# Impeachment finally moves to Senate...



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Some things or takes to watch carefully...

1. The "new" info coming out about the Ukranian caught down in FL. I cant remember his name but has ties to Rudy. Now they say some "evidence" that guy is willing to produce is hand written notes, phone records and possible recordings, etc. But I have also read that it isn't anything "NEW" or offer anything NEW. It is more of the same that we have heard. Also with that guy he is or has been charged with evidence tampering, lying, etc. So not saying any of this evidence is fake but it needs to be looked into not just believed as 100% accurate. Yet we know how that goes with the Media and other elected officials. oke:

2. Schiff being chosen as a lead on this. Does this absolve him from being called to the witness stand? I am not sure but if it does was this on purpose of making he LEAD??

3. Will they allow witnesses or not.

4. If they allow witnesses will it be a tic for tac or will it be one sided? (I hope not one sided it needs to be done fair so we can get to the real truth not the stuff spoon fed to us.)

5. Will any of the talking points of how Pelosi held this up so it would give Biden an advantage.... this could be interesting. Or is it just Political talking points BS.

6. How long will it last... will they just dismiss, do an aquital or a full blown trial with witnesses and what not.

Just some things to watch and see how this goes.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Wondering about #2 as well.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The republicans should be able to call him as a witness, but then he would have to recuse himself as manager of the house prosecution.
I don't know if I want them to dismiss it. Make those idiots running for the democrat nomination sit there for a couple of months listening to the bs the house put forward.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Anyone notice how quickly Pelosi decided to submit the impeachment after the Senate threatened to dismiss it if not received within 25 days. They should have made that threat a week after the house voted.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I honestly thing that Pelosi and others pick the timing to do things to try and hurt Trump.

They did the "signing" and "vote" on the day he was meeting with China and doing a trade deal.

They did other "announcements" when he was meeting with NK

they did another "announcement" when he was in Paris and what not.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn is asking that the Current Senators who are running for nomination should recuse themselves from the Impeachment and not have a vote.

Reason.... They would be possibly using their political power to sway an election or an opponent. Same thing Trump is getting accused of.

I have brought this all up before as well. It is interesting what will happen. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Some interesting stuff coming out about the guy with more "info"... Lev Parnas..

The Foreign Minister of Ukraine stated he has never talked to him (Lev) and doesn't trust anything coming out of his mouth.

So I am not saying anything what Parnas is producing or stating isn't true. But when one party says they never talked to him... one is lying and one isn't. With Parnas track record people might be skeptical of him. But again... nothing is yet proven. Who knows much of this could already be in the "Schiff files" that was done behind closed doors.... or it might not have been. It is the media running with it now.

But just somethings to keep tabs on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know Chuck the democrats have been so full of Schiff I don't believe anything they say anymore. Now until they prove it everything is a lie to me. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore. If they lie a dozen times why should I think they have the capability of telling the truth? I think they are demented and incapable of truth. One thing I am sure they are lying about is that AT Barr was involved with the Ukraine scheme.

Evidently democrats didn't have parents that told them the story about the little boy that cried wolf. What was it the little elied twice and the third time when the wolf come no one believed him. The democrats have lied so many times I have lost track.

Off subject, but my wife was just looking on facebook and one of the news things is Minnesota teacher of the year kneeled in protest at a championship football game.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... er-reports

An article talking about how Parnas is now saying he never talked directly to Trump as was reported by some in the media.

So things might be starting to unravel about the new "BOMBSHELL" evidence.

Also I saw interviews from Schiff back in Nov. stating that they can't "confirm" or "Deny" what parnas is stating and that everything Parnas is stating might not be accuracte. So Schiff himself back in Nov. stated Parnas might not be that reliable.

So again just more things to keep tabs on when you hear the media screaming about this new "bombshell" stuff. Schiff had it back in Nov. Plus wasn't too "excited" about it.

This is kind of shaping up to be another Avanati type situation. Media jumps all over it and then it slowly starts to unravel. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I don't know Chuck the democrats have been so full of Schiff I don't believe anything they say anymore. Now until they prove it everything is a lie to me. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore. If they lie a dozen times why should I think they have the capability of telling the truth? I think they are demented and incapable of truth. One thing I am sure they are lying about is that AT Barr was involved with the Ukraine scheme.
> 
> Evidently democrats didn't have parents that told them the story about the little boy that cried wolf. What was it the little elied twice and the third time when the wolf come no one believed him. The democrats have lied so many times I have lost track.
> 
> Off subject, but my wife was just looking on facebook and one of the news things is Minnesota teacher of the year kneeled in protest at a championship football game.


Wow......you are totally describing the Trump Clown Prince in the Whitehouse.....

