Trump's Russian Collusion

[Peter Brown]

This whole impeachment ‘thing’ is such a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars, and frankly will further frustrate the neverTrump crowd when it falls apart

While Pelosi and crowd have pen award ceremonies, Trump is inking USMCA. What a difference in how the two parties treat America.

[MDlaxfan76]

This whole impeachment ‘thing’ is such a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars, and frankly will further frustrate the neverTrump crowd when it falls apart

While Pelosi and crowd have pen award ceremonies, Trump is inking USMCA. What a difference in how the two parties treat America.

It's a laugher for you to suggest you have a clue about the neverTrump GOP crowd.

[foreverlax]

In a real trial they would be dismissed during the jury selection process.

[Matnum PI]

This whole impeachment ‘thing’ is such a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars...

Before Trump was POTUS, he was being pursued by the FBI for numerous improprieties. What Trump did in Atlantic City (with Russian criminal $) is just one example and this was a relatively clear example of improprieties. and, even then, pre-POTUS, this stuff was difficult to prosecute. But difficult or not, pursuing criminal activities is not a waste of tax payer's money. Now that Trump is the POTUS, it's even harder to prosecute. But this is america. We pursue criminal activities. Even if the (purported) criminal is the POTUS.

[Peter Brown]

In a real trial they would be dismissed during the jury selection process.

Chuck Schumer on CNN in 1999: “Anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box”.

[seacoaster]

In a real trial they would be dismissed during the jury selection process.

Chuck Schumer on CNN in 1999: “Anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box”.

We can play all day!!

"This business of high crimes and misdemeanors goes to the question of whether or not the person serving as president of the U.S. puts their own interest, their personal interest, ahead of public service.”

— Rep. Mike Pence,
2008.

[foreverlax]

In a real trial they would be dismissed during the jury selection process.

Chuck Schumer on CNN in 1999: “Anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box”.

You're playing that card....lot's more hypocrisy to post from your ilk if you want to play the whataboutism game.

[Peter Brown]

This whole impeachment ‘thing’ is such a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars...

Before Trump was POTUS, he was being pursued by the FBI for numerous improprieties. What Trump did in Atlantic City (with Russian criminal $) is just one example and this was a relatively clear example of improprieties. and, even then, pre-POTUS, this stuff was difficult to prosecute. But difficult or not, pursuing criminal activities is not a waste of tax payer's money. Now that Trump is the POTUS, it's even harder to prosecute. But this is america. We pursue criminal activities. Even if the (purported) criminal is the POTUS.

Hillary had highly classified information on her personal server. James Baker of the FBI said she should have been charged (you would be charged). Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe convinced Baker to not bring charges.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This whole impeachment ‘thing’ is such a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars...

Before Trump was POTUS, he was being pursued by the FBI for numerous improprieties. What Trump did in Atlantic City (with Russian criminal $) is just one example and this was a relatively clear example of improprieties. and, even then, pre-POTUS, this stuff was difficult to prosecute. But difficult or not, pursuing criminal activities is not a waste of tax payer's money. Now that Trump is the POTUS, it's even harder to prosecute. But this is america. We pursue criminal activities. Even if the (purported) criminal is the POTUS.

Hillary had highly classified information on her personal server. James Baker of the FBI said she should have been charged (you would be charged). Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe convinced Baker to not bring charges.

So did Colin Powell.....

[MDlaxfan76]

In a real trial they would be dismissed during the jury selection process.

Chuck Schumer on CNN in 1999: “Anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box”.

Actually, the first part of Schumer's statement is accurate, then and now. Of course the Senators have "pre-opinions", and no one expects them to be totally uninformed nor to not have various partisan biases. The second part is correct, technically, in that the process is not specifically that of a "jury" with voir dire etc. But more colloquially, the Senators do serve in an analogous role.

But there's a big difference than having an opinion at the beginning of the trial and, conversely, declaring oneself uninterested in finding the truth, uninterested in reading the documents, hearing witnesses, closed to learning anything other that might change one's "pre-opinion".

