Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

Never forget

 

EPdvTQUXsAA6ZyT?format=jpg&name=small

 

 

 

 

Graham's observations in early 2016 are consistent with this site's anti-Trumpers' thoughts at that time.  You also know that most people here didn't vote for Trump in 2016.

 

But in the wake of the crazy train that entered the train station after the election, Trump doesn't look so bad after all.  Yet you attribute it to blanket Trump support.

 

These are all the facts that you intentionally ignore, and that's why you get called out for your shallow "contributions"

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Bob. 

1. President sets foreign policy.  

2. You dispute a video bragging about it?  

 

You assured me you are a man of integrity.  

 

The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY.  Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes.

 

I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper.  Remember the witnesses in the House?  17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes

 

I don't dispute what Biden bragged about.  Never said I did.  I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son.  It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption.  Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now.  It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY.  Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes.

 

I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper.  Remember the witnesses in the House?  17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes

 

I don't dispute what Biden bragged about.  Never said I did.  I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son.  It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption.  Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now.  It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable

 

 

 

The capitalized part, please elaborate.  Not a trap, honestly asking.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY.

 

Investigating corruption is not contrary to national policy. In fact, Ukraine and the US have a treaty mandating precisely that. 

 

Using caps to make a point does not make your point any more intelligent. 

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes.

 

There's ZERO evidence that Trump did it for corrupt purposes, the preponderance of evidence, in fact, shows otherwise. 

 

Unless you engage in mind reading... which you're fine with because you're more emotional than you are intelligent at this point. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper.  Remember the witnesses in the House?  17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes

 

None of those witnesses thought it was impeachable when asked directly during their testimony. None. 

 

But details are hard when you don't know the facts of the issue you're debating. 

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I don't dispute what Biden bragged about.  Never said I did.  I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. 

 

His son's employer.

 

You're disputing an uncontested fact because you're not a smart person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY.  Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes.

 

I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper.  Remember the witnesses in the House?  17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes

 

I don't dispute what Biden bragged about.  Never said I did.  I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son.  It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption.  Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now.  It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable

 

 

 

one more time...

 

the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxx said:

one more time...

 

the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you.

 

He can't. @Bob in Mich's brain is as broken as Gary's. 

 

TDS is terminal if left untreated. Just wait until November when Bob realizes he has 4 more years left of Trump. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Margarita said:

if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say...


Because perfection doesn’t matter.

 

What matters is that the President conducting foreign policy pursuant to his Constitutional role, and to international treaties given the same weight, is not an impeachable offense.

 

To the contrary, it is his directly prescribed Constitutional duty; and acting to impeach the President for something that is literally his job to do as determined by the High Law of our country is itself unConstitutional.

 

The argument being made by Democrats, which you are apparently borrowing, is that the President doesn’t have the authority to set/conduct foreign policy; and that the entrenched bureaucracy should instead perform this function, subverting the President, with the oversight of Congress.

 

That’s not how our government is designed to work.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Damn, I hate doing this. Up thread you asked me "if the House dems were correct in their assumptions about Trump" and now you state emphatically that he should be removed. How dense are you? There has been no foreign election influence by Trump. 

 

You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you about that election interference take.  It may not seem it down here but it is clearly not as cut and dry as you claim.

 

And, you still haven't found enough integrity to answer the simple question I asked.  I am not the least bit surprised to be perfectly honest with you.

Edited by Bob in Mich
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

one more time...

 

the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you.

 

I don't understand what is so hard about this.  The Trump campaign and administration was very clear about a foreign policy heavy on rooting out foreign corruption and enhancing burden sharing.  If the electorate is unhappy about rooting out corruption and foreign influence then the remedy is to VOTE for a candidate who wouldn't promote that as part of his or her foreign policy.  A candidate like Joe Biden would certainly fit the bill.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you about that election interference take. 

 

Evidence and facts don't agree with your take, or the 150 million people. 

 

Emotions aren't facts. Emotions aren't evidence. 

 

Things we learn in basic civics classes, but Bob is still struggling with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...