The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[RochesterRob]

26 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Whataboutism,  it's a great look on you.

  Tiberius is a funny person.  He talks about dictators and if a dictator ever came to power in the US the likes of Tiberius being a paid subversive would be the first to face the executioners of the new regime.  Dictators want sycophants and not voice bots who would switch sides over a paycheck.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I am unsure how you got that impression of the hiring.  It wasn't in my posting.  I imagine Burisma put Biden on the board to try to add a measure of legitimacy.  Board members are very often 'names' and not necessarily subject matter experts, as in Hunter's Amtrak board job.

 

If there is proof of illegal schemes and payments, that should be uncovered.  If illegal actions were taken.  Discover who and punish appropriately.  What proof is out there of this?

 

But Hunter Biden is not a 'name' in the sense you are implying. He had no personal or professional achievements to speak of, nor did he automatically confer any status to Burisma in any way.

 

Legitimacy would be to hire away board members from BP, Exxon, or other Petroleum Industry connected people.  Hiring a 'name' would be some business celebrity with a history. The only 'legitimacy'  Hunter Biden provides is letting others know they have a channel into the Obama Administration. 

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

May not be hard if you ignore half the story I guess.  Was it rushed or are they dragging this out?  Seems claiming both just allows you to think you should just plain complain.  Figure out later why, eh?

 

So, you then would not complain if the House reopens this and goes through the subpeona/court cases?  Still no issue if hearings run up to election day?

it is not hard to figure out, Bob. they have been dragging investigations out since before Trump was president to culminate in where we are today. the plan has been to smear Trump and what easier way to do that than by having investigation after investigation. let's not forget that they all have been a total and complete joke. nothing of substance has been turned up other than a confirmation of #orangemanbad. yes, believe it or not, all the Democrats tail wagging has only confirmed their animus.

 

the House impeachment was rushed, there is pretty much consensus on that. there are no claims of the Senate trial being rushed or dragged at this point. all is as it should be for now.

 

it doesn't matter if i complain bout the Democrats opening another investigation Bob, they have already plainly stated that that is exactly what they are going to do. are you not sick of the witchhunts yet? oh and if your not, i do not want to hear you complain one iota when there is a Democrat in the White House and the House is controlled by Republicans because you can pretty much expect the same thing.

 

wake the ***** up, Bob. be smarter than what you are showing. the equations are really very simple if you look even just slightly under the covers.

[Tiberius]

30 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Whataboutism,  it's a great look on you.

Hypocrisy? 

[RochesterRob]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Hypocrisy? 

  Definitely fits you.

[Foxx]

19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I am unsure how you got that impression of the hiring.  It wasn't in my posting.  I imagine Burisma put Biden on the board to try to add a measure of legitimacy.  Board members are very often 'names' and not necessarily subject matter experts, as in Hunter's Amtrak board job.

 

If there is proof of illegal schemes and payments, that should be uncovered.  If illegal actions were taken.  Discover who and punish appropriately.  What proof is out there of this?

so, we have given Ukraine how much aid and loan guarantees while the Oministration was the ruling class? an organization and owner that being investigated for corruption before Hunter Biden came on board and who all of a sudden became pure and botanical after Hunter was put on the bord doesn't even strike you in the slightest as being nepotism at the slightest and nefarious at worst?

 

it did with many major news outlets who have suddenly gone quiet about their concerns. had you listened to Pam Bondi's presentation during the Senate trial, you would understand this. as i have said to you before, i have learned that i can only lead the liberal horse to water, they have to drink it themselves to understand things. do yourself a favor, spend the two hours her presentation took and listen to it. she does an excellent job of explaining the concerns around Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and their corruption. i am not going to do that leg work for you. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Foxx

[Uncle Joe]

12 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

I agree with the theory that establishment Rs & Ds are all in it together to a point, but I think it's loosely analogous to the NFL.

 

<snip>

 They may be more like divorce lawyers. Pretend to represent their client in court.
Then after hours they are at the bar discussing how long they can keep the divorce tab open.

[Bob in Mich]

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Call them all. Bolton, Atkinson, Bidens, whistleblower, Schiff..... All of them. 

 

I dont know if Trumps lawyers mentioned Atkinson outright, but I doubt it since they've been denied a transcript of his testimony.  

 

But here at PPP we can deal in conjecture. Why would you guess that Adam Schiff has sealed his testimony? Maybe, just maybe might it not comport with his version of the truth?

 

I don't know.  Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this.  Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate?

 

Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet.   lol    Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity?  I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The answer is, I want to know the truth.  What other investigations have you seen where people lobbied to not learn the truth? 

Uhh... Trump/Russia? You literally ran from the truth for three years. Still are. 
 

The lack of self awareness on display in your posts is staggering. 

[Foxx]

?