That goes for either side of the partisan divide.

One should, at a minimum, be willing to hear and thoroughly consider any and all directly relevant evidence and testimony that either inculpates or exculpates the defendant, in this case DJT.

Declaring oneself unwilling?
That's a direct breach of the oath taken...of course, one might argue that those pretty outrageous statements were made prior to taking that oath...so, the question would be now, 'Senator, do you stand by those prior statements of being unwilling to consider evidence contrary to your prior opinions?"

However, there's no remedy (that I know of) for such brazenly venal partisanship other than eventually at the ballot box.

[Matnum PI]

Hillary had highly classified information on her personal server. James Baker of the FBI said she should have been charged (you would be charged). Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe convinced Baker to not bring charges.

Which is another example of why it's so hard to prosecute politicians, to prosecute people with money and power. But this is america. Money and power is not a deterrent from being pursued and prosecuted. if there's a crime, especially if the person committing the crime is rich and powerful, the crime needs to be pursued.

Well before Trump was POTUS, he was doing, to be kind, shady stuff. And if we know anything about him, it's that he cannot, will not stop. Bill and Hillary may very well be involved with, to be kind, shady stuff, too. But this doesn't negate what Trump has done and continues to do. What he did with the Ukraine in terms of using his political power as POTUS for personal gain is just one example. And this impropriety needs to be pursued and resolved. The goal isn't red or blue, Rep or Dem, win or lose. the goal is justice. the goal is establishing in the US that the US is a nation of laws and these laws are meaningful, the law matters.

I was once at court to question a speeding ticket. (I didn't want the points.) So the judge introduces the proceedings to a room full of people, like me, by saying, Your choices are Guilty with (I forget the word... basically saying, I'm sorry) or Not Guilty *with a good reason*. He was emphatic about the good reason needing to be a really good reason or he would A, B, C, etc. (None of which he followed up on. But he was very stern about the good reason being a good reason.) So one person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. Two person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. etc. until a woman said, Not Guilty. The court pauses. The judge says, You have a legit reason why not guilty? Proof or otherwise? And the woman says, Yes. So the judge says, Go ahead. And the woman says, I was speeding. But there were several cars driving as fast as I was! Why did the policeman pick me?! That's what I think of every time someone brings up Hillary with relation to Trump.

[CU88]

Looking that the o d defense team = the defense will be a combination of the OJ defense and the Baylor defense.

[tech37]

Parnas already had serious credibility problems. He was, after all, the man who claimed that House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Devin Nunes had met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna in December 2018. Then Nunes produced photos showing he was nowhere near either Shokin or Vienna. For Parnas's credibility, it was a Michael-Cohen-in-Prague moment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... hment-show

[jhu72]

No one has a more serious credibility problems than Orange Duce.

[CU88]

Hillary had highly classified information on her personal server. James Baker of the FBI said she should have been charged (you would be charged). Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe convinced Baker to not bring charges.

Which is another example of why it's so hard to prosecute politicians, to prosecute people with money and power. But this is america. Money and power is not a deterrent from being pursued and prosecuted. if there's a crime, especially if the person committing the crime is rich and powerful, the crime needs to be pursued.

Well before Trump was POTUS, he was doing, to be kind, shady stuff. And if we know anything about him, it's that he cannot, will not stop. Bill and Hillary may very well be involved with, to be kind, shady stuff, too. But this doesn't negate what Trump has done and continues to do. What he did with the Ukraine in terms of using his political power as POTUS for personal gain is just one example. And this impropriety needs to be pursued and resolved. The goal isn't red or blue, Rep or Dem, win or lose. the goal is justice. the goal is establishing in the US that the US is a nation of laws and these laws are meaningful, the law matters.

I was once at court to question a speeding ticket. (I didn't want the points.) So the judge introduces the proceedings to a room full of people, like me, by saying, Your choices are Guilty with (I forget the word... basically saying, I'm sorry) or Not Guilty *with a good reason*. He was emphatic about the good reason needing to be a really good reason or he would A, B, C, etc. (None of which he followed up on. But he was very stern about the good reason being a good reason.) So one person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. Two person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. etc. until a woman said, Not Guilty. The court pauses. The judge says, You have a legit reason why not guilty? Proof or otherwise? And the woman says, Yes. So the judge says, Go ahead. And the woman says, I was speeding. But there were several cars driving as fast as I was! Why did the policeman pick me?! That's what I think of every time someone brings up Hillary with relation to Trump.

We are finally getting to the end here, the GOP is starting to push the defense posture of,

"He did it, so what?"

[jhu72]

Trump's lawyers were announced this AM. Interesting lot. I suspect Starr and Dershowitz have no appetite to call irrelevant witnesses like the Bidens or the so called whistleblower. Probably same for a significant number of republican senators who recognize this as what it is, an attempt to turn the trial into a circus. Don't understand Sekulow's role. Comic relief? A demonstration of Trumpsucking?

[Trinity]

Disgusting Alan Dershowitz made Trump’s legal team? That should thrill Collins and Murkowski. When he got his massages at Epstein’s house he kept his boxers on and the woman was old and ugly.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Parnas already had serious credibility problems. He was, after all, the man who claimed that House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Devin Nunes had met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna in December 2018. Then Nunes produced photos showing he was nowhere near either Shokin or Vienna. For Parnas's credibility, it was a Michael-Cohen-in-Prague moment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... hment-show

You can always count on the Washington Examiner

OPINION
Can Democrats produce a daily impeachment show?

Chief Political Correspondent
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, a Fox News contributor and the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

[jhu72]

Hillary had highly classified information on her personal server. James Baker of the FBI said she should have been charged (you would be charged). Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe convinced Baker to not bring charges.

Which is another example of why it's so hard to prosecute politicians, to prosecute people with money and power. But this is america. Money and power is not a deterrent from being pursued and prosecuted. if there's a crime, especially if the person committing the crime is rich and powerful, the crime needs to be pursued.

Well before Trump was POTUS, he was doing, to be kind, shady stuff. And if we know anything about him, it's that he cannot, will not stop. Bill and Hillary may very well be involved with, to be kind, shady stuff, too. But this doesn't negate what Trump has done and continues to do. What he did with the Ukraine in terms of using his political power as POTUS for personal gain is just one example. And this impropriety needs to be pursued and resolved. The goal isn't red or blue, Rep or Dem, win or lose. the goal is justice. the goal is establishing in the US that the US is a nation of laws and these laws are meaningful, the law matters.

I was once at court to question a speeding ticket. (I didn't want the points.) So the judge introduces the proceedings to a room full of people, like me, by saying, Your choices are Guilty with (I forget the word... basically saying, I'm sorry) or Not Guilty *with a good reason*. He was emphatic about the good reason needing to be a really good reason or he would A, B, C, etc. (None of which he followed up on. But he was very stern about the good reason being a good reason.) So one person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. Two person, Guilty with X. No Points, pay the fine. etc. until a woman said, Not Guilty. The court pauses. The judge says, You have a legit reason why not guilty? Proof or otherwise? And the woman says, Yes. So the judge says, Go ahead. And the woman says, I was speeding. But there were several cars driving as fast as I was! Why did the policeman pick me?! That's what I think of every time someone brings up Hillary with relation to Trump.

We are finally getting to the end here, the GOP is starting to push the defense posture of,

"He did it, so what?"

They have no where else to go. It's not impeachable. Which is clear BS, but they can sell BS.

[Trinity]

House Managers can point at Ken Starr and say: “There’s the guy who interviewed @MonicaLewinsky’s ex-boyfriends, WH window washers and Kathleen Willey’s dentist. Now he doesn’t want us to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney.”