"Don't believe anything he says anymore. Has to prove it because everything is a lie. Doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore. I think the guy is demented and incapable of telling the truth.....Yet the Republican lemmings continue following over the cliff. uke: uke:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Uh ohhhh, looks like Ken missed his butt hurt meds today.... :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

speckline said:


> Uh ohhhh, looks like Ken missed his butt hurt meds today.... :beer:


Nah.....I haven't posted much lately.With the Senate finally going to hear the impeachment I couldn't resist. Time to start narrowing down the Democrats pick to run against the Clown Prince in the fall. :beer:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

We miss ya :thumb:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

speckline said:


> We miss ya :thumb:


You mean there wasn't anyone around to beat up on?? :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Time to start narrowing down the Democrats pick


Narrow down? How do you narrow down from zero? Buttgieg can't run a town and didnt score well at all. I think he only beat Pocahontas , and she only made 7%. The head of the Biden crime family would have done better if he could complete a sentence. It's odd how conservative billionaire are bad, but liberal ones are good. That double standard will not help the one running because like me no one can remember his name. Klobacar brought up some interesting point, but like the rest has no clue what to do. 2020 is the most dismal I have seen for democrats in my lifetime. Who knows though since so many liberals who will vote have more respect for terrorists than our president, and more respect for Iran than the United States. They should all be on Homelands watch list.

Ooops did I forget the self avowed socialist? The fight will be between him and Biden. A choice of crooked or crazy.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

And they will end up with an old white male millionaire who lies. Oh the humanity!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 said:


> And they will end up with an old white male millionaire who lies. Oh the humanity!!!


 No matter who they pick they get a liar. The only difference is millionaire or billionaire.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> north1 said:
> 
> 
> > And they will end up with an old white male millionaire who lies. Oh the humanity!!!
> ...


What a choice that would make...."no matter who we pick we will have another liar." Trump lies so much you can't seperate the wheat from the chaff. uke: uke:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

IMHO when Trump lies it is to inflate his ego. Doesn't make it right. However; when the left lies it usually is to the detriment of the citizenry. Like you can keep your plan and your doctor. We want gun laws like registration, we aren't going to confiscate your guns. Or we would never dream of aborting children past such an such a stage. We don't sell aborted body parts. Many more instances to list than time. For all his faults if you follow closely Trump has pretty much done everything he said he would.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For years I have debated with liberals that the democrats want the guns. Those who vote Democrat say their candidates don't want that. Are they gullible, or do they simply lie too? I suspect they only care about the type of gun they have. I often hear them say you need no more than a shotgun. Most don't like handguns, most don't like semiauto, most don't like silencers even though you never hear of them used in a crime outside of Hollywood films, some don't even like scopes rifles. They don't like black rifles even though that has nothing to do with lethality. They don't like pistol grips even though that has nothing to do with lethality. They don't like full metal jacket bullets because they penetrate to much and are cop killers. They don't like hollow point bullets because they create large wounds. If you ask them what they don't like there is nothing left. Then when you do run into one that hunts and ask them what they don't like it's miraculously everything except exactly what they own.

When it comes to abortion even Hitler's holocost can t hold a candle to the American liberals thirst for infant blood.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump made 81 false claims last week. That is tied for the fifth-highest total in the last 27 weeks. Same old, same old. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

It was a batch of dishonesty. Among other things, Trump took unearned credit for both the Ethiopia-Eritrea peace agreement and for the drop in the US cancer death rate, absurdly claimed that NATO "had no money" before his presidency, wrongly denied that his golf excursions cost taxpayers any money, and repeated his usual varied inaccuracies about impeachment, immigration and the nuclear agreement with Iran.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

At least there are 2 Republican Senators who are not willing to blindly follow Trump over the cliff. They want to hear testimony before deciding on whether to impeach Trump...... Lisa Merkowski and Susan Collins. :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Just question,
Why didn't the house of representatives subpoena those witnesses in their impeachment inquiry when they had FULL CONTROL of the direction and outcome. But now they now want those witnesses subpoenaed by the Senate and claim if the Senate doesn't subpoena them, then they are hiding something..... :withstupid:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

First the witnesses were not known then....But mostly the Clown Prince told EVERYONE not to obey the subpoenas.

How could the House hear any testimony if all witnesses refused to testify? They should have been told either testify or go to jail.:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

It's not the senates job to to retry the case. Never has been. Never was during the Clinton impeachment. Their job is to review evidence from the House of Representatives hearings and vote. That's it.

Obama was just as much of a pathological liar as anyone.

1. Stated in a 2007 speech in Selma, Alabama "Selma got me born". He was born in 1961 and the protests in Selma, Alabama occurred in 1965.

2. In a 2012 speech he stated there has never been a better friend of Israel in the White House. This after he asked G8 nations to fund The Arab Spring countries who were planning attacks on Israel.

3. In May 2011 Obama stated the fence between America and Mexico was "basically done". His own Department of Homeland Security stated only 5% had been completed.

4. Obama emphatically stated abortions would not be publicly funded under Obamacare. His own department of health and human services came out and said this was unequivocally false.

