Jump to content
Duck615

Patriots Please Keep this Number in Mind...51 Votes NOT GUILTY!!!

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, maineman said:
2 hours ago, superds77 said:

They didn't call the witnesses that the Republicans were requesting (only the ones that the democrats ALSO wanted). Gee I wonder why?

 

 

the republicans wanted Jonathan Turley to testify.  He was called in front of the judiciary committee and did so.

Yes. What I stated remains true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hex2 said:

Ya I always have my nose in some guys crotch.

WOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

he was not the only one you liberal lying asswipe

Wow.

 

Where did you ever get the idea that I thought Turley was the only witness?

 

You have the reading comprehension skills of a kindergartner.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, maineman said:
4 hours ago, Duck615 said:

That was the House's job...

the clown wouldn't allow witnesses to testify...hence the second article.

The House's job was to go to court and try to enforce the subpoena. That is how our system works. The Executive Branch is NOT subservient to the Legislative or vice versa. Therefore when there is a disagreement, you go to the third branch and litigate. The only excuse given by Schiff in an interview YESTERDAY was that this process would take (literally) "months or years". This is disingenuous on its face. All know that the court would expedite these matters as they always have. Even IF what Schiff claimed (years and months) was true, and it is not, will it not take that long if the senate attempts to enforce the subpoenas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Yes. What I stated remains true.

 

no.  you said they didn't call the witnesses that republicans requested.  If you had said they didn't call ALL the witnesses the republicans requested, I would not have felt compelled to correct you.  Writing with precision is always a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, superds77 said:

The House's job was to go to court and try to enforce the subpoena. That is how our system works. 

That was one option.  Another option was to impeach.  The house chose the latter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, superds77 said:

They didn't call the witnesses that the Republicans were requesting (only the ones that the democrats ALSO wanted). Gee I wonder why?

 

1 minute ago, maineman said:
6 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Yes. What I stated remains true.

 

no.  you said they didn't call the witnesses that republicans requested.  If you had said they didn't call ALL the witnesses the republicans requested, I would not have felt compelled to correct you.  Writing with precision is always a good option.

You apparently missed what I had in parentheses (only the ones that the democrats ALSO wanted). Which did exactly what you stated. Reading with precision is always a good option as well!

 

I assume this was an honest oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:
4 minutes ago, superds77 said:

The House's job was to go to court and try to enforce the subpoena. That is how our system works. 

That was one option.  Another option was to impeach.  The house chose the latter

Yep, and now they live with that decision. Just makes the claims of needing witnesses now a bit hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maineman said:

no.  you said they didn't call the witnesses that republicans requested.  If you had said they didn't call ALL the witnesses the republicans requested, I would not have felt compelled to correct you.  Writing with precision is always a good option.

 

Speaking of writing with precision...he said "witnesses", which is plural.  You listed one witness they wanted, which is singular.  For you to be precise, you need to list another.

 

FYI...best not to belittle someone for something you are doing as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, superds77 said:

 

You apparently missed what I had in parentheses (only the ones that the democrats ALSO wanted). Which did exactly what you stated. Reading with precision is always a good option as well!

 

I assume this was an honest oversight.

Do you really think that the democrats WANTED Jonathan Turley?   What evidence do you have to support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t matter. Subpoenas issued by Congress to the Executive Branch are only enforceable when issued by the Justice Department. So no obstruction Congress   
 

Trump has NOT received anything of value from Ukraine. You can’t have bribe or quid pro quo if Trump has not receive value. 
 

all the rest is just smoke and mirrors to cover that up

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Speaking of writing with precision...he said "witnesses", which is plural.  You listed one witness they wanted, which is singular.  For you to be precise, you need to list another.

 

FYI...best not to belittle someone for something you are doing as well.

 

I disagree.  They didn't call ALL the witnesses that the republicans wanted.  That would be the accurate statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, neilcar said:

Doesn’t matter. Subpoenas issued by Congress to the Executive Branch are only enforceable when issued by the Justice Department. So no obstruction Congress   
 

Trump has NOT received anything of value from Ukraine. You can’t have bribe or quid pro quo if Trump has no to receive value. 
 

all the rest is just smoke and mirrors to cover that up

 

 

merely offering a bribe is the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

merely offering a bribe is the crime.

where's the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maineman said:

merely offering a bribe is the crime.

Good luck with that. He gave the help Congress passed in legislation.lol 😂 

 

Then I am formulating a plan to accuse every President who has delayed funds of bribery. Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

where's the evidence?

on the transcript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 Then why isn't that an article of impeachment?

 

why in the world are you asking ME that question?  I am not a member of the house of representatives and none of them contact me and get my approval for their decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, maineman said:

on the transcript.

non answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, harryramar said:

why would they not want eyewitnesses to tell the truth to the American public. oh that's right they know he is dirty and a cheat.

 

 

The House had their chance to make their case.

....They have no crime, no evidence, no foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Duck615 said:

non answer

call the whaaaaaaambulance, homo boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor MM trying to explain the law... too fucking funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DeepBreath said:

He’ll get acquitted. 

Maybe this time, next week the criminal will go to prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taipan said:

 

This whole thing is a sham.

It has only one purpose.  To shade Trump in the next election.   That ain't right.

 

Laura Ingraham says that the Senate should hear 'opening statements'.  And then move to dismiss this whole thing.

Miss Ingraham is highly a intelligent lawyer and a good Christian.  I am siding with her on this issue.

 

yeah right she is a good christian like all you fraudsters. 

you fake Christians are a joke.

is there anytime you actually side with jesus over trump?>

hmmm caging children?

check

assassinating a foreign leader?

check

lying about the killing?

check

cutting off food for hungry children?

check

bearing false witness?

check

cheating thy neighbor ?

check

and this guy was appointed by your god?

of course. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, harryramar said:

yeah right she is a good christian like all you fraudsters. 

you fake Christians are a joke.

is there anytime you actually side with jesus over trump?>

hmmm caging children?

check

assassinating a foreign leader?

check

lying about the killing?

check

cutting off food for hungry children?

check

bearing false witness?

check

cheating thy neighbor ?

check

and this guy was appointed by your god?

of course. 

 

 

 

Laura Ingraham is smarter than you are.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...