GOP senators unanimously vote against seeing evidence

The_Barmecide said:

It's a new wonderful world we live in! Personally I going to change my political party to Republican because:

A) that will keep me safe when Trump's Brownshirts start rounding up Dems
B) It's clearly the party of "FUN-FUN-FUN"...there are literally no LAWS anymore! It's gonna be fun!

Click to expand...

Please let us know when they show up at your house.

The_Barmecide said:

Probably...but let's think about now: what are Conservatives doing? They are setting up the world of tomorrow where presidents are freely able to shake down foreign governments to help them win the next election!

If that doesn't bother you TODAY it will in a few years.

Click to expand...

Not just that but they've laid the groundwork for the President to have no oversight so long as the senate has 50 senators of the same party.

If in 30 years we are looking back fondly at today's senate I will be very surprised.

The_Barmecide said:

Oh, sorry, I was just going by the transcript Trump put out. It's pretty clearly a shakedown.

Click to expand...

Well if so you'd have to agree its the most kind non-aggressive type of one that's ever happened in the history of man. The fact that the leader of Ukraine wasn't even aware that's what it was reveals Trump failed horribly in doing so. And failing horribly in doing so can be argued that it therefore never did occur.

Bobber said:

He released the transcript. The whole case was about the transcript.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. That was pretty damning.

rjs330 said:

Please let us know when they show up at your house.

Click to expand...

It'll probably be right after the gun-nuts in America have the big-bad-State show up and take their guns.

Bobber said:

Well if so you'd have to agree its the most kind non-aggressive type of one that's ever happened in the history of man.

Click to expand...

No, it sounded EXACTLY like I would imagine a mob boss shaking someone down. Only using simpler words because Trump ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

If I were Zelensky I'd bend over backwards to make Donald happy in every way possible! I'd agree to having a little mushroom salad with the man if he wanted that. If it helped my country, I'd do whatever he asked.

The fact that the leader of Ukraine wasn't even aware that's what it was

Click to expand...

So now you ask the victims of the mob boss if they want to prosecute the mob boss? And you expect it will be the whole truth? What a sweetly naive world you must live in.

reveals Trump failed horribly in doing so. And failing horribly in doing so can be argued that it therefore never did occur.

Click to expand...

LOL. Pretty much everyone that has testified in the House investigation knew it for what it was...so I'd say Trump was on the right track if he wanted to shake someone down.

Look, arguing reality with you guys is fun and all, but it's trying when you don't even acquiesce that it COULD EASILY be interpretted this way. Surely you aren't as naive and innocent as all that, right? You must admit it COULD be interpretted that way, even if you honestly believe it was not intended that way you must surely understand how it COULD be.

The_Barmecide said:

It's a new wonderful world we live in! Personally I going to change my political party to Republican because:

A) that will keep me safe when Trump's Brownshirts start rounding up Dems

Click to expand...

You mean like how Trump supporter Roger Stone had 29 FBI agents clad in tactical gear raiding his home at the crack of dawn, with 17 vehicles, with lights flashing? You mean like that type of round up thing towards Trump supporters?

camille70 said:

Since you've read the transcript (call summary), has the WH said why Trump was asking the Ukraine President ro speak with his PERSONAL lawyer on an OFFICIAL call?

Click to expand...

The president has a right to use people he wants to when dealing with foreign countries. It's his perogative. And I believe Guilliani wasn't paid by Trump for this. It was part of the investigation Barr was part of. So unless you have something that says Trump was demanding dirt (hinting fake dirt or make it up) on someone for political reasons and Guilliani was part of that you got nothing. And in this case. You have nothing. All was perfectly legit and legal.

The_Barmecide said:

It'll probably be right after the gun-nuts in America have the big-bad-State show up and take their guns.

Click to expand...

Well apparently that's what Virginia is working on.

Bobber said:

So tell me then.....why isn't Trump's opposition making any big deal about this and from what I've seen even in the House's arguments before the Senate? Seems to me they know there's really NO substantial point to be made which would lead to such a criticism having validity. It seems that they've excepted that the transcript is the transcript and to me with all the leaking of everything going on if there was something there incriminating it'd be front and centre....the fact that the Democratic politicians are quite about it reveals there's nothing there.

Click to expand...

See, that’s the problem you have when you read nothing other than Trump’s tweets or Fox State News...

Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...hat-we-read-transcript-are-just-sleight-hand/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

The Trump-Ukraine "transcript," explained

Read the Trump-Ukraine phone transcript that people are saying is not a transcript

Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public

The_Barmecide said:

No, it sounded EXACTLY like I would imagine a mob boss shaking someone down. Only using simpler words because Trump ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Click to expand...

And sounded like DOESN'T mean it is. The benefit of the doubt goes to who when they're on trial?

Look, arguing reality with you guys is fun and all, but it's trying when you don't even acquiesce that it COULD EASILY be interpreted this way. Surely you aren't as naive and innocent as all that, right? You must admit it COULD be interpretted that way, even if you honestly believe it was not intended that way you must surely understand how it COULD be.

Click to expand...

All right Barmecide Fair enough. But let's look at what you just said.

COULD be. Not proven to be!

So let's come back once again to what I've coined the term you're wanting to impeach the President on a speculative notion. You're wanting to go against the spirit and message of the Founding Fathers that a removal of a President shouldn't have to be CONCLUSIVE overwhelming evidence. Not even evidence mind you....but overwhelming evidence. Is there anything overwhelming in saying even as you've said "Could be"????

And while the Senate criteria they laid down is 2/3 of the Senate I don't believe it's a stretch to consider that they basically mean as well you should have an overwhelming percentage of the populace with the same level of agreement. Do you see that in the nation? No, no, no a thousand times no. So that being the case where do we go from here. The way of fairness that one is innocent until proven guilty or something entirely different? Please give it some thought.

