been tied to the aid he withheld.

So, nice dream, but not a real defense.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
What evidence xan you supply? Maybe he released a transcript of the murder?
Restaged the murder on National TV?

Did his aide say, 'he did it, move on'?

Not an impeachable offense. Plenty of Presidents have asked foreign leaders to do a favor for America. It's definitely a sham witch hunt.
it was not a favor for America. If it were, the focus would have been on the investigation, not the announcement.
And it would not have been coordinated with his personal lawyer.
And it would not have been tied to the aid he withheld.

So, nice dream, but not a real defense.

So you really don't think that the Deep State is just doing this to smear Trump?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
it was not a favor for America. If it were, the focus would have been on the investigation, not the announcement.
And it would not have been coordinated with his personal lawyer.
And it would not have been tied to the aid he withheld.

So, nice dream, but not a real defense.

So you really don't think that the Deep State is just doing this to smear Trump?

Giuliani said he had to get the Ambassador to the Ukraine "out of the way" for this 'favor.'

So, no, i do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory.
Really.

Also, the DEEP STATE is not forcing Trump to obstruct...

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
it was not a favor for America. If it were, the focus would have been on the investigation, not the announcement.
And it would not have been coordinated with his personal lawyer.
And it would not have been tied to the aid he withheld.

So, nice dream, but not a real defense.

So you really don't think that the Deep State is just doing this to smear Trump?

Giuliani said he had to get the Ambassador to the Ukraine "out of the way" for this 'favor.'

So, no, i do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory.
Really.

Also, the DEEP STATE is not forcing Trump to obstruct...

Giuliani said he didn't have to remove her.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Giuliani said he had to get the Ambassador to the Ukraine "out of the way" for this 'favor.'

So, no, i do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory.
Really.

Also, the DEEP STATE is not forcing Trump to obstruct...

Giuliani said he didn't have to remove her.

Then why did he?

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
Giuliani said he had to get the Ambassador to the Ukraine "out of the way" for this 'favor.'

So, no, i do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory.
Really.

Also, the DEEP STATE is not forcing Trump to obstruct...

Giuliani said he didn't have to remove her.

Then why did he?

Obviously to conspire with Trump somehow, right?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Then why did he?

Obviously to conspire with Trump somehow, right?
yeah, that's a rebuttal.

All in all, though, after Trump University's fate,and Trump Foundation's, the fact of a corrupt president is simply the best fit to the evidence we have.

Partisan nay-saying notwithstanding.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
Then why did he?

Obviously to conspire with Trump somehow, right?
yeah, that's a rebuttal.

All in all, though, after Trump University's fate,and Trump Foundation's, the fact of a corrupt president is simply the best fit to the evidence we have.

Partisan nay-saying notwithstanding.

That's a fallacy, Keith.

Under your standards, Obama was more corrupt than Trump. Did Democrats care? Nope, because Obama was a Democrat. Obama promised to lift blacks up again. He didn't. We had 2 riots full of blacks under Obama. ZERO under Trump.

One of these days Keith, one of your guys will hold the office of President and when Republicans move to impeach him, I don't want to hear one single lefty shouting, "Witch hunt!"

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
One of these days Keith, one of your guys will hold the office of President and when Republicans move to impeach him, I don't want to hear one single lefty shouting, "Witch hunt!"

Said with a complete lack of awareness or irony. I'm impressed that someone can be so delusional.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
yeah, that's a rebuttal.

All in all, though, after Trump University's fate,and Trump Foundation's, the fact of a corrupt president is simply the best fit to the evidence we have.

Partisan nay-saying notwithstanding.

That's a fallacy, Keith.
which one?
Under your standards, Obama was more corrupt than Trump.
Really? So, how many court cases did Obama lose where he admitted to defrauding Veteran charity?
How many states banded together against Obama University?
Did Democrats care?
care about what? What crimes are part of the public record attached to Obama's name?

Not just the regular repug baseless assertions of evil intent....
Nope, because Obama was a Democrat. Obama promised to lift blacks up again. He didn't. We had 2 riots full of blacks under Obama. ZERO under Trump.
how does this make Trump's corruption any less?
One of these days Keith, one of your guys will hold the office of President and when Republicans move to impeach him, I don't want to hear one single lefty shouting, "Witch hunt!"
You mean like the 25 years the Repugs spent trying to manufacture a case against Hillary? All for naught?
I mean, she cooperates with subpoenas, however ridiculous, and shows up for marathon grilling, and still does not require half the senate to cover for her, to keep her out of jail.

We won't need to call it a witch hunt, we'll just submit the requested transcripts and watch the GOP babble themselves on TV.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Under your standards, Obama was more corrupt than Trump. Did Democrats care? Nope, because Obama was a Democrat. Obama promised to lift blacks up again. He didn't. We had 2 riots full of blacks under Obama. ZERO under Trump.

Are you daft? The unemployment rate for black people dropped six points under Obama, only one more point under Trump.

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
Under your standards, Obama was more corrupt than Trump. Did Democrats care? Nope, because Obama was a Democrat. Obama promised to lift blacks up again. He didn't. We had 2 riots full of blacks under Obama. ZERO under Trump.

Are you daft. The unemployment rate for black people dropped six points under Obama, only one more point under Trump.

That just means it was Bush's doing, right? You guys claim Trump is riding the magic wand of Obama's economic boom. So logically, Obama was riding the magic wand of Bush, right?

#### Half-Life

##### Banned
Banned
One of these days Keith, one of your guys will hold the office of President and when Republicans move to impeach him, I don't want to hear one single lefty shouting, "Witch hunt!"

Said with a complete lack of awareness or irony. I'm impressed that someone can be so delusional.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.