North Korea?

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Fair enough, does seem it was and still is a seismic event in swedish history.

I respect your wish, my lips are sealed.
Yeah, i cant really discuss it since i dont remember the details.
I just remember hearing a voice just after i was born. The voice asked me if we should go ahead with the Palme-plan, and if i had given my go-ahead for the Nuclear experiment in Chernobyl.
I think i said yes, but im not 100% sure.
Thats why i dont speak much about the incident.
 

sufferinsilence

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Location
Belgium
Trump's having a bout of dementia it seems:
Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!
:lolup:

She was a special advisor to Pence on Russia, ofcourse he knows who she is...
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Yeah, i cant really discuss it since i dont remember the details.
I just remember hearing a voice just after i was born. The voice asked me if we should go ahead with the Palme-plan, and if i had given my go-ahead for the Nuclear experiment in Chernobyl.
I think i said yes, but im not 100% sure.
Thats why i dont speak much about the incident.
haha it was you, a baby assassin using stilts and a long mac!
No it's a fascinating subject, although upsetting for many in sweden. I was interested to read that apparently stieg larsson was looking into the case not long before he died of a heart attack aged only 50...hmm I don't know if that is true but some coincidence.

It would be amazing if one day all the big mystery's and unsolved questions could be answered, motive is key in cases like this and the ability/means to evade detection.

But will leave it there and return to good old donald :thumbsup:

The impeachment trial is another farce I'm sorry to say, it's a fishing trip, let's make a charge against the president [the biden quid pro quo claim] and then we can question all these govt officials under oath and hopefully one or two will drop a bombsell revelation we can then use as the original charge was going nowhere, it's a means to an end.
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
haha it was you, a baby assassin using stilts and a long mac!
No it's a fascinating subject, although upsetting for many in sweden. I was interested to read that apparently stieg larsson was looking into the case not long before he died of a heart attack aged only 50...hmm I don't know if that is true but some coincidence.

It would be amazing if one day all the big mystery's and unsolved questions could be answered, motive is key in cases like this and the ability/means to evade detection.

But will leave it there and return to good old donald :thumbsup:

The impeachment trial is another farce I'm sorry to say, it's a fishing trip, let's make a charge against the president [the biden quid pro quo claim] and then we can question all these govt officials under oath and hopefully one or two will drop a bombsell revelation we can then use as the original charge was going nowhere, it's a means to an end.
I don't think it is a farce because it is not just one call. It is the corrupt lead-up to the call and what was supposed to follow after the call. It was a pre-meditated campaign to make sure his political opponent is tarnished. That is against the US constitution no matter how much you would love your idol to be innocent. :rolleyes:

I read an article on a site which linked to this story, would think it lays out the development in a good chronological order and also gives a little insight into how Mr T thinks he can get away with anything he does:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


While I can see that there are plenty of people who would like to see Mr T gone, he has brought this onto himself through his own doing. According to his own people, he has been warned multiple times that the conspiracy theories have been debunked many times over, yet he thought he is the smarter one (as usual :rolleyes: ) and knows it all better. Now he will suffer the consequences for his deeds.
 
Last edited:

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Trump's having a bout of dementia it seems:

:lolup:

She was a special advisor to Pence on Russia, ofcourse he knows who she is...
I am pretty sure we have not seen anything yet that is too shocking. But I am very sure it will get much worse as the inquiry is proceeding. Especially the language he will be using will show the real Mr T, an un-educated real-estate braggart from NY.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I don't think it is a farce because it is not just one call. It is the corrupt lead-up to the call and what was supposed to follow after the call. It was a pre-meditated campaign to make sure his political opponent is tarnished. That is against the US constitution no matter how much you would love your idol to be innocent. :rolleyes:

I read an article on a site which linked to this story, would think it lays out the development in a good chronological order and also give a little insight into how Mr T thinks he can get away with anything he does:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
I just think the fact the focus is so much on the ukraine, neutrals in the middle will feel apathy, who cares about the ukraine honestly. And If biden and his son had done nothing wrong then trump was requesting the ukrainians to investigate hot air.

As the journalist kimberley strassel was saying on the lou dobbs show the other day [lou was away] and trump posted the clip on his twitter, where is the quo in this quid pro quo, the ukrainians gave trump nothing he gave them the aid. It is a good interview and covers the differences between this impeachment process and the ones before.

