39 Replies to “We know it’s not nice to gloat but . . .”

    1. I don’t know the guy, but it could simply be that he, perhaps unlike you, understands what the word “crime” means. Lots of people could help you understand the definition, but in Canada it generally means a breach of the criminal code, in other places it means breach of a significant statute. For instance, speeding is not a crime.

      In this instance, winning an election over Hillary is not a crime. I would also note that for someone to have found to have committed a crime, there has to be first-hand or direct evidence of his/her doing so to a criminal standard of proof. I’m not sure what crime you are thinking Trump committed here, but there certainly has not been a shred, or scintilla, of evidence of anything that could even loosely be called a crime.

      Perhaps, that is why the support for impeachment is dropping daily.

      I certainly understand that a lot of people don’t like Trump and would love to see him removed from office, no matter how it’s done, but that certainly doesn’t mean that there is any shred of proof that Trump committed a crime. There has been no actual evidence that would be admitted in any court of law of any sort of crime here. The “prosecution” would not even be able to present a case if this was an actual trial. They literally would have no evidence to submit. But yeah, a duly elected president should be impeached over this flimsy mess. (Sarc). Of course there are still people that can’t accept that there not only was no evidence of Russian collusion, but that there was no Russian collusion, so this show will go on.

      1. “I’m not sure what crime you are thinking Trump committed here, but there certainly has not been a shred, or scintilla, of evidence of anything that could even loosely be called a crime.”

        It’s right in the transcript where Trump pressures a foreign government to launch a political investigation into a domestic political opponent. All corroborated by multiple testimony.

        “there not only was no evidence of Russian collusion”

        Actually the Mueller report was quite explicit that there was collusion with Russia. None of it rose to ‘criminal conspiracy’ which is entirely different. Collusion is not illegal.

        1. Again, your understanding of words is the issue. “Pressure” . There was no pressure in the transcript. A request is not pressure. Telling someone that you will break their legs if they don’t pay you is pressure. There is literally no evidence of pressure. (Or anything else).

          Mueller found no collusion whatsoever. Absolutely no evidence of any. No matter what Comey and Brennan claim. And what exactly would the collusion be? Getting some Russian company to buy a day’s worth of Facebook ads? That’s it? I digress. If you can’t admit now that there was no russian collusion, there is no hope.

          1. “There was no pressure in the transcript. A request is not pressure.”

            Yes it is in the context of cut off aid and legal backchannels going around normal US diplomatic channels. In any event, even that request is in itself wildly inappropriate.

            “Mueller found no collusion whatsoever. ”

            That’s a lie: https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

            Further the Mueller report makes clear the president attempted to obstruct justice. That’s also impeachable.

        2. Your stupidity is astounding.

          The US and Ukraine have a SIGNED TREATY, by a certain William J Clinton, to MUTUALLY AGREE TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES In their countries.

          Want a link, dumbkopf?

          But, your DeMarxist pals and their media puppets keep pushing lies and gross distortions over what actually happened.

          But please stay stupid and ignorant, it is hilarious how stupid you leftards truly are!

          1. “The US and Ukraine have a SIGNED TREATY, by a certain William J Clinton, to MUTUALLY AGREE TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES In their countries.”

            There’s no evidence either Biden committed a crime. If Trump had evidence, he should have gone through the right channels to get this party started, not pulled off a mafia don routine.

            Keep in mind that even if Trump weren’t actually pressuring Ukraine, the mere request-the mere appearance of doing so-is itself so stunningly incompetent that it is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

          2. So, why are YOU afraid of an investigation?

            And, you deflected the obvious, there’s a treaty to investigate crimes. Remember, all crimes are ALLEGED, until proven. Same laws apply to everyone, but they can be investigated.

            Gawd YOU are stupid!

    2. It doesn’t matter whether Trump was caught committing a crime because impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. “High crimes and misdemeanours” are not defined anywhere in the Constitution of the United States; the purpose of the impeachment process is to provide a way for the legislative branch to remove the President from office, since the office is immune to criminal prosecution. The House could impeach the President for eating a ham sandwich if it so chose.

        1. That’s not a crime, it’s an agreed treaty between the two countries.

          That’s what YOU get from following the TDS on the alphabet propaganda outlets.

          You’re going to some butt hurt when the senate grills the Liars Schiff, Ciamirella, Benedict Vindman, Biden and the rest of the serial liar DeMarxists. Subpoena Zero and grill that lying bastard

          1. “That’s not a crime, it’s an agreed treaty between the two countries.”

