Quote:

---

But he didn't. He asked for help to route out corruption. The question on whether there was credible evidence of substantial corruption linking the US and Ukraine is paramount to this trial. If Trump had a reason to suspect that the relationships between the Biden's and Ukraine companies was unethical, then Trump's actions are 100% justifiable, because he is acting on behalf of the US people, not on his own behalf.

---

Don't forget Biden bestie and donor, John Hynansky, an American of Ukrainian descent, and his sweetheart deal, including a 20 million dollar government loan, to build car dealerships in Ukraine.

As far as I can tell, SJL's sole qualifications for office are skin color and the ability to pander.

bigcat22 said:

---

---

Cocaine Mitch, War Damn Turtle and now he's a rogue, too? How dashing!

bigcat22 said:

---

---

Copy Rogue Leader

Democrats are psychotic.

aggiehawg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Ubitag said:

---

I think the democrats know exactly what they are doing.

---

They do.

---

Which is what, exactly?

---

Don't engage with him. Best to ignore and move on.

AggieRain said:

---

Quote:

---

In all seriousness, how politically inept do you have to be to run a purely partisan political stunt only to hand it off to a chamber your party doesn't control for massive exposure?

---

This is the part that I just can't figure. Despite what this board thinks, there are many intelligent operatives among their ranks. I don't see how they can conclude that this is a winning hand. My guess is that, in reading the tea leaves, this is a Hail Mary attempt. Perhaps they think Trump will hang himself under examination, which is really their best hope.

---

We're in the same boat.

I'm trying to catch up with the thread today, and this post shows you where I am. I'm responding to your comment from 2 hours ago.

Like you said, Pelosi Galore has 4-5 attorneys working on this all day, every day. The entire topic is impeachment, how to do it, how to get around the constitution, and how to manipulate the country to win. It's all that matters, 100%.

I guarantee you, there's also a political risk the Reps will be beat to death by the press with the never ending shouts of "they're being mean, it's unfair, yada, yada, yada,". If enough people hear it and see it, we may not be quite so happy here.

Does Pelosi want this? No, I don't believe she does, but now they've decided to go forward, it sounds like she's ALL IN.

I'm just saying guys, the Dems have brains too. They're smart enough to win the house, even though it was manipulated by the Spygate investigation.

Rogue Damn Turtle. I like it!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But he didn't. He asked for help to route out corruption. The question on whether there was credible evidence of substantial corruption linking the US and Ukraine is paramount to this trial. If Trump had a reason to suspect that the relationships between the Biden's and Ukraine companies was unethical, then Trump's actions are 100% justifiable, because he is acting on behalf of the US people, not on his own behalf.

---

Don't forget Biden bestie and donor, John Hynansky, an American of Ukrainian descent, and his sweetheart deal, including a 20 million dollar government loan, to build car dealerships in Ukraine.

---

Yeah, this is going to turn into a trial of whether or not there was smoke around Ukrainian corruption, including Biden. The Senate is going to find that there was enough smoke in less than a week, the Senate Republicans are going to issue a report that says as much, and very strongly admonishing the House for never even considering that fact in their impeachment hearings. I also anticipate that they will cite Turley, who told the House that the impeachment hearings were a sham because they didn't look at defenses at all.

Pelosi will claim victory and it was those trumpeter republican senators who thwarted the will of the people to remove a corrupt president for party. She can keep the hard left support and wash her hands of the mess the far left demanded.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Ubitag said:

---

I think the democrats know exactly what they are doing.

---

They do.

---

The first step to getting well, is admitting that they have a problem. I'm glad to know that they finally realize they are insane. Now they need to discontinue their self destructive behaviors.

These are all great points:

fasthorse05 said:

---

I guarantee you, there's also a political risk the Reps will be beat to death by the press with the never ending shouts of "they're being mean, it's unfair, yada, yada, yada,". If enough people hear it and see it, we may not be quite so happy here.

---

Which is why I think that the Senate goes with a very brief trial. Opening statement says "if there was smoke around corruption, the President's actions were legal. If there was no smoke at the time around corruption, the President contemplated a course of action that was unethical, but it was not a High Crime or Misdemeanor, because, he ultimately did not follow through"

Bring witnesses that show that there was real smoke around corruption.

"See, the President was trying to root out real corruption. Our Democratic colleagues will not come to the defense of the actions of Hunter Biden. They do not pretend that what Hunter did was ethical. The Democrats are sore because the corruption the POTUS was trying to root out involved their presidential frontrunner. However, we believe that no one is above the law, and this was absolutely acceptable behavior."