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/1222515507343036416

 

[Bob in Mich]

21 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

But Hunter Biden is not a 'name' in the sense you are implying. He had no personal or professional achievements to speak of, nor did he automatically confer any status to Burisma in any way.

 

Legitimacy would be to hire away board members from BP, Exxon, or other Petroleum Industry connected people.  Hiring a 'name' would be some business celebrity with a history. The only 'legitimacy'  Hunter Biden provides is letting others know they have a channel into the Obama Administration. 

I think Biden is/was a recognizable name that may add legitimacy.  Apparently Burisma disagreed with your view too.

 

Rather than implying misdeeds, please show us what you actually know.

 

[Foxx]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

I think Biden is/was a recognizable name that may add legitimacy.  Apparently Burisma disagreed with your view too.

 

Rather than implying misdeeds, please show us what you actually know.

 

Bob, why is it everyone must do the work for you? i mean, the information is plastered everywhere in this sub-forum. if you don't want to do the work yourself you are essentially wasting everyone's time here. as you are not going to believe a painting by Picasso was actually painted by Picasso.

[Deranged Rhino]

32 minutes ago, Whatnot78 said:

 

If you try, you'll be impeached...

 

Id say it’s amazing Bob doesn’t understand he just undercut his (and the dems) entire argument. But then again, Bob just spent the last hour admitting he doesn’t even know the basic facts about the matter or who the IG is and why he matters. 
 

Uninformed people say the funniest things when they’re trying to act informed. 

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

Bob, why is it everyone must do the work for you? i mean, the information is plastered everywhere in this sub-forum. if you don't want to do the work yourself you are essentially wasting everyone's time here. as you are not going to believe a painting by Picasso was actually painted by Picasso.

Because he’s dishonest. He literally yells at others who ask him to do his own legwork. 

[Taro T]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

I think Biden is/was a recognizable name that may add legitimacy.  Apparently Burisma disagreed with your view too.

 

Rather than implying misdeeds, please show us what you actually know.

 

 

Hunter Biden, fresh after getting kicked out of the Navy for being a coke head, was a name that would add legitimacy?  How?  Most companies get rid of board members when something like that happens.  Burisma went out and hired him after that.

 

Now, if a cokehead can't add legitimacy to a company, what might he bring to that company if he is related to very influential people?

[Foxx]

today should be an interesting day. we get to hear the Senators questions (via Roberts). it think it will be interesting to see the nature of the questions directed at both sides. i think that should give us a pretty good insight to where we are and where this is all going.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Foxx

[3rdnlng]

Reading through the last few pages this AM I am dumbfounded that some people can not only display such immense ignorance but actually knowledgeable people will get into somewhat lengthy discussions with them. How can anyone argue with a person who doesn't even know who IG Atkinson is and what part he has had in this latest impeachment efforts? Between tokes, Bob writes that Trump supporters criticize the dems with rushing the House impeachment vote while at the same time criticizing them for holding the Articles of Impeachment back from the Senate. Simply put the dems, lead by Nancy Politics wanted desperately to get Trump impeached by Christmas but then wanted to help out Joe Biden by keeping his opponents off the campaign trail. If the House had went about this impeachment facade in at least a semblance of fairness and then did it in an open way they would have taken their time to do it right. They didn't, but claimed they had overwhelming evidence and proof that Trump was guilty, but then wanted the Senate to do the job they failed to do. 

 

Remember, after all this immense bs going back and forth Trump and his campaign did not collude with anyone or any country to affect the 2016 election. He also didn't do anything impeachable as it pertains to Ukraine. With this in mind, the dems and media are trying to weaken our president and affect his ability to deal internationally. Add dem party over patriotism as the new reality. 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  As mentioned, there is a lot to respond to right now.  I won't go point by point but generally speaking, I disagree.  lol

 

Briefly, you and I may agree on what happened with Trump and Ukraine.  I am unsure but even if so, many others are not on that same page.  You don't think everyone agrees on the events at this point, do you?

 

I believe that anyone who's paid attention can agree on the events in a broad sense.

I believe that no more information is necessary to change anyone's mind about this.  I've never been against more witnesses and evidence to come out.  I'm more a stickler for the process, though.  I wanted that to have happened in the House.  What I saw in those proceedings was embarrassingly one-sided.  And for the Democrats in the House -- who were the embarrassingly one-sided actors -- to now come and demand that more evidence is necessary to make THEIR CASE is awful.  It makes a complete mockery of the situation.  The entire thing, since September, is a transparent political ploy.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

Bolton...I don't know why he is willing to testify to the Senate but claimed he would fight the House's subpoena.  Maybe closer now to the book release?  Maybe he felt he would get better protection from the Repub Senate versus the House Dems?  I don't know.  I think you are aware though that the House asking for a ruling on 'absolute immunity' would likely take several months.  Then, the uncooperative witness would likely have declared executive privilege and the court process would have began again.  I can't recall exactly but I saw some commentator say there was actually a third level of privilege that would then be taken to the courts.  I mentioned earlier that the Dems have been accused of going too fast and at the same time accused of dragging it out until election time.  Anyway, an unwilling witness can delay for likely more than a year.  Bolton is willing to testify to the Senate.  That is a key difference now with respect to Bolton versus the situation the House had.