Allandavid said:

See, that’s the problem you have when you read nothing other than Trump’s tweets or Fox State News...

Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...hat-we-read-transcript-are-just-sleight-hand/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

The Trump-Ukraine "transcript," explained

Read the Trump-Ukraine phone transcript that people are saying is not a transcript

Schiff says committees will eventually make impeachment inquiry transcripts public

Click to expand...

And look at all the dates of those articles. The months of Nov 19 and I believe Sept 19. (if I'm reading them right) So why aren't they making a big deal of it now. Have you even heard it brought up in the Senate trial by Schiff or any of their team? Enlighten me if they have. If they haven't than what's that say? It seems they're not questioning their validity and would know it's foolish to do so.

rjs330 said:

And if you read it and found a crime there then you don't know what a crime is. You apparently don't understand how governments work. I don't recall if you were appauled at what Biden did. It doesn't seem that we have anything to discuss further. When the bias is this strong there is no point.

Click to expand...

Several State Department officials explained how the official government works. Hint: It does NOT involve the President's personal lawyer and his campaign donner associates.

Are you really this naive?

Bobber said:

And look at all the dates of those articles. The months of Nov 19 and I believe Sept 19. (if I'm reading them right) So why aren't they making a big deal of it now. Have you even heard it brought up in the Senate trial by Schiff or any of their team? Enlighten me if they have. If they haven't than what's that say? It seems they're not questioning their validity and would know it's foolish to do so.

Click to expand...

Because they already have rebutted it as outlined above.

And I imagine that it will again be raised when the House evidence is presented over the next few days.

For Schiff’s part, he has been kept busy debunking the lies told by Trump’s lawyers in their opening arguments...

Fact check: Trump lawyers make at least three false claims during impeachment arguments - CNNPolitics

Bobber said:

All right Barmecide Fair enough. But let's look at what you just said.

COULD be. Not proven to be!

So let's come back once again to what I've coined the term you're wanting to impeach the President on a speculative notion. You're wanting to go against the spirit and message of the Founding Fathers that a removal of a President shouldn't have to be CONCLUSIVE overwhelming evidence. Not even evidence mind you....but overwhelming evidence. Is there anything overwhelming in saying even as you've said "Could be"????

And while the Senate criteria they laid down is 2/3 of the Senate I don't believe it's a stretch to consider that they basically mean as well you should have an overwhelming percentage of the populace with the same level of agreement. Do you see that in the nation? No, no, no a thousand times no. So that being the case where do we go from here. The way of fairness that one is innocent until proven guilty or something entirely different? Please give it some thought.

Click to expand...

I was merely asking if YOU thought it could possibly be read that way. It's real simple.

Once you agree that it CAN be read that way then we can go onto WHY it should or should not be read that way. It's real simple. I will READILY agree that Trump COULD be being quite honest in the conversation. I use the other data to decide which way the decision goes.

rjs330 said:

Well apparently that's what Virginia is working on.

Click to expand...

So you ok with people deemed a danger to themselves or others having guns?

rjs330 said:

The president has a right to use people he wants to when dealing with foreign countries. It's his perogative. And I believe Guilliani wasn't paid by Trump for this. It was part of the investigation Barr was part of. So unless you have something that says Trump was demanding dirt (hinting fake dirt or make it up) on someone for political reasons and Guilliani was part of that you got nothing. And in this case. You have nothing. All was perfectly legit and legal.

Click to expand...

Giuliani has said he is Trumps PERSONAL lawyer. He sent an introduction letter to the president of Ukraine to that effect. Trump has said his investigation request had nothing to do with his PERSONAL ambitions. In fact there is video of him saying he didn't know why Rudy was in the Ukraine period. So why is he involving his PERSONAL lawyer in OFFICIAL state business? Rudy has also said he is working pro bono, which if true is supposed to be against the law as the president cannot accept gifts. It's also come out that some of Trumps donors may be paying for his trips, or at the least, loaning them or money for them.

Trump has done illegal things all his life. He has been surrounded by criminals his entire life. Manafort et al got arrested for crimes going back years. Birds of a feather. He said he would run the country like he runs his business. I believe him. Unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much.

rjs330 said:

The president has a right to use people he wants to when dealing with foreign countries. It's his perogative. And I believe Guilliani wasn't paid by Trump for this. It was part of the investigation Barr was part of. So unless you have something that says Trump was demanding dirt (hinting fake dirt or make it up) on someone for political reasons and Guilliani was part of that you got nothing. And in this case. You have nothing. All was perfectly legit and legal.

Click to expand...

Evidence Barr was actually part of this investigation? Because I haven’t seen that at all.

Allandavid said:

Because they already have rebutted it as outlined above.

And I imagine that it will again be raised when the House evidence is presented over the next few days.

Click to expand...

Sorry but highly doubt it. If they were going to present anything new I'd suspect they'd cover such in the day long presentation. As it was it looked like a group of House managers desperately looking to put together a message. Kept hearing the same thing over and over again. Nothing new.

Chris Wallace on Senate impeachment trial arguments: How many times can Democrats make the same point?

I'll give them some credit though. Their computer people packaged things well in a good visual display but I'm sorry people do want valid reasons to remove a President. IMO sadly lacking.

Personally, i would love to see Biden and his son called to testify, along with the other Congressmen's kids who worked for this company to find out if they were qualified for the jobs they were given and it their pay was the going rate in a free market. That would determine if Trump was right about corruption on the usa's side or if this was a witch hunt to defame Joe Biden. If there was corruption and these adult kids were hired as a way to gain favor, then Trump was right to ask about it....and the real crime should be investigated. The problem with this trial is that the wrong person is on trial...