Jimmy Valentine said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

GreyhoundDad said:

---

This trial makes it easy to see and evaluate a person's character and integrity. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are vast. I don't think it would occur to Republicans impeach a President for what the Democrats are saying Trump did. Republicans have the integrity and character to think about the long term ramifications of this trial. Democrats just yell "Impeach the mother ****er." Disgusting human beings.

---

Well said and agree 1000%!

---

Lol, like impeaching someone for lying about a BJ?

---

Are you referencing the impeachment of someone who promoted his blow dryer to a high-paying position at the Pentagon over more-qualified people because of her particular attentiveness to his, and his cigar's, needs?

Zemira said:

---

And when is the last time a Democrat took the high ground?

Probably never in my lifetime.

---

You are a loser if you lose. It's human nature. Schiff will be remembered as another failed impeachment.

And I don't think Republicans should have been "soft". Long term it would have been more effective to honor the votes of Americans but promise prosecution after Clintons term.

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

"Allegations must be proven 100% untrue"

Democrats only want to believe this because it leaves things open for never-ending investigations and helps their side.

Yet the minute anyone brings up allegations against Obama, Hillary or Biden, they will say "allegations must be proven 100% true and they haven't been so nothing happened!!!".

What a joke.

Once again we are back to proving innocence. Justice in our country doesn't work that way.

Day after day after day after day it's the same stuff.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

No one confirmed circumstantially that he did it. The only circumstantial evidence would be he didn't do it, because the aid was released without any of the supposed conditions being met. They would have had to meet the conditions for there to be circumstantial evidence he did it. The only "evidence" was testimony that they believed that is what Trump wanted. That's not circumstantial, that's opinion.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

No one confirmed circumstantially that he did it. The only circumstantial evidence would be he didn't do it, because the aid was released without any of the supposed conditions being met. They would have had to meet the conditions for there to be circumstantial evidence he did it. The only "evidence" was testimony that they believed that is what Trump wanted. That's not circumstantial, that's opinion.

---

Cool, I disagree.

Nice proof there..... sounds legit.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

The witnesses testimony (and articles of impeachment) confirm that the president exercised his legal authority without violating one federal statute.

Why would you let a prosecutor rummage around in your private conversations without a court order?

On another note, is there anything going on in this whole mess today?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

No one confirmed circumstantially that he did it. The only circumstantial evidence would be he didn't do it, because the aid was released without any of the supposed conditions being met. They would have had to meet the conditions for there to be circumstantial evidence he did it. The only "evidence" was testimony that they believed that is what Trump wanted. That's not circumstantial, that's opinion.

---

Cool, I disagree.

---

lol, you mean you don't know what circumstantial evidence is.

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

The witnesses testimony (and articles of impeachment) confirm that the president exercised his legal authority without violating one federal statute.

Why would you let a prosecutor rummage around in your private conversations without a court order?

---

Am I still the President in this scenario? If so, the answer is that I would want to be re-elected and don't want the stain of this accusation to hold me down.

If I was a private citizen, I'd tell the prosecutors to pound sand, but then they would just issue a subpoena and warrant for my documents that I don't have the power to block. So the point is moot.

blindey said:

---

On another note, is there anything going on in this whole mess today?

---

Back in session at noon CST. First 8 hours of Roberts asking written questions from the Senators. Tommorrow will be the second 8 hours or shorter if they run out of questions.

It will be alternate questions. To House Managers, then Team Trump. Meaning there will be little continuity unless Roberts puts them into some semblance of an order. Both Schumer and McConnell have culled their respective caucuses' repetitive questions.

When Roberts asks each question and identifies each Senator who asked it.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Cool, I disagree.

---

And you're wrong. Like always.

Gigem314 said:

---

"Allegations must be proven 100% untrue"

Democrats only want to believe this because it leaves things open for never-ending investigations and helps their side.

Yet the minute anyone brings up allegations against Obama, Hillary or Biden, they will say "allegations must be proven 100% true and they haven't been so nothing happened!!!".

What a joke.

---

Or call it a `conspiracy theory' -- even if backed by considerable actual evidence.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

The witnesses testimony (and articles of impeachment) confirm that the president exercised his legal authority without violating one federal statute.

Why would you let a prosecutor rummage around in your private conversations without a court order?

---

Am I still the President in this scenario? If so, the answer is that I would want to be re-elected and don't want the stain of this accusation to hold me down.

If I was a private citizen, I'd tell the prosecutors to pound sand, but then they would just issue a subpoena and warrant for my documents that I don't have the power to block. So the point is moot.