The republicans in the senate aren't going to uphold the impeachment verdict because of this hazy biden quid pro quo, so it's really about influencing the public, will they even bother watching if it carries on in the same 'he says, she says fashion' - all hearsay.

I'm not sure adam schiff is the most credible person either to be leading this, I don't know if he comes from a legal background but I think somebody with a legal mind/training would be required. If you try to block too many people from asking questions it begins to look evasive and dodgy, let the questions and answers fall on their own merit.

The whole charge, sequence of events needs to be boiled down so the public can understand it, I don't really see how bill taylor and his predecessor have moved the story on much, in which case that segment was a waste of time and you can't afford to waste the public's time with these things.

I can't disagree that trump is a real estate braggart from NY, but he is a bit more than that too.
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
I just think the fact the focus is so much on the ukraine, neutrals in the middle will feel apathy, who cares about the ukraine honestly. And If biden and his son had done nothing wrong then trump was requesting the ukrainians to investigate hot air.

As the journalist kimberley strassel was saying on the lou dobbs show the other day [lou was away] and trump posted the clip on his twitter, where is the quo in this quid pro quo, the ukrainians gave trump nothing he gave them the aid. It is a good interview and covers the differences between this impeachment process and the ones before.

The republicans in the senate aren't going to uphold the impeachment verdict because of this hazy biden quid pro quo, so it's really about influencing the public, will they even bother watching if it carries on in the same 'he says, she says fashion' - all hearsay.

I'm not sure adam schiff is the most credible person either to be leading this, I don't know if he comes from a legal background but I think somebody with a legal mind/training would be required. If you try to block too many people from asking questions it begins to look evasive and dodgy, let the questions and answers fall on their own merit.

The whole charge, sequence of events needs to be boiled down so the public can understand it, I don't really see how bill taylor and his predecessor have moved the story on much, in which case that segment was a waste of time and you can't afford to waste the public's time with these things.

I can't disagree that trump is a real estate braggart from NY, but he is a bit more than that too.
You do not need a "quo". The mere asking of a foreign country for help with your political campaign is totally sufficient.

And given another few days, the Ukrainians would have announced the investigations. They had already agreed (as Sondland said in his phone call). An interview with Zelensky on CNN was scheduled to happen and was then cancelled when the whistleblower report became public. So just a few more days, and you would have had the clear "quo".

Again, this is not about Biden, it is the corrupt build-up that undermines US national security in exchange for political aid in Mr T's campaign.

Schiff is an ex-US attorney from California, so I would say he is the right person for the job. Until now, he has been blocking only questions which have nothing to do with the case, e.g. Nunes and others trying to advance yet again the same conspiracy theories. Please make the effort to watch the proceedings live and don't simply believe what Lou and Fox are telling you or want you to see. :rolleyes:

As for hearsay, well, Mr T is blocking all direct witnesses from testifying. Just like in a mob case where such tactics are common, you build a case with the resources you have. BTW, David Holmes and Jennifer Williams are direct witnesses and they corroborated the story. It will be an interesting Wednesday when Sondland testifies again as he nearly perjured himself already once.

Investigating Biden would be totally OK, however, this was not about the investigation itself. Mr T wanted simply to have the Ukrainians announce the investigations because that would have been enough to sink Biden's bid for the presidency. He doesn't care one single bit about the investigation itself and even less about corruption.

BTW, Mr T was not the one who released the aid as he claims. It was the State Deparment legal office who said that there is no legal standing in withholding it.
 
Last edited:

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
You do not need a "quo". The mere asking of a foreign country for help with your political campaign is totally sufficient.

And given another few days, the Ukrainians would have announced the investigations. They had already agreed (as Sondland said in his phone call). An interview with Zelensky on CNN was scheduled to happen and was then cancelled when the whistleblower report became public. So just a few more days, and you would have had the clear "quo".

Again, this is not about Biden, it is the corrupt build-up that undermines US national security in exchange for political aid in Mr T's campaign.

Schiff is an ex-US attorney from California, so I would say he is the right person for the job. Until now, he has been blocking only questions which have nothing to do with the case, e.g. Nunes and others trying to advance yet again the same conspiracy theories. Please make the effort to watch the proceedings live and don't simply believe what Lou and Fox are telling you or want you to see. :rolleyes:

As for hearsay, well, Mr T is blocking all direct witnesses from testifying. Just like in a mob case where such tactics are common, you build a case with the resources you have. BTW, David Holmes and Jennifer Williams are direct witnesses and they corroborated the story. It will be an interesting Wednesday when Sondland testifies again as he nearly perjured himself already once.