            WUT. Do…do you actually understand what a treaty is? Do you have any idea how any of this works?

  2. UnMe, You are a Moron, The only thing Trump did was give EU Ambassador Sondland his ear & Sondland abused that perk…..He hammered the EU & Ukraine pissing off everyone…He was an ass-hat pushing his own agenda…..When the King gives his ear he needs to check for abuse, Sondland was delivering his own Brand of Foreign Policy…He is and was an A-hole that claimed only he alone assumed his deal was what Trump wanted…NOT…. Trump got the MSM to chase Joe 24/7 without action by Ukraine, or Rudy….

    BTW: The leaker to the CIA whistle Blower was right on Policy (Ukraine stay out of the USA politics) but he was wrong on his method of getting attention by treasonous behavior… He is Done

    JMHO

    1. The Leaker has been corroborated, period. Sondland was one of the people corroborating him.

      “The only thing Trump did was give EU Ambassador Sondland his ear”

      He also pressured a foreign government to investigate a domestic political opponent.

      1. The leaker has not been corroborated. In fact, the Democrats are strenuously avoiding the process – a criminal trial, with rules of evidence, cross-examination, and above all, due process, that would corroborate, or not corroborate the Democrats unproven charges.

        Then let’s have an open trial with discovery, and let’s cross examine the accuser. Let’s follow due process of law, right unme? Not this Soviet secret trial bs of the left.

        You and all the other leftists oppose a real trial, because your real goal is a police state, run by your whim. In fact, you wish to abolish all the civil rights of Americans, or you would advocate for an open trial of your accusations.

        Atty General William Barr described you people down to a t the other day. The American people will not allow you to succeed.

        2. “the Democrats are strenuously avoiding the process – a criminal trial, with rules of evidence, cross-examination, and above all, due process, that would corroborate, or not corroborate the Democrats unproven charges.”

          That’s because none of those things have anything to do with impeachment. This is not a trial. No one goes to jail (hopefully that comes later as part of a subsequent process).

          Sondland has indeed corroborated the leaker as have other witnesses: https://reason.com/2019/11/05/ambassador-changes-testimony-admits-giving-quid-pro-quo-message-to-ukraine/

          1. What I heard Sondland say was that Trump told him that “there was no quid pro quo but that the Ukrainian president should do the right thing.” That’s evidence. Sondland also said that there was a quid pro quo based on his supposition. That is conjecture, not admissible at any Senate trial judged by the Chief Justice. 99% of the evidence presented to Congress was hearsay, conjecture, or lies. The biggest lie being that the liar overhead a phone conversation in a crowded room without the phone not being on speaker phone. And he disagreed with the actual 2 speakers in the conversation. Other liars are the female former ambassador who fought the administration from day one and the communist bitch on the last day of testimony. She said she was not a globalist. She wrote for a magazine titled – would you believe it? – The Globalist.

        3. small c, about 100 million people know who the “leaker” was/is and that hearsay was what was ‘leaked”.

      2. Well, to be more precise, he suggested to a foreign government that they investigate an apparent case of corruption involving a U.S. citizen, as he is legally obliged to due under American law. That citizen’s political relationship to Trump is immaterial.

        To be generous, Joe Biden might have been delusional when he claimed publically that he demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma be fired or else $1B would be withheld. And Burisma may have paid Hunter Biden $83k/m because, even though he knew nothing about oil and gas and didn’t speak though language, he was a fine young lad.

        1. ” he suggested to a foreign government that they investigate an apparent case of corruption involving a U.S. citizen”

          There’s a way to do this and getting your personal attorney (Guiliani) to open a backchannel is not remotely part of the way.

          “Joe Biden might have been delusional when he claimed publically that he demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma be fired or else $1B would be withheld”

          Shokhin’s investigation into Burisma was a farce. Shokhin was blatantly uninterested in actually going after corruption that’s why EVERYONE wanted him gone.

          ” And Burisma may have paid Hunter Biden $83k/m because, even though he knew nothing about oil and gas and didn’t speak though language, he was a fine young lad.”

          They did it because in a mixed economy, connections matter. This is the sort of low-grade sleaze that pervades mixed economies the world over. Still no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

          1. Trump has the Constitutional authority to investigate any way he sees fit. The office of President is mentioned in the constitution. The Attorney General is not. The Attorney General operates under authority granted to the president.