---

If you are President, and you are breaking fundraising records, and look sympathetic to your base and an acceptable % of independents. How does caving to a weak case by the opposing party help your reelection?

How could they get a warrant without alleging any crime took place? Maybe an overeager judge screws you in the short term, but you then sue for a violation of your rights. BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

The witnesses testimony (and articles of impeachment) confirm that the president exercised his legal authority without violating one federal statute.

Why would you let a prosecutor rummage around in your private conversations without a court order?

---

Am I still the President in this scenario? If so, the answer is that I would want to be re-elected and don't want the stain of this accusation to hold me down.

If I was a private citizen, I'd tell the prosecutors to pound sand, but then they would just issue a subpoena and warrant for my documents that I don't have the power to block. So the point is moot.

---

If you are President, and you are breaking fundraising records, and look sympathetic to your base and an acceptable % of independents. How does caving to a weak case by the opposing party help your reelection?

How could they get a warrant without alleging any crime took place? Maybe an overeager judge screws you in the short term, but you then sue for a violation of your rights. BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS

---

I was answering a hypothetical question from OPAG about me being charged with rape.

Breaking fundraising records, looking sympathetic to your base and an acceptable % of independents doesn't negate anything in politics. Art Briles was a winning coach at Baylor that had strong support to stay on at Baylor. All those wins didn't help him keep his job. That's politics.

Quote:

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

That is 100% BS, everything you said there. Name one witness, first hand that has stated that Trump with held aid and would not release it until Ukraine opened investigations against Hunter Biden or Burisma. NAME ONE!

There is not one!

Now I could do the same thing to you in the same scenario, I could talk to a close aquaintance who basically told 5 other of your work acquaintances that you had a DESIRE or WANT to Rape children.

I could then write up a deposition get all my hersay evidence together that actually all went back to the one acquaintance and then pass it on to the boss of your company and then you have to PROVE that the allegations are not true or you lose your job. God luck with that.

How would you feel by the way.

You know I have been accused of doing things I DIDN"T do and some really rank wicked things at that, AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN PROVE THAT I DIDN"T DO IT> Yet, the truth doesn't change and the truth was that those who knew me didn't believe the ones bringing the accusation, but I could never proved the allegations false. This pisses me off because it is flat evil!

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the only avenue available for the President to face justice, so I think it's important that the allegations are 100% proven untrue

---

That's a big big NO! Danger, Danger, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE> THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok Mr. Valentine.

I have talked to friends of yours that you told them that you want to rape children. It is hersay but comes from an acquaintance, I know bring charges against you to the boss of your company. And now you have to 100% prove that these allegations are not true!

Your screwed, you can't do that, how do you PROVE THAT!?

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

The witnesses testimony (and articles of impeachment) confirm that the president exercised his legal authority without violating one federal statute.

Why would you let a prosecutor rummage around in your private conversations without a court order?

---

Am I still the President in this scenario? If so, the answer is that I would want to be re-elected and don't want the stain of this accusation to hold me down.

If I was a private citizen, I'd tell the prosecutors to pound sand, but then they would just issue a subpoena and warrant for my documents that I don't have the power to block. So the point is moot.

---

If you are President, and you are breaking fundraising records, and look sympathetic to your base and an acceptable % of independents. How does caving to a weak case by the opposing party help your reelection?

How could they get a warrant without alleging any crime took place? Maybe an overeager judge screws you in the short term, but you then sue for a violation of your rights. BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS

---

I was answering a hypothetical question from OPAG about me being charged with rape.

Breaking fundraising records, looking sympathetic to your base and an acceptable % of independents doesn't negate anything in politics. Art Briles was a winning coach at Baylor that had strong support to stay on at Baylor. All those wins didn't help him keep his job. That's politics.

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Am I the President in this theoretical question? Are there witnesses that have already been deposed under oath by investigators and have confirmed circumstantially that I did it? Has someone that was very familiar with the incident written a book about it alleging it happened?

Assuming yes to all of those answers, I'd want my inner circle that was very familiar with the incident to testify to my alibi proving that I didn't do it.

---

That is 100% BS, everything you said there. Name one witness, first hand that has stated that Trump with held aid and would not release it until Ukraine opened investigations against Hunter Biden or Burisma. NAME ONE!

There is not one!

---

I stated above that all witnesses have only had circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

---

Correct, we are all the Boss of Donald Trump, I'd like to hear from my employee's close inner circle about this incident.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

---

Correct, we are all the Boss of Donald Trump, I'd like to hear from my employee's close inner circle about this incident.

---

Yes, but since no crime has been alleged, I find some protection of the President's privacy reasonable and should be cleared through court or negotiation.