You could wrap all of that up in a week or two.

Trump seems to want the Senate to use this to drag absolutely everyone through the mud. I'm not sure that this is not a bluff on Trump's part. I think a short, quick, damning trial without the need for Trump to testify would be the best course of action.

That woman has left the building.

Dark_Knight said:

---

They do understand that Pence would become President if they manage to pull off this farce. I would think they'd hate Pence more.

---

I'm not sure there is a level of hate above what they have for Trump

rab79 said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

They do understand that Pence would become President if they manage to pull off this farce. I would think they'd hate Pence more.

---

I'm not sure there is a level of hate above what they have for Trump

---

You underestimate their hate-filled souls. Remember many of us thought the same when their hate was directed at Bush.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

These are all great points:

---

She pulls the Catholic card when it suits her but is pro abortion. Tried to say one time abortion is approved in the Bible.

I know Gowdy has been bandied about, but to me, the key to a good Senate trial will be who's chosen as a House Manager.

Who can be chosen to be House Manager during a Senate Impeachment Trial?

Whatever you guys think of Gowdy, I've always thought he's deadly on cross, and would chew up the Dems and their acolytes.

Secondly, can Barr (or any of his, or Horowitz' employees) be called? I'm asking because they have the detailed knowledge, and some of them may be GREAT on the stand.

Would you imagine that! The House Judiciary Committee to hold hearing to receive presentations of evidence in impeachment inquiry on Dec. 9.

Seems like I remember something else on the 9th? Nah... can't remember, but I thought it had something to do with FISA? Maybe?

They wouldn't POSSIBLY hold a important meeting on that day... WHAT A SHAM!

BusterAg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

I guarantee you, there's also a political risk the Reps will be beat to death by the press with the never ending shouts of "they're being mean, it's unfair, yada, yada, yada,". If enough people hear it and see it, we may not be quite so happy here.

---

Which is why I think that the Senate goes with a very brief trial. Opening statement says "if there was smoke around corruption, the President's actions were legal. If there was no smoke at the time around corruption, the President contemplated a course of action that was unethical, but it was not a High Crime or Misdemeanor, because, he ultimately did not follow through"

Bring witnesses that show that there was real smoke around corruption.

"See, the President was trying to root out real corruption. Our Democratic colleagues will not come to the defense of the actions of Hunter Biden. They do not pretend that what Hunter did was ethical. The Democrats are sore because the corruption the POTUS was trying to root out involved their presidential frontrunner. However, we believe that no one is above the law, and this was absolutely acceptable behavior."

You could wrap all of that up in a week or two.

Trump seems to want the Senate to use this to drag absolutely everyone through the mud. I'm not sure that this is not a bluff on Trump's part. I think a short, quick, damning trial without the need for Trump to testify would be the best course of action.

---

Ultimately the swamp doesn't want any investigations into itself

They won't let the Dems get their impeachment but they also won't allow a long trial that delves into the crooked underbelly of D.C. either. The mutual non-aggression pact has always been "we won't investigate you selling government for profit if you don't investigate us for the same and we can all get rich!"

EKUAg said:

---

She pulls the Catholic card when it suits her but is pro abortion. Tried to say one time abortion is approved in the Bible.

---

Not to mention that rainbow wristband on her smart watch doesn't really jive with the Catholic doctrine either.

fasthorse05 said:

---

I know Gowdy has been bandied about, but to me, the key to a good Senate trial will be who's chosen as a House Manager.

Who can be chosen to be House Manager during a Senate Impeachment Trial?

Whatever you guys think of Gowdy, I've always thought he's deadly on cross, and would chew up the Dems and their acolytes.

Secondly, can Barr (or any of his, or Horowitz' employees) be called? I'm asking because they have the detailed knowledge, and some of them may be GREAT on the stand.

---

I think Gowdy has legal bar to his participation given he hasn't been out of government long enough. I heard him make reference to being prohibited from formally being a part of Trump's defense in the Senate.

I do believe Barr can testify as to the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ on the obstruction charges alluded to in the Mueller Report, assuming some of those make it into the formal articles of impeachment voted out of the House and accepted by the Senate.

To me, the more interesting question is who will be on the Dem's House Managers team. Which members? I expect Schiff and Raskind are shoe-ins but can't figure out which other Dem House members have a legal background with stellar legal skills besides those two.

BusterAg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

I guarantee you, there's also a political risk the Reps will be beat to death by the press with the never ending shouts of "they're being mean, it's unfair, yada, yada, yada,". If enough people hear it and see it, we may not be quite so happy here.

