Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Hey dopey, and the those who issued the subpoena can take the recipient to court, right? So how come they didn't?

As to hearsay, the funds were released were they not? The issue is why were they held in the first place. NOT A SINGLE WITNESS THAT HAD TESTIFIED HAD ANY DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT REASON. Capeesh? It was all hearsay, speculation and opinion and that's not going to hold up in court or the Senate.

No, see, you're the one who doesn't understand dopey. Hearsay is admissible in court under certain circumstances, like when that testimony is reliable and can be corroborated. Or when the one testifying was ordered to take certain action at the direction of the president. There has been testimony to that effect, none of which was refuted by any witness. Just because you don't know the law and recite the party line doesn't make what you say the law. What you are looking for is direct testimony from those that you say need not provide direct testimony if Trump doesn't want. Most are smart enough to understand this.

And to be clear, in every case where a subpoena was challenged in court by Trump stooges, those stooges lost. Every single time. Not only did they lose, but the judges almost uniformly found the legal arguments to be frivolous. Meaning with no basis in the law. You guys are trying hard to run out the clock before the elections to shield the American public from voting based upon the facts regarding exactly what happened with the Ukraine scandal. I don't think that will play well for you.

[Unregistered]

List them. Or direct us to anywhere that confirms your Trumpian lie.

Seriously??? Do a search of this forum going back to the release of the Horowitz report in December.

[Unregistered]

Christ!!! Are you REALLY defending killing a terrorist responsible for killing 600+ American service men and women and the maiming of thousands other military, not to mention the deaths and injury of thousands of civilians in those countries? Were you quaking in fear when bin Laden or al Baghdadi was killed? The risk of retaliation was worth getting ride of this guy and it sure looks like the Iranian clerics have their hands too full at the moment for us to worry about revenge.

I don't think, deep down, that's what they really mean.

Sometimes the TDS causing people to stretch their arguments a little too far.

[Unregistered]

Seriously??? Do a search of this forum going back to the release of the Horowitz report in December.

I did. I couldn't find a single post on here that tied one single act of FBI misconduct to any evidence that Flynn provided through his cooperation. Nor have I found a single article on the web that says anything remotely similar. So humor me. Direct to even one.

[Unregistered]

While you're posting your responses here, you may as well attempt to defend this Trump lie about his administration's efforts in the PENDING SUPREME COURT CASE to eviscerate protections for pre-existing conditions:


and, if Republicans win in court and take back the House of Represenatives, your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far. I will always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!

[Unregistered]

You ok with the president of the United States sending hit men to track his ambassador to the Ukraine?

[Unregistered]

While you're posting your responses here, you may as well attempt to defend this Trump lie about his administration's efforts in the PENDING SUPREME COURT CASE to eviscerate protections for pre-existing conditions:


and, if Republicans win in court and take back the House of Represenatives, your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far. I will always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!

lol the GOP has had nearly ten years to do something "better" than ACA and the only action they've taken was try and get rid of ACA and make healthcare worse. If it weren't for McCain we would have already lost pre existing coverage, coverage for our 20-something kids etc.

[Unregistered]

You ok with the president of the United States sending hit men to track his ambassador to the Ukraine?

Cons will always find something. When they can't they post something about Hillary or Obama.

[Unregistered]

lol the GOP has had nearly ten years to do something "better" than ACA and the only action they've taken was try and get rid of ACA and make healthcare worse. If it weren't for McCain we would have already lost pre existing coverage, coverage for our 20-something kids etc.

Yeah. Only a fool would buy what he's selling. Which is -- really believe me despite everything that I am doing to the contrary. I know that neither I nor my republican friends in congress have even proposed an alternate to the ACA, but believe me, after the elections that will all change and we will come up with something that you won't believe could be this good. You'll see. Just trust me and vote for me. I'm not before the Supreme Court now trying to eliminate pre-existing conditions coverage. Fake news!

[Unregistered]

No, see, you're the one who doesn't understand dopey. Hearsay is admissible in court under certain circumstances, like when that testimony is reliable and can be corroborated. Or when the one testifying was ordered to take certain action at the direction of the president. There has been testimony to that effect, none of which was refuted by any witness. Just because you don't know the law and recite the party line doesn't make what you say the law. What you are looking for is direct testimony from those that you say need not provide direct testimony if Trump doesn't want. Most are smart enough to understand this.

Are you that dense???

If the House impeachment was sound based on testimony, why was the impeachment, the one that couldn't be delayed according to Schiff and Pelosi, why didn't Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? Please don't give me the BS that it was delayed because Pelosi wanted clarity on rules for Senate trial because obviously she didn't get what she wanted. What is obvious is Dems were desperate to find something to add to the articles of impeachment and they couldn't find anything. The best they could come up with are the Parnas documents which for reasons I already made, a nothingburger that will not affect the Senate trial.

And to be clear, in every case where a subpoena was challenged in court by Trump stooges, those stooges lost. Every single time. Not only did they lose, but the judges almost uniformly found the legal arguments to be frivolous. Meaning with no basis in the law. You guys are trying hard to run out the clock before the elections to shield the American public from voting based upon the facts regarding exactly what happened with the Ukraine scandal. I don't think that will play well for you.

Well, if every subpoena challenge in court by Trump failed, why didn't Dems subpoena Bolton or pursue Mulvaney, both of whom are said to have direct knowledge unlike all the other witnesses?

[Unregistered]

Just because you don't know the law and recite the party line doesn't make what you say the law.

BTW are you suggesting McConnell doesn't know the law? Or are you just reciting the party line?

"Speaker Pelosi and the House have taken our nation down a dangerous road. If the Senate blesses this unprecedented and dangerous House process by agreeing that an incomplete case and subjective basis are enough to impeach a president, we will almost guarantee the impeachment of every future president." - Mitch McConnell

[Unregistered]

McConnell has come under criticism for pledging to be in “total coordination” with the White House.

"Do you think [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren is impartial? [Sen.] Bernie Sanders is impartial? So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. ... All I'm asking of Schumer is that we treat Trump the same way we treated [President] Clinton." - Mitch McConnell

[Unregistered]

You ok with the president of the United States sending hit men to track his ambassador to the Ukraine?

Are you delusional??? We're talking trump here, not the Clintons.

Bwahahaha!

[Unregistered]

I did. I couldn't find a single post on here that tied one single act of FBI misconduct to any evidence that Flynn provided through his cooperation. Nor have I found a single article on the web that says anything remotely similar. So humor me. Direct to even one.

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...the-rest-of-us

Stay tune for Part 2 when John Durham releases his report and the indictments expected to go along with it.

[Unregistered]

"If Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats truly believed that the president was a national security risk, why did they wait 28 days to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate? Let’s be frank and call it what it is—a political stunt that has backfired." - Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)