  3. Styxx married a smart Dutch beauty. She’s improved his appearance and demeanor. His audience has increased on the social media not subject to so much shadow banning and censorship. His political astuteness for U.S. politics remains undiminished. He’s more intelligent and diligent with a growing audience than the moribund legacy media, who have become a weird mixture of Cult. Marxists and Nihilists. He’s worked very hard to achieve his level of success and continues to do so.

    He’ll fit into rural Holland, rather well. Bright and industrious is part of their culture and DNA. The Dutch founded New Amsterdam on Manhattan, then the British changed it to New York.

    1. I’m going to enjoy the Senate trial, the Demarxists should be more careful about what they wish for!
      There has been a rumour that the Demarxists might censure POTUS instead, as they KNOW they and their friends and associates have too many skeletons that would be exposed in a Senate Trial.
      Beer and popcorn!

    1. Sure, who wants to debate a CNN slurper? The fact that he’s here trying to convince us of this BS is hilarious. Get a life … um … dude. I say that because he undoubtedly identifies with a certain Coen brother’s main character just like his hero Adam Schiffforbrains. When I saw that interview, I said, “Of course!” Except in both cases, the dud abides. I’m just glad he’s … un me.

    2. I always skip over unme. A total waste of time. Though the replies often tickle my funny bone and on rare occasions I even learn something.

  6. Lori Hendry
    ‏

    @Lrihendry
    Follow Follow @Lrihendry
    More
    Fascinating paradox: The more Trump gets investigated, the more crimes are exposed involving prominent Democrats.

    2:27 PM – 6 Nov 2019

  7. Judge Napolitano: Enough Evidence ‘To Justify About Three or Four Articles of Impeachment’

    https://reason.com/video/judge-napolitano-enough-evidence-to-justify-about-three-or-four-articles-of-impeachment/#comments

    “Besides bribery, he lays out four more likely articles that he thinks House Democrats will bring against Trump.

    “The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation,” says Napolitano. “The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness and the fifth may be lying under oath.””

    1. The GOOD Judge has a problem that started when he provided (On Air) inside information that the UK had wiretapped Trump Tower…. Judge Nap had obtained FISA secret information, he was removed from his On-Air FOX duties and when he came back he had done a 180 change….Judge Napolitano is now a deep State operative,,, His opinion is DEMOCRAT talking points….

      BTW: In order for the UK to wiretap Trump Tower they would need the approval of the President.. Obama

      JMHO

  8. Personally, I’d just like to know what’s happening with NAFTA/USMCA, or whatever it’s called these days.

    I’m assuming that it’s an “agreement”, which is how these things have always been done, as opposed to a “Treaty” (the latter of which would require U.S. Senate approval only).

    Are Nancy Pelosi and Justin Trudeau too busy to git r’ done, at all?

    And, personally, I like the chances of neither Nancy nor Justin going forward, particularly given what is about to give in the U.K. in about 19 days…

  10. Funny no one has brought up how unreliable and contradictory testimony of eye witnesses can be. Oh wait, there are none. This is why the transcript beats the testimony. Not to mention, Sondland recanted,probably to dodge a perjury charge.
    The Dems problem is presenting a coherent case that is simple and understandable by every one. Instead we are presented with a long convoluted chain of inference, hearsay, and mind reading. In addition, we are expected to accept mumbo jumbo with new creative legal principles/definitions that are fuzzy, conflated and stretched into something unrecognizable. Maybe you can see it, if you face backwards, stand on one foot, turn your head and squint. Just for the fun of it, compare and contrast this case to the insinuations about Joe and Hunter Biden. The Biden allegation is simple and straight forward; the ethical implications are grasped immediately by any adult. In the Senate, which case will be the more compelling and memorable. I look forward to a full airing of all the issues.
    Testimony has to be in public, under oath, subject to cross and the rules of evidence, or it didn’t happen. Pass it on.

    1. A Senate trial would help Trump; it would be a blood bath. They have all the exculpatory evidence.

  11. Somebody mentioned the point that if impeachment progresses to the senate, it would entail a months-long hearing at which attendance by all senators would be mandatory. This would be a huge blow to the presidential campaigns of almost the entire Democratic Party, as Warren, Sanders, Harris, etc. would be forced to choose: resign their seats or give up their campaign for 2020.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation