List of Trump's crimes?

[JimL]

At the end of the day, if Republicans decide to protect their criminals, they have the votes in the senate to do it. It will be up to US voters at the next election to vote out the criminals and those protecting the criminals.

That looks like the direction we're headed in. Even republicans, the constituents as well as their Reps in Congress, know that Trump is guilty of Impeacable offenses, but the constituents don't want to believe it, so, in their own minds, they rationalize away the obvious offenses. In truth they know, but they just can't admit that truth to themselves. Their elected Reps know as well, but they just don't care, because what's most important to them, over all else, is not the rule of law, not democracy, not their country or the Constitution, which they took an oath to protect and serve, but what's important to them is their party and their power, and so in defense of that they have little choice but to defend the corruption, to defend the corrupt leader of that party, to lie to their constituents about him and about his corrupt behavior, his abuses of power. So the Senate will probably throw the country under the bus, if you will, and refuse to convict Trump. The countries only hope then, and really the democratic worlds only hope then, is that of the American people, that they wake from their stupor and oust this undemocratic, lawless, and in my opinion treasonous, wannabe dictator and allow the law to deal with him thenceforth.

[Teallaura]

That looks like the direction we're headed in. Even republicans, the constituents as well as their Reps in Congress, know that Trump is guilty of Impeacable offenses, but the constituents don't want to believe it, so, in their own minds, they rationalize away the obvious offenses. In truth they know, but they just can't admit that truth to themselves. Their elected Reps know as well, but they just don't care, because what's most important to them, over all else, is not the rule of law, not democracy, not their country or the Constitution, which they took an oath to protect and serve, but what's important to them is their party and their power, and so in defense of that they have little choice but to defend the corruption, to defend the corrupt leader of that party, to lie to their constituents about him and about his corrupt behavior, his abuses of power. So the Senate will probably throw the country under the bus, if you will, and refuse to convict Trump. The countries only hope then, and really the democratic worlds only hope then, is that of the American people, that they wake from their stupor and oust this undemocratic, lawless, and in my opinion treasonous, wannabe dictator and allow the law to deal with him thenceforth.

1) No, we don't. No one does.
2) You're a constituent, too. Literally.
3) Nah, we just like facts instead of tinfoil.
4) We know the whole impeachment farce is a politically motivated farce Dems don't have the guts to admit to, yep.
5) Two Dems broke ranks - evidently they didn't get the memo.
6) TDS delusions - prove one.
7) Yeah, TDS is bad for you.

[seanD]

At the end of the day, if Republicans decide to protect their criminals, they have the votes in the senate to do it. It will be up to US voters at the next election to vote out the criminals and those protecting the criminals.

They won't protect Biden, in fact, I know they won't. We'll find out that the "Biden extorted Ukraine to get Shokin fired because Shokin was lax in the investigation" mantra was a lie and cover-up, which is why I doubt it will even make it to the senate. Dems have a choice. Don't impeach and look like political arses, chasing delusional ghosts for three years to the moderates and independents, or impeach and expose Biden during the senate investigation. I think the former will happen. One way or another, it spells doom for the Dems in 2020.

[Cow Poke]

Right, the good, the ethical, the patriotic team as opposed to the bad, unethical, unpatriotic, team that you're batting for.

I'm a pitcher - I don't bat.

[Starlight]

3) Nah, we just like facts instead of tinfoil.

[Tassman]

Nobody whined about public hearings. On the contrary, Republicans jumped at the opportunity to let the public see what s sham the whole thing has been.

Far from being "a sham" the whistle-blower complaint accusing Trump of abusing his office for political gain has largely been corroborated.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/77617...ated-heres-how

[rogue06]

That looks like the direction we're headed in. Even republicans, the constituents as well as their Reps in Congress, know that Trump is guilty of Impeacable offenses, but the constituents don't want to believe it, so, in their own minds, they rationalize away the obvious offenses. In truth they know, but they just can't admit that truth to themselves. Their elected Reps know as well, but they just don't care, because what's most important to them, over all else, is not the rule of law, not democracy, not their country or the Constitution, which they took an oath to protect and serve, but what's important to them is their party and their power, and so in defense of that they have little choice but to defend the corruption, to defend the corrupt leader of that party, to lie to their constituents about him and about his corrupt behavior, his abuses of power. So the Senate will probably throw the country under the bus, if you will, and refuse to convict Trump. The countries only hope then, and really the democratic worlds only hope then, is that of the American people, that they wake from their stupor and oust this undemocratic, lawless, and in my opinion treasonous, wannabe dictator and allow the law to deal with him thenceforth.

Riiiight. Just keep telling yourself that as yet another attempt at a coup falls apart like the collusion delusion did.








Just how many hits on the bong did he take to dream this up? Maybe it was laced with PCP or something.

[rogue06]

Far from being "a sham" the whistle-blower complaint accusing Trump of abusing his office for political gain has largely been corroborated.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/77617...ated-heres-how

False. It's like saying Beowulf is true history because it happens to provide the names of some real people and places.

Trump, as Ciaramella claimed, was not obsessed with talking about Biden constantly bringing him up seven or eight times. In reality, Trump brought Biden up once and that was near the end of the conversation and almost as an afterthought.

Further, the transcript clearly shows that his claim that Trump demanded that Zelensky "dig up some dirt" on Biden if he ever wanted to get any aid is not even remotely based on reality. It simply never happened.

And Ciaramella's claim that Trump told Zelensky that the latter wouldn't get any aide unless he "[dug] up some dirt" on Biden is likewise nothing short of a falsehood. It is not even remotely based on reality being that it simply never happened.The fact that the Ukrainians never even opened up an investigation much less dug up dirt and still got their aid verifies the claim is false.

Likewise his claim that at the end of the call Trump told Zelensky not to call back until he did what Trump demanded of also never happened. Not even remotely close. In reality, Trump congratulated him on his victory.

Those are just a few of the myriad of major inaccuracies that plague the supposed whistleblower's story^[1] -- which would be more than sufficient to get him branded as being an unreliable witness that no lawyer would want to go near in any court of law. Well at least lawyers who would use him as a witness since those cross-examining him would regard him as a God send and would be chomping at the bit in anticipation of tearing him to shreds.












1. I hesitate at calling them deliberate lies only because that implies that Ciaramella had actual knowledge of the call which he did not have. All he had was second and third hand gossip.

00000000000000ab000-00aaahx5.jpg
This and whining from disgruntled employees about not being
listened to constituted over 95% of the "testimony"

[rogue06]

I'm a pitcher - I don't bat.

Only if you pitch in the National League (and even then you aren't playing an away game against an American League team).

[JimL]

Riiiight. Just keep telling yourself that as yet another attempt at a coup falls apart like the collusion delusion did.

Oh, so you belong to the coup conspiracy nutters I see. Now that explains a whole lot.






Just how many hits on the bong did he take to dream this up? Maybe it was laced with PCP or something.[/QUOTE]

[JimL]

False. It's like saying Beowulf is true history because it happens to provide the names of some real people and places.

Trump, as Ciaramella claimed, was not obsessed with talking about Biden constantly bringing him up seven or eight times. In reality, Trump brought Biden up once and that was near the end of the conversation and almost as an afterthought.

Further, the transcript clearly shows that his claim that Trump demanded that Zelensky "dig up some dirt" on Biden if he ever wanted to get any aid is not even remotely based on reality. It simply never happened.

And Ciaramella's claim that Trump told Zelensky that the latter wouldn't get any aide unless he "[dug] up some dirt" on Biden is likewise nothing short of a falsehood. It is not even remotely based on reality being that it simply never happened.The fact that the Ukrainians never even opened up an investigation much less dug up dirt and still got their aid verifies the claim is false.

Likewise his claim that at the end of the call Trump told Zelensky not to call back until he did what Trump demanded of also never happened. Not even remotely close. In reality, Trump congratulated him on his victory.

Those are just a few of the myriad of major inaccuracies that plague the supposed whistleblower's story^[1] -- which would be more than sufficient to get him branded as being an unreliable witness that no lawyer would want to go near in any court of law. Well at least lawyers who would use him as a witness since those cross-examining him would regard him as a God send and would be chomping at the bit in anticipation of tearing him to shreds.












1. I hesitate at calling them deliberate lies only because that implies that Ciaramella had actual knowledge of the call which he did not have. All he had was second and third hand gossip.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41125[/ATTACH]
This and whining from disgruntled employees about not being
listened to constituted over 95% of the "testimony"

The whistleblower complaint has been corraborated, not only by the secretly hidden away transcript of the call, but by the testimony of the all the witnesses as well. Well, all the witnesses with the exception of those witnesses that Trump blocked from testifying because he knows he's guilty. Try putting 2 and 2 together for yourself once in a while.

[rogue06]

Oh, so you belong to the coup conspiracy nutters I see. Now that explains a whole lot.

It did serve to waken you from your stupor

[rogue06]

The whistleblower complaint has been corraborated, not only by the secretly hidden away transcript of the call, but by the testimony of the all the witnesses as well. Well, all the witnesses with the exception of those witnesses that Trump blocked from testifying because he knows he's guilty. Try putting 2 and 2 together for yourself once in a while.

Most of the witnesses were nothing more than links in the gossip train who testified that they had no personal or direct knowledge but were merely passing on hear-say. And those like Sondland who were the origin of some of these "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another" grapevines had to admit that what they said was based on "presumptions," "guesses" and the like.

Please Clickinate on Imagification

Worse. Sondland even confirmed that Trump had explicitly and expressly told him that he did not want anything in exchange -- any quid pro quo. He testified that he had directly called Trump in order to find out why the aid was being delayed. "I asked the president, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’" Sondland declared. "The president responded, ‘Nothing. There is no quid pro.’"

Sondland confirmed that Trump had told him that "I want nothing. I don’t want to give them anything, and I don’t want anything from them."

This is the nature and quality of the "evidence" that you are building this house of cards upon.

[Cow Poke]

Only if you pitch in the National League (and even then you aren't playing an away game against an American League team).

Yeah, that's it!

[rogue06]

Yeah, that's it!

Actually it's the reverse of what I said. American League pitchers don't bat unless they're playing an away game against a National League team).