Investigating Biden would be totally OK, however, this was not about the investigation itself. Mr T wanted simply to have the Ukrainians announce the investigations because that would have been enough to sink Biden's bid for the presidency. He doesn't care one single bit about the investigation itself and even less about corruption.

BTW, Mr T was not the one who released the aid as he claims. It was the State Deparment legal office who said that there is no legal standing in withholding it.
Right I gotcha, trump wanted the ukraine to announce an investigation had begun, that's not an angle I'd heard till now, maybe the ukrainian officials involved in the conversations etc.. will also need to testify under oath

I'm sorry but I don't think I could watch the whole hearings, I watched a bit earlier today of marie's testimony, but it all felt a little bit unexciting. I don't think she would've found trump's tweet intimidating, he slags off loads of people, she'd probably thinks he must be rattled and I'm getting even.

In a procedure or process if your chairman, as I guess schiff is, has already completely made up their mind, which he has clearly from before day 1...he will try to orchestrate the proceedings to get the outcome he wants, I don't think that is exactly compatible with having a fair or balanced hearing.

Surely even if you despise trump you must be able to see the shortcomings of the way this process has been handled so far, would anyone want to be investigated this way, it looks like a kangaroo, political court. :rolleyes:
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Right I gotcha, trump wanted the ukraine to announce an investigation had begun, that's not an angle I'd heard till now, maybe the ukrainian officials involved in the conversations etc.. will also need to testify under oath

I'm sorry but I don't think I could watch the whole hearings, I watched a bit earlier today of marie's testimony, but it all felt a little bit unexciting. I don't think she would've found trump's tweet intimidating, he slags off loads of people, she'd probably thinks he must be rattled and I'm getting even.

In a procedure or process if your chairman, as I guess schiff is, has already completely made up their mind, which he has clearly from before day 1...he will try to orchestrate the proceedings to get the outcome he wants, I don't think that is exactly compatible with having a fair or balanced hearing.

Surely even if you despise trump you must be able to see the shortcomings of the way this process has been handled so far, would anyone want to be investigated this way, it looks like a kangaroo, political court. :rolleyes:
I'll quote Moscow Mitch: "I will do everything I can so Obama will be a 1-term president." ......Geez mack, take your blinders off! :rolleyes:

And no, the Ukrainians do not have to testify. It is plainly to establish whether Mr T tried to engage a foreign power to help with his political campaign. Whether the Ukrainians did or not, does not matter. Trying to rob a bank is a crime even if it fails.

FYI, impeachment in the House is a political process, not a criminal trial.

The trial will come in the Senate.

The Republicans had no issues which such a process when they impeached Clinton or investigated Hillary for that matter. You can watch some of the hearings from Clinton's impeachment and you will realize that it was in no way different.

The majority in the House is driving the process in the direction they want. It is how the framers of the constitution thought it would be, that is why you have a trial in the Senate where you will need a 2/3 majority.

If this is a kangaroo court, what was Hillary's countless Benghazi investigations or Clinton's impeachment in your view? BTW, just for FYI. The Republican majority cut the funding for embassies years before Benghazi happened and then tried to blame Hillary and Obama for not doing enough. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

sufferinsilence

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Location
Belgium
Right I gotcha, trump wanted the ukraine to announce an investigation had begun, that's not an angle I'd heard till now, maybe the ukrainian officials involved in the conversations etc.. will also need to testify under oath

I'm sorry but I don't think I could watch the whole hearings, I watched a bit earlier today of marie's testimony, but it all felt a little bit unexciting. I don't think she would've found trump's tweet intimidating, he slags off loads of people, she'd probably thinks he must be rattled and I'm getting even.

In a procedure or process if your chairman, as I guess schiff is, has already completely made up their mind, which he has clearly from before day 1...he will try to orchestrate the proceedings to get the outcome he wants, I don't think that is exactly compatible with having a fair or balanced hearing.

Surely even if you despise trump you must be able to see the shortcomings of the way this process has been handled so far, would anyone want to be investigated this way, it looks like a kangaroo, political court. :rolleyes:
And yet they're using the rules the republican majority have approved in 2015.