---

Which is why I think that the Senate goes with a very brief trial. Opening statement says "if there was smoke around corruption, the President's actions were legal. If there was no smoke at the time around corruption, the President contemplated a course of action that was unethical, but it was not a High Crime or Misdemeanor, because, he ultimately did not follow through"

Bring witnesses that show that there was real smoke around corruption.

"See, the President was trying to root out real corruption. Our Democratic colleagues will not come to the defense of the actions of Hunter Biden. They do not pretend that what Hunter did was ethical. The Democrats are sore because the corruption the POTUS was trying to root out involved their presidential frontrunner. However, we believe that no one is above the law, and this was absolutely acceptable behavior."

You could wrap all of that up in a week or two.

Trump seems to want the Senate to use this to drag absolutely everyone through the mud. I'm not sure that this is not a bluff on Trump's part. I think a short, quick, damning trial without the need for Trump to testify would be the best course of action.

---

If the IG shows some wrong doing and Durham gets indictments then this show trial is the ONLY place the President and his team has a hope of exposing the truth.

The reason impeachment polling dropped was enough people tuned into the testimony to see that the witnesses were not credible. The press could not convince the viewers that their eyes were lying.

I don't think Trump wanted this but he sure as hell better use it to get the facts (which are complex) out to the people.

On a side note I heard the last two minutes of Pelosi's speech in the car on the way to a meeting.

Even though she quoted our founders it came out like this:

" WE, by the grace of Heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial, enjoin upon ye, Our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare War on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of Our war aims.

To ensure the stability of East Asia and to contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by Our Great Illustrious Imperial Grandsire [Emperor Meiji] and Our Great Imperial Sire succeeding Him [Emperor Taish], and which We lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations, has always been the guiding principle of Our Empire's foreign policy. It has been truly unavoidable and far from Our wishes that Our Empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain... "

As far as I could tell Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party just declared war on 45% of the American population. They will need to learn what this means:

Don't Tread on Me

txaggie_08 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Ubitag said:

---

I think the democrats know exactly what they are doing.

---

They do.

---

Which is what, exactly?

---

Don't engage with him. Best to ignore and move on.

---

Met and Gary are great for learning the Dem talking points early. If we completely ignore them, we will not see the other side, no matter how shallow it is.

Notice how quiet they were yesterday? Obviously things aren't going well for their side.

If they actually have a plan, it would be good to hear. Wouldn't it be nice, for example, if we find that someone on the Democrats side actually cares about the country, not just political power?

I hope that their plan is not a Kristalnacht.

rab79 said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

They do understand that Pence would become President if they manage to pull off this farce. I would think they'd hate Pence more.

---

I'm not sure there is a level of hate above what they have for Trump

---

So does Pence put all the gays into the border concentration camps and evict the illegal immigrant children in cages? Or do they share the same facilities? Do gay children and illegal children share the same cages?

Satellite of Love said:

---

Or do they share the same facilities? Do gay children and illegal children share the same cages?

---

Don't be ridiculous.

We don't want illegals to catch the gay virus.

I agree that this might be the best place to clean house, but I think that it is best to get in and out and back to business if at all possible. The Republican's win in 2020 if they don't use this to pander to their base, but use it to win the independents. A long trial is not going to do that. Make the case that Trump's actions are legal and ethical if there was credible suspicion of corruption, demonstrate that there was, claim quick victory, and ask the Democrats to put this behind them and get back to work.

They won't. They will continue to ***** and moan about how things were unfair. That will kill them, and make the GOP look more responsible.

Bo Darville said:

---

Could you imagine if RBG died soon and McConnell scheduled the conformation of her replacement prior to taking up the impeachment trial?

---

He won't do that. The schedule won't allow it because it takes a minimum of three to four months for confirmation of a SCOTUS justice. Trial will come first.

Just a little impeachment humor:


Why Not?? They let everyone else speak.

BusterAg said:

---

I agree that this might be the best place to clean house, but I think that it is best to get in and out and back to business if at all possible. The Republican's win in 2020 if they don't use this to pander to their base, but use it to win the independents. A long trial is not going to do that. Make the case that Trump's actions are legal and ethical if there was credible suspicion of corruption, demonstrate that there was, claim quick victory, and ask the Democrats to put this behind them and get back to work.

They won't. They will continue to ***** and moan about how things were unfair. That will kill them, and make the GOP look more responsible.

---

You may be right but I think exposing how the Russian and Ukrainian hoaxes were political hit jobs by the dem party to overthrow the election would be of great benefit. If the Dems have hidden enough evidence to make that impractical in the impeachment Trial then you go your route.