5. In April of 2009 Obama stated he "saved or created over 150,000 jobs". The associated press unbelievably called him out on the lie. His own Bureau of Labor and Statistics stated there was a loss of 1.2 million jobs along with the creation of approximately 150,000.

I could sit here and type Obama lies all day long. Probably match them with Trump, Bush, Clinton you name it. None of them are right. However; the ones that have negatively affected my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seem to mostly emanate from the leaders of the left. I realize others disagree. Just how I see it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> First the witnesses were not known then....But mostly the Clown Prince told EVERYONE not to obey the subpoenas.
> 
> How could the House hear any testimony if all witnesses refused to testify? They should have been told either testify or go to jail.:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


It's nearly sure the witnesses were know, just like Schiff knows who the whistleblower is. They were held back as a strategy to deceive the gullible. Deception takes many forms besides straight out lies. They were held back so they could cry about not getting witnesses. If they want their witnesses then we can include the Bidens also.

Second they need not testify or go to jail. You think this way Ken because you still don't understand executive privilege. If they really wanted those witnesses they only needed to go to the Supreme Court. Executive privilege can be overcome by going through the courts. If they didn't go to the court they were lying about wanting them. Their excuse was it takes to long, but then Pelosi held up the articles for a month, which exposes the lie for anyone willing to be logical and honest.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

From what we've heard so far the witnesses the dems want the senate to call have no more direct knowledge or actual witness to the crime trump is accused of. Just more speculation and here-say. I speculate the reason the house didn't force those subpoenaed to testify is that they didn't have compelling evidence that they knew anything, which the court may have required to enforce those subpoenas. The dems were playing a bluff and got called. The dems are tossing hail Mary's in hopes they might turn something that changes the game.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In the house witnessed were allowed opening remarks. In opening remarks they were not under oath. Then during testimony they were asked if they actually heard what they stated in their opening statements, and they said "it was my assumptions". They actually had nothing, but guess what was reported on? The media based their news on the opening remarks, not their testimony under oath. Why were things done this way? Deception to sway public opinion is why. People who didn't actually watch it like I did based their opinions on deception and ignorance.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> First the witnesses were not known then....But mostly the Clown Prince told EVERYONE not to obey the subpoenas.
> 
> How could the House hear any testimony if all witnesses refused to testify? They should have been told either testify or go to jail.:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


At least one was known - Bolton. 
Trump claimed executive privilege for several in, or close, to his administration, which is fully within his rights to do.
If the Legislative Branch of Government wanted them bad enough, THEN, they are required by law to contest the Executive Branch of Government's executive privilege to the Judicial Branch for determination. The Supreme Court would then hear the case and rule on the executive privilege and either grant the executive privilege to the President or deny it and give the House the authority to compel the witness to testify. This is how the law works.
If witnesses continue to refuse to testify, the the full teeth of the law can be applied.
THE DUMBORATS DIDN'T REQUEST THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON IT. Instead, they wanted to "hurry" it through the House for a vote to impeach. Just so nancy could sit on the articles for a month.
Now they are trying to coerce the Senate to do their job by making statements like "why not call witnesses, what are you trying to hide..."
Truly a farce by the left!


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

The democrats are pulling a page out of the manual they used in the kavanaugh hearings. House majority leader Steny Hoyer a democrat from Maryland actually stated Trump was afforded "every opportunity to come and prove his innocence". My question is are these people ignorant or evil? That's not how our justice system works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Why do they have such a hard time grasping this fundamental concept? Or is it because it only applies to a certain segment of the population....namely democrats?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> My question is are these people ignorant or evil?


 Evil


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > My question is are these people ignorant or evil?
> 
> 
> Evil


Both


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Ignorant shamelessly following the Evil.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

Welcome back to the discussion and we did miss you commenting. :beer:

#1. All elected officials LIE.... trump is an egotistical ***. It is why he keeps lying... he wants to "be the best" or "he is the greatest", etc. It is why his lie about the cancer was so stupid. He did correct his statement and went back on it. Unlike much of the media... oke:

#2.... We all have gone over and over about the subpoena's and court rules. It is just something the Dem's want to keep saying and they think it will become true. Honestly I am glad it came forward about all of this because it gave everyone a "refresher" on high school civics so people will remember. It also is getting people back learning about the government so hopefully we don't have as many sheep just following.... but that is yet to be determined (the MAGA's and the HATE TRUMP crowds seem to cut down my hope.) oke:

#3. It isn't the job of the Senate to dig up more evidence. I find it crazy that many in the House are screaming for this. The reason is if the Articles of Impeachment were such "evident" and needed to be passed..... they why do you need more evidence? Because you had enough to vote for it the first time. It there was enough evidence right away to prove guilt you shouldn't need more.... correct? So that in itself should show how this is such a hack job and flimsy at best.... I would be saying if the roles were reversed too. So to be honest the only people who should be crying for "Witnesses" is the President and Republicans.... because they were denied many and it is for defense purposes. (see below)

#4. Also the topic of "witnesses".... The House should have let more witnesses in that the Republicans wanted. They didn't get a single one unless it was also on the Dem's list. Also the Dem's didn't let Trump have his counsel present during most of this whole "investigation". So they were not looking for the whole truth. I know everyone is screaming for "BIDENS" need to testify... well I am torn on this. They are at the heart of the matter but their are better witnesses that should be called in for "defense". Honestly I think the main people who need to testify is Schiff himself. Because he did the investigation.... he needs to back up his work under oath. He needs to be asked "WHY' didn't he allow other witnesses that the Republicans wanted called? He needs to be asked about his or his staffs contact with the Whistle Blower. Because this is all material to the findings and conclusions. It is like asking a police officer who investigated the crimes....how did you collect the evidence and was it tampered.... did you help or intimidate a "witness" (WB)&#8230;. Did you help form the "witness' testimony.... and so forth.

#5. The most scary part is everyone saying.... PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. That is scary that they are believing in this. It goes against every single thing about our judicial system and beliefs as a country. Like others have stated it is a play out of the same playbook they tried with Kavanaugh. Which is scary if you ask me....because it is showing what direction people are thinking. :bop:

But it will be interesting how all of this goes.

MC Connell was an idiot when he made the comments about "impartial". He should have just said... we will follow the same rules as the Senate did with the Clinton impeachment. Which is what is seems like now is going to happen. But this way you can say this was how it was done then and this is how it is done now. Because the Dem's ran that one and this way if they complain about anything you can say we followed your blueprint back then. So if you are saying it is wrong you are saying you did it wrong back then. :bop:

Also everyone is forgetting or not wanting to mention.... Clinton wasn't brought up on charges because of his sexual relationship with Monica..... it was he LIED UNDER OATH. Which back then the Dem's didn't think was a big issue. So them calling out all of Trumps "lies" is kind of hypocritical. Trump has YET to lie under oath. He is just a big blowhard ego maniac. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > My question is are these people ignorant or evil?
> ...


 I think your right. I don't know how many times liberals have told me what they listen to and what they don't listen to. Most of them hate FOX so they proudly admit they don't watch FOX. Isn't that being proud of your ignorance? Watch it all or don't come off as an informed person.

Chuck I think your spot on. I don't think you could drive that into a liberal head with a four pound hammer. Especially the idea that your innocent until proven guilty. They don't respect democracy, our military or law enforcement, and certainly not our legal system. They are so superior they need only speak innocent or guilty.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

It will be interesting on what comes of all of this.

Because not matter if you are Dem or Republican.... We still don't have all the info. We are getting it spoon fed to us with out knowing everything that was done in the House investigation.

I am not talking about "new" evidence... I am saying what has happened in the House investigation. All the public got in the beginning was "leaks" by Dem's and Schiff running out doing "pressers".... then that afternoon you would have the Republicans come out and say.... "What chairman Schiff" or "what was leaked out" wasn't the whole truth.... and that was pretty much it. Then when we had the public hearings.... again you would have the opening statements.... then Dem's running out or the media running with what the opening statement was. Then if you waited until the end of the hearing for that day.... things changed. The opening statement wasn't so "damning" and what not. Plus we didn't hear from any Republican witnesses.... BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T GET ANY. So again the Republican witnesses could have been crossed examined and game more rope to Trump to hang himself. But we will never know because it wasn't allowed. oke:

So it will be interesting what happens with all of this. Will there be new witnesses. Will some of the old ones have to testify again... will Schiff actually testify about his report. Will we hear the words come from him under oath? Will the Bidens testify... will this all blow up and show Trump guilty beyond a doubt? Who knows....

But I honestly glad I read today that there is a "nuke" option for this whole trial. What I have kind of read that is if it turns into a circus this "option" can be engaged and it will end the whole thing. Not a lot of details out on this as of yet... but will be interesting once the details are out to see exactly what that "nuke" option is. It honestly could be a partisan BS move... or it could be something to keep trials and what not going forward more civil. We don't need another Kavanaugh fiasco to happen.... where all people did was "preach" and "scream".... this was all sides did this. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... dal-101355

Interesting Twist happening....

The Dem's impeachment "Managers" stated that Trumps lawyer Cipollone cant be his lawyer because he has "material" fact witness to the whole scandal and could make this not a "fair trial". They want him to disclose any info, contact, etc. he had with anyone. Or if he any connection or evidence from those meeting that will be used during this trial. They want this so they can see if any ethical violations or bias happened.



> "[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President's legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases," they write.


So will this mean Schiff can't be a manager? Does this mean Schiff needs to disclose all of his contact or his staffs contact with the WB? Because he is material fact witness because he did the investigation and wrote the report and also him or his staff had contact with the Whistle Blower. *Isn't this exactly what the Republicans want Schiff to do? They are asking the same thing with Cipollone... oke: oke: *

Ken... I don't mean to brow beat you... but like I mentioned... isn't this exactly what Republicans want from Schiff... the same stuff they are asking or saying about Cipollone. Please can you see the hypocrisy how one person needs to do one thing but the other is "absolved".

Is this opening the door for Schiff to either be kicked off the "team of managers" or setting himself up to be called as a witness if they allow witnesses? Or he needs to disclose all of this contacts or it brings in his or his staffs contact with the WB? His whole process of the investigation and what not comes into question and play....ie: ethics violations, procedural violations, conflicts, Biases, etc. Let alone Nadler when he ran on becoming committee chair as "I am the best to impeach the President". Isn't that Biases, conflicts, etc.

I know if I was the lawyers for the President... I would take this letter and see if you could use it for defense and show bias. It is what criminal lawyers do when defending murderers... they show bias by the investigator, witnesses, etc.

Just something to watch going forward.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now you are hearing the Dem's scream "COVER UP". They say that the time line McConnel is setting up is trying to "cover up" because it could go into the night and not get the "press coverage" or coverage for the people to see.

Well here is my take.

1. I do agree that McConnel is trying to push this to be something fast. The timeline how seems a bit fast but it.. what I mean by that is by a day or two. It doesn't need to be drug out for weeks upon weeks. But a week to present and defend wouldn't be out of line. The 48 hrs or what ever seems rushed. Especially if we want all of the facts.

2. The calling of witness I have gone over before... I agree and disagree with it. If the case is strong and the investigation was strong... then why do you need witness.... the report says it all. The people who should be screaming for witnesses is the Republicans because they got none in the investigation. :bop:

3. Now on the "cover up".... So they scream cover up now. What about the investigation... done behind closed doors, in a basement, no republican witnesses, no Schiff testifying about his report under oath, not allowing people who had the right to sit in on the meetings/investigation, gaveling down questioning, not allowing certain questions to be asked or allowed, etc. Isn't this the exact same process that happened in the investigation.... "behind closed doors" or "not in the public eye". So if one was ok how can this not be ok?

Again.... I think they should have it a little longer than what is set up now. But I understand how McConnel doesn't want to drag it out. He wants to "get back to work" in the senate and put this all behind our nation. And yes I know people will say he is a do nothing Senate.... but they have confirmed many judges, passed the USMCA and a few other bills. Hopefully they will get to work on some of the Perscription Drug bills. :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

More on the "cover up" angle....

Nadler comes out and says that even talking about not having witnesses is proving a "cover up"...

1. Nadler and Schiff denied witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call that were not on the Dems list.... So they actually DENIED MATERIAL WITNESSES. (yes that needed to be in caps). Because they actually denied witnesses... right now all that is happening is debate on if to allow witnesses. So who should be accused of covering up stuff or pushing a narrative if they actually denied witness testimony. oke:

2. during the first 71 days of the investigation (I think it lasted less than 80 days) Schiff didn't allow any republican witnesses, the president to have counsel present during the depositions or hearings held in a basement behind closed doors. Who seems to be "covering up" stuff. Why are they *****ing about fairness. (also see # 1 above)

3. Just to bring up again... they could have had all of the witnesses they wanted that they are screaming about "obstruction" if they would have waited for the courts to decide. But yet they rushed it and almost all the dems were in step with the "findings" to say impeachment is valid and strong. Yet now they need more time, evidence, witnesses, etc. If it was so strong to pass and not be called a partisan "hack job" then why you need more and more when the articles were urgent and a must less than 45 days ago?

So like I have mentioned over and over. This all should scare anyone who is a citizen. Because the innocent until proven guilty is at play here. It is setting up precedents for future government workers. Since I hate to say it most of the congressmen and women will be re-elected it happens. Congress is a pretty safe job once you get elected most of them can stay as long as they wish because people just keep voting the same. Sad but true. THis is no matter what side of the spectrum you are on. Just look how most "incumbents" get re-elected. Just saying.... That is why this is scary because it is setting up BS in the future. Again not a Dem's vs Rep thing I am talking about. I am saying just switch the party around... Dem pres and Rep house. This whole process is showing what others in the future can do or could try and do. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The democrats ate set on destroying this nation, and this is as good as any way. Remember Obama saying he would fundamentally change this nation? They thought they had it done. but to their horror Trump is undoing it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

McConnel has eased some of the "rules".

1. He added another day for statements.

2. He is allowing house evidence to be submitted. 
- I am not sure if it is any "new" evidence or if it is just the stuff they gathered previously. If it is the previous stuff I would hoped he would allow it. It is apart of the why the articles were drawn up and voted on.

- Will this be some evidence that is in the SCIF that the Republicans still haven't been allowed to see?

To me this is how it should be done. Still am torn between witnesses. But again all and every witness should be called... not cherry picked by either side. So if the Dem's want Rudy, Bolton, etc. The Rep should get Schiff, Whistle Blower, Bidens, etc. If you let one... you must let all. :bop: But again do these "witnesses" have anything to do with the articles that were drawn up and voted on... some do... others don't. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)




----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

That is one of the funniest ones I have seen...

and sad to say is pretty accurate.

I saw a Tweet from Rep. Meadows.... he basically said exactly what many of us have been talking about.



> Mark Meadows‏Verified account @RepMarkMeadows · 14h14 hours ago
> Democrats, the impeachment prosecutors, basically spent the entire day complaining about info they want but don't have. Folks:
> 
> 1) They've ALREADY passed articles.
> ...


Let we have said.... if the case is bullet proof or passed the articles. Why do you need more evidence and more evidence. Everyone who voted for the Articles of impeachment thought there was enough evidence to convict. Did they just vote because of party pressure, because they thought of party lines, etc. Also they didn't want to wait to see how the court played out with the challenges.

Now I will agree with something Schiff said yesterday (well in theory). He stated something along the lines that no matter who is in control of the house, senate, presidency..... they might do something wrong that needs to be looked at or investigated. Do we want them running to the courts or not co-operating? I agree... but here is the big BUT..... They should have let the courts decide. Then we as a country have something in-place that all judges will look at and possibly abide by.

It is like if someone wanted to segregate schools... judge would throw out the case siting Brown vs the Board of Ed. Then boom.... they people have to co-operate. If they would have just taken their time it could be a whole different ball game right now. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Some other stuff coming to light....

The House Managers are "misquoting" and "misleading"

Here is an article from Politico (so always take with a grain of salt)&#8230;

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832

I will pull a "Schiff" and paraphrase the article...(but mine will be more accurate :beer: )

Schiff stated in his letter that Parnas was trying to set up a meeting for Rudy/Trump with a Mr. Z....

Well in another document (word doc) Parnas talks about setting up a meeting with the founder of Burisma a Mr. Zlochvesky&#8230; not Zelensky. So could possible be a big difference.... so no need for "new" evidence. Because it is meeting with a private company founder.... not Ukraine leader. :bop:

Then another "misleading" is Manager Crow talks about how some Ukrainian soldiers died because aid was "held".... the actual aid being held was FUTURE AID. So that shouldn't have had any impact on the soldiers fighting or operating now.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So I have been listening to bits and pieces of the opening of this.

1. Schiff keeps talking about RUSSIA Collusion.... isn't this about Ukraine?

2. He keeps talking about quid pro quo/bribery.... how come those are not in the articles of impeachment??
- BTW he doesn't talk about how two key witnesses (he shows the vids but not this part) said NO QUID PRO QUO.

Anyways... why isn't he talking about the actual articles of impeachment. Obstruction and Abuse of Power. That is what this is about. Not the Mueller investigation (it flopped) showed no collusion. So Russia shouldn't even be brought up. The "quid pro quo"... well the first hand witnesses for the Dem's even stated on record.... NO QUID PRO QUO... it was there "interpretation".... not actual facts. They assumed.... not were told. So why is Schiff talking about this stuff. It isn't proving the case for impeachment.

BTW.... Nadler last night called the whole Senate or anyone who voted against what they wanted "apart of a cover up" or "corrupt". Hmmmmm&#8230;. how about Warren who already has stated she is going to impeach Trump... this was before the Trial even happened. Like I mentioned before.... the Senators running or who did run for the nomination and talked in the debates that they WOULD impeach with out even hearing the Trial should be removed or not allowed to vote. It is a biased jury with them in it. They have a predetermined outcome without hearing any facts. :bop:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Watched the opening statements from the Trump team. Very methodically and clearly refuted the dumboRats three day repeating nonsense in only three hours or so. Should be an interesting Monday.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Totally agree with you on this. It took Trumps team 3 hours and the Dem's to keep repeating and repeating for 3 days. I think they were under the old saying that the more you repeat something it must become true...JUST LIKE THE MEDIA. oke:

But today should be interesting what comes out of it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now we have the "Bolton" book bombshell that is being leaked by the NYTs.

Ok.... a couple of takes.

1. He is trying to sell a book. (remember all the other book bombshells... duds)

2. Word on the street is the leaker is Lt. Vindermans brother who was assigned to "review" the facts in the book.... so did he selectively leak them?? THE BOOK IS IN THE DRAFT STAGE.... oke:

3. In the book did Bolton talk about other issues that would undercut the "leak" info the NYT is letting out...ie: Rampant corruption that needed to be investigated... etc. BTW.... the book is in DRAFT STATE oke:

4. Was it dealing with past corruption....ie: 2016 stuff not 2020 stuff. Again this is a huge difference if you ask me because of the whole Mueller report and testimony talked about Ukraine in 2016. But Mueller didn't dig into it because "wasn't in the scope of his investigation".

We don't know all or any of this as of yet. It is something to take in strides and wait for it to play out. But if it is like anything else dealing with a "book".... they are half truths and are just to ring up "sales". :bop:

EDIT:

THE BOOK IS STILL IN THE DRAFT STAGE.... so going thru the proper channels as to what can be told or not told...ie: Classified stuff when it comes to government. So again take it all with a grain of salt. Also the same "agent" is the one who dealt with Comey and his book. Just saying what is being talked about. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

More on the Bolton "bombshell" NYT article...

The author is back pedaling fast on it. Yes the author of the article that was supposed to be a "bombshell".

Interesting.... maybe the CNN lawsuit is starting to make journalists a little worried about not vetting what they report??

Tweets from the author...



> Bolton left the White House on terrible terms and was not always seen as a reliable narrator by colleagues. The he said/he said of him versus Trump on tying the aid to investigations is testing that in a pronounced way.





> Bolton also has the ability to speak publicly in some way and has chosen not to so far - something White House officials have noted as they point to the fact that he got a book deal and say he wants to boost sales.


So the author of the article that has Shummer and others up in arms right now is back pedaling. Maybe they shouldn't get evidence from the "Newspapers" or "journalists". What was the other BOMBSHELL that was debunked or who was the person who stated they got the "info" from the Post or NYT's.... and then all of it was false.

Lets just see how this completely plays out... but as of now it is unravelling quicker than a sock caught on a nail.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bombshell bombshell bombshell, everything is a bombshell. What is this about number 30 now? I guess they will keep saying it as long as there is anyone foolish enough to believe them ------ again. Bull st bull st bull st.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see Iowa is swinging to Burnie. With Biden in video showcasing his corruption it's little wonder. Strange how things turn out. He may have been the only one with half a chance of defeating Trump, but his ego and desire to shkscasd his political muscle will be his undoing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I was watching some clips on youtube about this whole Bolton thing. It was funny someone on Fox mentioned that everyday after the Dem's got done speaking to the Senate there will be "leaks" and "bombshells" coming out. Then BAM...&#8230; this Bolton stuff.

Also this Bolton stuff isn't any direct quotes (yet)&#8230;. it is someone who read the draft told someone who told someone and they leaked it to the NYT's. So as of now it isn't a direct quote or anything.

This is the exact same play that was tried with Bret Kavanaugh.

History will repeats itself if you let it.... and we just did. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This is the exact same play that was tried with Bret Kavanaugh.


 That did give me hope though. The democrats are morally corrupt, but the republicans are gutless. I think they seen how Trump handled things and decided to fight for a change. I hope they keep it up. It's time to fight these crazed liars.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Over my lunch hour I was watching some of the "coverage" and one ABC report said the Dem's think they only need 1 more person to get the Senate to have some witnesses.

Which again I am torn on.

1. It will show light on this whole issue or how Dem's want it one sided.

- If they don't allow all witnesses it will show how it is one sided for sure. If we can hear from them all...ie: Bolton, Schiff, WB, etc. It will shed light on all of this and not be a partisan hack job.

2. It will drag this out for another 3 months or so.

3. It will set a precedence that the House wont have to do a good job of impeachment inquiries and let the Senate "clean" it up. So more BS impeachments are in our future.... NO MATTER WHAT SIDE YOU ARE ON... this is what our political future looks like.

That is why I am torn. I would rather see a quick guilty, dismissal, or not guilty. To shut this theatrical BS down. Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing a NOT GUILTY and with Roberts saying... House didn't do a good enough job and the articles are BS. Then order them to do a better job of investigation and what not. Hopefully that would help set a new standard on the process and not the bleak one I foresee.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Schummer just rejected the idea of reading Bolton manuscript in a SCIF. Which is exactly how the whole investigation happened was in SCIF.

He stated.... Why review it in a SCIF unless you got something to hide?

So did the whole investigation by Schiff had something to hide? They are cutting their own throats on stuff. oke:

But before Bolton testifies I think they should read the Manuscript. Because again we are only getting third hand knowledge (LEAK) in a news story. You don't know if a paragraph before or after the "leaked" statements defends, incriminates, etc. Maybe read the book before you drag out this trial for months.... or even cut their own throats more with other possible witnesses... ie: Bidens, Schiff, etc.

Just saying maybe before flying off the handle look at evidence and not a "NEWS article". We all know how all the media is trying to paint different pictures of what happened. :bop:

Here is what one of Trumps lawyers stated...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Which he does do a good job of talking about how Barr even rejects what is getting reported by the NYT. But like I mentioned maybe they should read it because it could be taken out of context or be something to sell books. But baby steps.

Remember Schiff pulled his subpoena for Bolton during the investigation. Why... not to allow due process if he wanted to challenge it? Or was the info he got from all the other "witnesses" saying Bolton wouldn't change what he already had? We don't know... Schiff is the only one who could answer those questions for us.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a good one....

Schiff said on the Senate floor that they cant PROVE his case with out the "new" evidence that they don't even have yet. (he wants Bolton to testify).