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

---

Correct, we are all the Boss of Donald Trump, I'd like to hear from my employee's close inner circle about this incident.

---

Yes, but since no crime has been alleged, I find some protection of the President's privacy reasonable and should be cleared through court or negotiation.

---

I think that is an equally reasonable position.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

---

Correct, we are all the Boss of Donald Trump, I'd like to hear from my employee's close inner circle about this incident.

---

Cool. I'm still waiting for Eric Holder's testimony about Fast and Furious, when the federal government was using my money to undermine my constitutional right to bear arms.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

My mistake. If there were serious crimes alleged, every judge would sign a warrant for those allegations.

Art Briles wasn't elected into the office of the president which provides him with constitutional powers to legally challenge the other branches of government. Art Briles has a boss. Donald Trump has no boss (besides the electorate).

---

Correct, we are all the Boss of Donald Trump, I'd like to hear from my employee's close inner circle about this incident.

---

Cool. I'm still waiting for Eric Holder's testimony about Fast and Furious, when the federal government was using my money to undermine my constitutional right to bear arms.

---

Attorney General Barr's DOJ settled.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/fast-and-furious-settlement-doj-house/index.html

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Cool. I'm still waiting for Eric Holder's testimony about Fast and Furious, when the federal government was using my money to undermine my constitutional right to bear arms.

---

Attorney General Barr's DOJ settled.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/fast-and-furious-settlement-doj-house/index.html

---

Too bad. I want to see my employee testify.

Quote:

---

Wyatt is being disgusting, and if this is your take, you are too.

---

No that is not my take. However, my point is that it is Hypocritical and disingenious to require from Trump what you yourself would feel, and believe, (rightfully so) was BS and smirching your character.

What would you do in such a scenario JV. What if one of your 'close associates' has beef with you, or wants your position in the company or has something gain from seeing you fired!? How about that?

Or maybe you know that this other company collegue is spooning funds from the company and you are about to seek to have investigation and then all of the sudden low and behold this story about you wanting to rape children pops up!

WELL THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE!

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Wyatt is being disgusting, and if this is your take, you are too.

---

No that is not my take. However, my point is that it is Hypocritical and disingenious to require from Trump what you yourself would feel, and believe, (rightfully so) was BS and smirching your character.

What would you do in such a scenario JV. What if one of your 'close associates' has beef with you, or wants your position in the company or has something gain from seeing you fired!? How about that?

Or maybe you know that this other company collegue is spooning funds from the company and you are about to seek to have investigation and then all of the sudden low and behold this story about you wanting to rape children pops up!

WELL THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE!

---

That is not what is happening here.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OPAG said:

---

No that is not my take. However, my point is that it is Hypocritical and disingenious to require from Trump what you yourself would feel, and believe, (rightfully so) was BS and smirching your character.

What would you do in such a scenario JV. What if one of your 'close associates' has beef with you, or wants your position in the company or has something gain from seeing you fired!? How about that?

Or maybe you know that this other company collegue is spooning funds from the company and you are about to seek to have investigation and then all of the sudden low and behold this story about you wanting to rape children pops up!

WELL THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE!

---

That is not what is happening here.

---

What do you mean? You have to prove your innocence in your fascist fantasy Amerikkka.

Quote:

---

That is not what is happening here.

---

A prove that it is not?

What actually happened JV. Did you watch any of the defense team presentation or were just listening to Schiff for 21 hours?

1. Is the corruption in Ukraine and has it been a concern?
2. Has Hunter Biden taken a lot of money from one of the most noted corrupt companies in Ukraine? And did Joe Biden brag about getting Shokin fired, (the one who reopenned investigation of Burisma?)

The answer to both is yes, yes, yes. No hearsay, straight fact!
3. Is Crowdstike a company founded by a Ukrainian 'oligarch'? Why did the DNC not give the servers to the FBI but Crowdstrike? Did the FBI ever see get to analyse the servers? No, why not?
4. Which country gave the most to Clinton reelection campaign?
5. Has Trump consistently delayed aid to foreign countries or was Ukraine and exception?
6. Has Trump consistently sought to pressure the EU to pay more or was this a one time thing?

Shall I go on.

The answer is ALL THE EVIDENCE is on Trump's side. Yet he should be removed because someone may have said that he MAY HAVE WANTED Ukraine to open and investigation against Burisma and possible influence on the 2016 election.

Go look around at Shiff's Ukraine and many other high ranking Dem pubs have with Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia (Pre Trump). Do you own homework did and quit being an NPR face!

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

---

I don't have the ignore button.

Quote:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

---

Na, I don't JV is that, I think he is an NPR. With a case of TDS.