Really? You are citing Trump now? In any case who did he say was lying under oath? Not disputing it, don’t doubt it.
Consider full evidence on impeachment
- Thread starter DFSNOLE
- Start date
Sondland. Not that it matters, because like you've said many times, our President doesn't have any credibility when he opens his mouth. It's just amusing to me that the central character in this debacle is the most powerful person in the world, and you said "nobody'.
What did he say Sondkand lied about?
And I said “nobody” because we were talking about who Ciohen was directing his advice to. He wasn’t telling Trump to look at all the evidence.
A handful have already stated their opinion on the veracity of the House's inquiry, prior to articles being drafted. If it were a criminal court, like the GOP machine wants voters to consider it as, they'd all have disqualified themselves from sitting on the jury.
Yes. Lindsey Graham has said that he won't even read or consider the evidence.
I've been shocked to find your lack of credibility myself.
I will watch a breaking news story on CNN because they are good at that. Their opinion hosts are delusional pricks who parrot the DNC party line and are foolish sycophants who believe Adam Schiff even though he is completely nuts. And I mean nuts.
Well if he said that, shame on him. When I’ve seen him, he’s said just the opposite....that he’s going to look at all the evidence, not just what the Democrats allowed.
Don't most criminal trials have circumstantial evidence as a large component of what is presented? According to many on the GOP side of the aisle, all of that should be ignored.
The article wasn't an editorial or an opinion piece. I wouldn't have posted it if it was. It was direct quotes on the process by former GOP senators who have been involved in other impeachment proceedings. I'm not the one demonstrating close mindedness and the lack of credibility.
Neither Trump nor any of his administration honored the subpoenas that would have allowed them to present "their side". They have chosen to not be put under oath to testify. That doesn't make you ask why? If Trump can be so easily cleared and his "perfect call" shown to be just that, why won't they swear in and say that?
Probably, the biggest issue I have with this whole thing is uninformed so many people are as to how this process is supposed to work.
The men that created it were very clear, and took very good notes on the debate that led them to including it in the Constitution. The people that voted for Trump to tear down our institutions are getting exactly what they voted for. Unfortunately for all of us, it's only going to turn out poorly for future health of the county.
I'll never understand how anyone can read the founders notes and think that this process is outside the vision that they set forth. Impeachment is inherently political in the House, and is supposed to go to the Senate for fair deliberation. Some of the Senators in leadership roles have already weakened the process by commenting either for or against, while other(like Grassley) seem to have a handle on the potential precedent they can set by going down to the level of "the people's house".
Are you actually saying the House is supposed to be partisan and unfair but the Senate is not? I was always of the belief that both houses were supposed to be fair. If you are correct, it explains a lot.
They're in the process. Maybe instead of working so hard not to read current events, you should at least try keeping up on the big stuff?
That's exactly what they're doing. I know that's been reported on sites other than CNN.
No, the House is supposed to present a case, and the founders knew it would be political. The Senate, prior to them being open to being voted out by the electorate, was supposed to have a higher standard of conduct. It's not looking like that will be the case.
I ought to apologize for something here. I am watching football and following this thread on my cell phone, so I’m not in a good position to follow links and do reaserarch.
You got me there. I don’t read up on CNN trash. But otherwise, get on with the impeachment and trial. I suspect they’ll be a lot of disappointment just like on November 8th.
Are you saying that the current House is not following the rules that were established by a previous session?
At least you own your close mindedness and lack of critical thinking skills. That's more than most who share your opinion.
That hasn’t been the case since before WW1. If you are advocating repeal of the 17th Amendment, I might go along with you.
No. I am not saying that. I was asking Jerome for clarification of his post.
I didn't post a link. When you have time, you should read the Federalist papers on the subject. Their debate as to the process and thresholds of impeachment are eerily premonitory of the situation our country is in right now.
Right, but opening the Senate to the will of the people shouldn't change the expectations of the conduct of Senators, yet it has.
Great, now I'm the conservative.
Read them but a long long long time ago. I was referring to your comment when I asked what Trump had accused what’s his name of lying about under oath.
The entire impeachment process is political which is being borne out...again.
Of course it has. That’s why the Fiunder were against and why they were overruled later when people changed their minds about which evil was the lesser: A senate answerable only to a few politicians in each state, or a senate that basically is just another version of the House.Right, but opening the Senate to the will of the people shouldn't change the expectations of the conduct of Senators, yet it has.
Great, now I'm the conservative.
What part of this is difficult for you to understand?
Look at the quotes, review the sources of information for a story, review the methodology for polls, etc.
Is there a slant to CNN in general? A bit to the left. However, it doesn’t negate the facts being reported. Fox obviously slants to the right, but it still doesn’t indicate all stories reported by them are without merit.
To assume all stories are biased and not factual when reported by particular news organizations is simply being ignorant.
Note: I’m not talking about the media outlets like Breitbart or Daily Kos who push certain biases and don’t concern themselves with being factual.
He denied it was possible to overhear the phone call that Sondland testified to hearing.
Last edited:
