Nadler invitation to Trump

the republicans dont even have the balls to show up and defend trump

much less listen to the evidence

and BTW

mueller said he would have indicted trump on charges

but in 1973 there was a DOJ ruling a sitting president could not be charged

and besides just becasue Barr did not charge trump does not make him honest

trump lied barr lied and the country has a criminal in the whitehouse

 

Learn the difference between impeachment...and the Senate trial of the impeachment.

MY BET: Impeachment WILL happen.

 

That's a good point: If you have nothing to say, it doesn't actually matter what language you use. So you can continue your posts in "butterball-speak". And I'll just continue not paying any attention to them in English.

 

But it makes me feel good and you always seem fetch the ball ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Archived for future hilarity.

 

Won't you be disappointed when you finally find out what "impeachment" means!

 

Also archived for future lolz.

 

Most definitely false.

Trump never said it wasn't in self-defense.

 

We don need no stinkin evidence!

Nadler, second fiddle to Schiff for brains will try to outdo him with the ridiculous. He is now going to try and prosecute him for Mueller’s no collusion, no conspiracy decision. Time for a Nadler blimp!

 

You realize the trial will be administered by the Chief SCOTUS Justice. I highly doubt he will allow hearsay evidence.

 

Stick with it!

He could shoot several people on Fifth Avenue and be laughing while doing it...and folk like you would be inventing reasons why it is okay.

Gotta give him that...he has his sycophants trained to obey.

 

The Chief Justice will allow enough evidence to convict Trump.

The cowardly Republican senators will ignore it. They will protect their Dear Leader.

 

I'm happy to see you think that way, because it's something we will definitely see. Even if Republican senators choose to protect Trump despite the evidence, this will be a great learning opportunity for Republicans! Though it will just be another example of how their wingnut media lies to them. So I'm thinking Trump loyalists won't take advantage of the opportunity to learn.

 

If it were in self-defense, then sure I'd support his reason to do so.

 

Actually it was the leftist representatives in control won't let conservative representatives question those witnesses in any meaningful way . . . and that hasn't changed. Are our leftist posters relying on the civic ignorance of modern high school and college graduates in regards to how ANY House investigation operates when the opposition party is in control of the process? It's as if they and their media wonks are saying -- do not study history. Pay no attention to what has happened in the past in regards to the present. Unfortunately for them only leftists obey . . . those . . . orders.

 

Oh, sure. You would need that.

Like you wouldn't support him for doing it if he did it on a whim!!!

As Anderson Cooper once observed, "So if Trump took a dump on our living room floor...you'd find a way to rationalize it?"

 

What question would you ask any of these witnesses that would exonerate Trump from bribery and extortion?

 

No, I would not support Trump's decision to just do so for no reason at all.

For any person who is an expert on taking dumps on living room floors, Anderson Cooper is your man.

 

"Which leftist organization paid you to invent this testimony? Which leftist politicians did you collude with?" You know the usual things when any KNOWN leftist or RINO sets out to 'set the record straight'.

 

You certainly sound as though you would.

The nonsense of adding the "self-defense" qualifier shows you are probably not telling the truth. In any case, when Trump said, " "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"...he was not talking about a self-defense situation. He essentially was saying, "My ignorant sycophants would put up with me shooting someone in cold-blood."

I suspect that is where you are as far as Trump is concerned.

 

You certainly are wrong.

How do you know that we was not talking about self-defense?

 

So you are given the opportunity to ask a serious relevant question, and you can't even think of one.

My case is made!

 

Not on this I am not.

Because anyone with a functioning brain can see it.

If he meant "If I shoot someone in self-defense I would not lose any votes"...what the hell would that mean?

Jeez!

 

On this one you are completely wrong.

How do you know it wasn't implied?

 

USA Today reports, "House Republicans drafted a report to counter Democratic arguments for the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine.

"Republicans wrote in a 123-page draft report that the evidence doesn’t support accusations of pressure or that Trump tried to cover up his conversation with Zelensky. Trump released a summary of the July 25 call on Sept. 25 and has argued that he was justified in encouraging an investigation because of widespread corruption in Ukraine."

The only problem with that is that in his April 21 phone call and his July 25 phone call, Trump never mentioned general corruption in Ukraine, only the possible, unexplained corruption of Hunter Biden, his main rival's son. https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

The GOP report largely claims there is no evidence of Trump's crimes. “The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” said the draft report from Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California on the Intelligence Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Oversight and Reform Committee and Michael McCaul of Texas on the Foreign Affairs Committee. "The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump’s policy decisions."

The last is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee has been very specific in its charges against Trump, and none of it has to do with Trump's policies.

Also, Trump incriminated himself when he held up the military aid approved by Congress days before the July 25 call. Then, when Zelensky expressed interest in buying Javelins, Trump immediately replied, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

The GOP defense is ridiculous, although I agree with them in one instance. Trump did not say, "President Zelensky, I am going to ask your government to interfere in our Presidential election for my personal benefit, then I will bribe you to provide incentive."

The report said there was nothing wrong with this request.

"None of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” That is a lie. Several witnesses corroborated the extortion, but they didn't have to. Trump's chief of staff admitted that the money was held up to get Zelensky to investigate what Trump wanted investigated. The he told the nation, "Get over it." The GOP report made no mention of Mulvaney.

USA Today continues, "The report noted that Trump has a right to block witnesses and documents from being provided because the inquiry has been “an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.'"

Republicans say this a lot. There is only one problem. They never say why the impeachment inquiry "does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry." Neither does this report. Trump Republicans just say it, and we are supposed to believe it on their say so alone.

This is a perfunctory defense of Trump because Nunes, Jordan, and McCall all know Trump is guilty as charged, and they are relying on Trump's flunkies in the Senate to exonerate him. Trump isn't even sending his lawyers to the hearings to defend him. Why bother? He is guilty.