 

This does not comport with the facts as I know them.  As far as I know, the Judge in the Subpoena dispute (I forget the Executive Dept. employee who was fighting the Subpoena) said that he would make a quick ruling.

 

I pointed out last week that when U.S. vs. Nixon was decided, that Subpoena fact pattern went from beginning to end in three months.  That means from the day the Subpoena was issued to a Supreme Court ruling.  The House Democrats lied to you about the "long drawn out Court battle".

 

 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Israel-Palestine....I have no problem using 'accomplishments' involving foreigners.  Crow away about foreign policy decisions.  Just don't use the power of the office to try to pressure foreign leaders to attack and smear US political candidates.

 

I'm not going to dig too deep, but I am 99% positive that Presidents have used their office to pressure other foreign leaders in foreign affairs for months, years, decades and centuries.

 

 

 

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Reading through the last few pages this AM I am dumbfounded that some people can not only display such immense ignorance but actually knowledgeable people will get into somewhat lengthy discussions with them. How can anyone argue with a person who doesn't even know who IG Atkinson is and what part he has had in this latest impeachment efforts? Between tokes, Bob writes that Trump supporters criticize the dems with rushing the House impeachment vote while at the same time criticizing them for holding the Articles of Impeachment back from the Senate. Simply put the dems, lead by Nancy Politics wanted desperately to get Trump impeached by Christmas but then wanted to help out Joe Biden by keeping his opponents off the campaign trail. If the House had went about this impeachment facade in at least a semblance of fairness and then did it in an open way they would have taken their time to do it right. They didn't, but claimed they had overwhelming evidence and proof that Trump was guilty, but then wanted the Senate to do the job they failed to do. 

 

Remember, after all this immense bs going back and forth Trump and his campaign did not collude with anyone or any country to affect the 2016 election. He also didn't do anything impeachable as it pertains to Ukraine. With this in mind, the dems and media are trying to weaken our president and affect his ability to deal internationally. Add dem party over patriotism as the new reality. 

  The current maneuver by Pelosi and Co. is a definite shot to stall out any momentum Sanders has picked up in recent weeks.  

[Tiberius]

You have to give credit where it is due. Pelosi holding up the impeachment delivery to the Senate has been a huge success with all these facts coming out in the interregnum and during the trial. She threw a money wrench into the cover up 

 

[Bob in Mich]

26 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it is not hard to figure out, Bob. they have been dragging investigations out since before Trump was president to culminate in where we are today. the plan has been to smear Trump and what easier way to do that than by having investigation after investigation. let's not forget that they all have been a total and complete joke. nothing of substance has been turned up other than a confirmation of #orangemanbad. yes, believe it or not, all the Democrats tail wagging has only confirmed their animus.

 

the House impeachment was rushed, there is pretty much consensus on that. there are no claims of the Senate trial being rushed or dragged at this point. all is as it should be for now.

 

it doesn't matter if i complain bout the Democrats opening another investigation Bob, they have already plainly stated that that is exactly what they are going to do. are you not sick of the witchhunts yet? oh and if your not, i do not want to hear you complain one iota when there is a Democrat in the White House and the House is controlled by Republicans because you can pretty much expect the same thing.

 

wake the ***** up, Bob. be smarter than what you are showing. the equations are really very simple if you look even just slightly under the covers.

 

I asked someone earlier:  If new murder allegations are brought against OJ, should they be investigated?  Of course, right?  Well, not if you follow the logic you are using in treating Trump.  After all OJ was acquitted of a prior murder and was clearly dragged through hell in the process.  The new charges must be BS because 'they' have been after the guy for years.  Make sense?  Nope and it shouldn't make sense using that logic treating the President either.

 

Trump plays the victim to the hilt.  You apparently buy that and see him as a victim.  I see him as a shady character that is in no way above breaking laws to get his way.  There are still several investigations on the guy, not because 'they' just hate orangeman.  He brings investigations on to himself. 

 

He demands loyalty to Trump in his hires, as several past employees have claimed.  Does it bother you that everyone he actually hires in some way pledges to be loyal to him ? That is sort of like organized crime families and does bother me.   The NDA's with all employees?  Do you wonder why he no longer complains about not having his own Roy Cohn heading Justice?  Answer: imo, he has his protection in place now.   Ever wonder why he has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits?  Do you have over 20 claims of sexual abuse against you?  Anyone you know personally have more than 1?  The guy is 'picked on' because of his actions, statements, and the actions and statements of the people he associates with. 

 

Perhaps you should wake up.