Is it fair and balanced? Probably not, because it's ALL politically motivated. But so was the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the republicans. Would it be fair and balanced if a judge appointed by one of the former presidents or by president Trump was chairman? Probably not. That's the problem of the American system, especially in these very partisan times where politicians from both sides of the aisle are just trying to push their agenda instead of trying to do what's best for the people they serve.

And when it goes to the Senate the Chief Justice of the United States will be presiding, who was nominated by George W. Bush.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I'll quote Moscow Mitch: "I will do everything I can so Obama will be a 1-term president." ......Geez mack, take your blinders off! :rolleyes:

And no, the Ukrainians do not have to testify. It is plainly to establish whether Mr T tried to engage a foreign power to help with his political campaign. Whether the Ukrainians did or not, does not matter. Trying to rob a bank is a crime even if it fails.

FYI, impeachment in the House is a political process, not a criminal trial.

The trial will come in the Senate.

The Republicans had no issues which such a process when they impeached Clinton or investigated Hillary for that matter. You can watch some of the hearings from Clinton's impeachment and you will realize that it was in no way different.

The majority in the House is driving the process in the direction they want. It is how the framers of the constitution thought it would be, that is why you have a trial in the Senate where you will need a 2/3 majority.

If this is a kangaroo court, what was Hillary's countless Benghazi investigations or Clinton's impeachment in your view? BTW, just for FYI. The Republican majority cut the funding for embassies years before Benghazi happened and then tried to blame Hillary and Obama for not doing enough. :rolleyes:
I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...
Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings/investigations that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant that now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president? :rolleyes:

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.
 
Last edited:

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was in not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant the now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president? :rolleyes:

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.
When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate? :p

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time. :rolleyes:
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate? :p

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time. :rolleyes:
When the House majority puts it up to an impeachment vote. Could be two weeks or two months. Nobody can really tell.

There is a strong ABT (anyone but t) sentiment, yet that is concentrated in the urban areas. The electoral college will still decide who wins. And at the moment, he can still win another term.

So yes, the Ds better field a good candidate that most Americans will like and can relate to. I don't see Warren or Sanders being able to do that beyond their base. Harris somehow dived into oblivion. So, Biden or Buttigieg. I know who I would vote for because IMO senile 70+ candidates should not be president of any country if you want to lead in our fast-changing world.

However, I can see Biden being the candidate as his appearance conveys calm waters after four years of hurricanes. :rolleyes:
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate? :p

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time. :rolleyes:
One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".
Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.
 

Harry_BKK

Meister Member
CAG
mm1
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.
Yeah, but Mr T is also known to cave like a coward when push comes to shove.

E.g. the countless lawsuits he bragged about that he would win in heartbeat but then settled out of court.

I think it would be more along the line: "You all know I would go for a second term to keep fighting for you (and all the other nonsense he keeps lying about) but the doctors say no. Not my decision."

But he will keep that as a last-resort option after he sees how the thing goes in the Senate. It would be then also a perfect reason for the next president (Pence until at least Jan 2021) to fully pardon him on health grounds so he wouldn't have to face the dozen or so cases that are waiting for him when he leaves the WH.

He just moved the official residence of his entire family to Florida, out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Too many coincidences for this not to be a Plan B.
 
Last edited:

vorcirion

Meister Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Location
Tampere
When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate? :p

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time. :rolleyes:
I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.
Impeachment should be about when the crime is of a potential level that both sides could at the end want the president removed, like nixon.

If the republican's call completely irrelevant witnesses then the dems can expose this in their questioning of said witnesses, it would actually help them to show the republicans are trying to deflect and be evasive [if that is what they're doing]

democratic congressmen jeff van drew:

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,"

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges," Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News at the time.

Other Democrats share Van Drew's concern that the impeachment inquiry is distracting Congress from focusing on important issues affecting the country, he claimed, but it boils down to the final vote.

“Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake,” he said, calling the process “hopelessly partisan.”

-----------------

There's no way the republican senators are going to go in the opposite direction to the republican congressmen, as Harry iirc seemed to feel was still a possibility yet, what we're seeing now is the party line, there's just not enough there. Trump sought the ukrainians to announce an investigation was being opened into his geriatric opponent's son, isn't enough for both sides to want to sack the president, elected by millions of patriotic americans, and who is just about to run for a 2nd term.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top