SO WHY ARE WE AT THIS POINT?

Shouldn't we still be in the investigation aspect of this? What about all the Democratic people in the House who voted YES on the articles of impeachment? Did they vote because of solid evidence? Did they vote because the evidence was overwhelming and "damning".

This should show the world how this was a hack job.... period. Because if the "managers" who are supposed to present a case say.... we need more evidence to "prove" our case. Which they don't even know what the evidence is yet. Shows you how flimsy it is. We shouldn't be at this point at all. It should still be in the investigation stage... if at all.

Please.... someone try and defend this. Like I stated.... when the people pushing for the case just admitted they need more "evidence" to "prove" the case.... should the case even be in court? It is like me saying XZY killed Jimmy Hoffa..... but let me gather more evidence first.... because I don't have a case yet. But I want XYZ to be drug thru the mud and go thru trial while I still try to get evidence. It is completely backwards...&#8230; and like I have stated over and over.... THIS SHOULD SCARE EVERYONE.... because it is setting the new "standard" or it shows you how people making laws think. Again the last statement isn't a Dem vs Rep thing. It is citizens vs government. It shows you how government thinks they can over reach and do what they want. :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Isn't the charge that Trump used the threat of withholding aide if Bidens were not investigated for personal gain? So far the only thing being released is that Trump told Bolton his plan to leverage Ukraine but mentions nothing about it being for Trumps personal gain which is really where Dems claim the issue is. So what does or would this change?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

what is crazy about this whole Bolton issue is that nobody has read the manuscript/draft. They are going off of a leaked source and that person wrote the article. So it is the telephone game all over again.

Yet out there are interviews of Bolton talking with press about meeting with Ukraine, up coming meetings, no pressure, no mention of investigations, etc. There are interviews out there where Schiff talks about credibility issues with Bolton... there is on the senate floor Obama question Bolton about his credibility issues. But now his book or manuscript that nobody has read or seen is gospel. I am not saying it is incorrect or BS or anything like that because I haven't read it, seen what it contains, etc. But it is crazy now people are all excited about him.

Now another tidbit of the NY-D Congressman who stated that Bolton "over a year ago" told him that he thought things were fishy with Trump and Ukraine.... A YEAR AGO but didn't bring it to the fore front until now. Then to top that off... that letter the congressman wrote was over a week ago but the House managers didn't release it until just now. It is totally Kavanaugh all over again. "leak" stuff when you are down to try and help bring you back up.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The Dems are like a prosecutor who has 10 charges against someone but a shaky case so only brings one at a time to court in case he doesn't have enough to get a conviction so he can keep trying again and again...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One of the house managers yesterday made a comment along the lines of this....

Getting the Dossier (foreign) help is ok... BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FOR. It isn't the same as what they are accusing Trump of doing.

Makes sense doesn't. uke:

Like I have stated before everyone needs to ask themselves.... If it wasn't the name "biden" surrounding this would we even be here? Because that just shows you that if you wont want to be "investigated" just go sign up to run for president.... or that is the thinking of the House managers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> or that is the thinking of the House managers.


 Come on now Chuck don't use the word thinking and house managers in the same sentence. :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I just read that now Lindsay Graham is talking about investigating Schiff.

Which you will see that I was Ok and fine with them investigating Trump.... the Mueller probe was ok... but then it drug on and on and on... and nothing. This Ukrainian issue when it first broke didn't look good at all to be honest... but again after simple investigation it showed not that big of deal... IMHO. Because look how week the case for impeachment was, look how "bribery" wasn't at all in the articles of impeachment. It was the fact that Trump and his team wanted to go to court on some doc's and testimony stuff. Was the main issue and the fact that Biden was caught in the middle of all of this. Like I keep saying.... If Biden's name or any one running for president's name wasn't in this mess. Would we even be talking about it. Because what came to light is how the previous administration thought the whole Biden/Burisma needed to be looked into for corruption.... plus other missing money in the Ukraine. So it was on the radar for awhile.

But back to what I stated about Graham and Schiff.... I hope it does get investigated on how the whole Ukraine thing got started, Schiffs role (if any) gets investigated, and the process of the investigation by Schiff. Because going forward IF Schiff's investigation comes out it was a total political HACK job... people need to be held accountable so we don't have this happen in the future for any party. What I mean is if Schiff can show that all the stuff he did by suppressing the questioning by the Republicans was to make sure WB is safe... I can agree with him on that. If he can show that not letting the Republicans have any witnesses they wanted called was to protect national security or the WB... then again I am fine with that. But if he can't show this.... he needs to be held accountable and hate to say it terminated from his job. Because then he would be doing the exact same thing he is saying the president is doing and in his mind should be impeached.... yet HE DID DO IT for political bias. :bop:

But again lets let everything play out. We even have to wait to see how the Senate vote goes. Trump still could be impeached... we don't know yet.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

In a nutshell:


----------

