ADVERTISEMENT

Consider full evidence on impeachment

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.

CNN has destroyed their reputation where is comes to political reports. Full stop. Once I saw the CNN tag I stopped reading.
 
That is not the standard that the founder's envisioned for the upper chamber.

Meh. The founders knew it would be political so they chose the Senate over the Court as the arbiter. They got it right and the Senate will get it right here too.
 
The entire impeachment process is political which is being borne out...again.
Every impeachment proceeding begins as political. But as evidence is gathered and presented, it should become less so. See Nixon's. It's not like the GOP was on board when the process began but when the evidence started stacking up, they felt that they had no choice but to do what they are supposed to do. Nixon was smart enough to resign before being convicted.
 
He denied it was possible to overhear the phonecall that Sondland testified to hearing.
Thanks. I forgot that. But it wasn’t Sondkand who said he overheard it. Sondkand was Ruth’s one talking to Trump. Trump said the guy who claimed to have heard it, who was somebody’s side, couldn’t have heard it.

incidentally, my guess is that Sondkand held the phone out to be heard because he was bragging about talking to the president. He struck me as that kind of guy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
Every impeachment proceeding begins as political. But as evidence is gathered and presented, it should become less so. See Nixon's. It's not like the GOP was on board when the process began but when the evidence started stacking up, they felt that they had no choice but to do what they are supposed to do. Nixon was smart enough to resign before being convicted.
True, and there were several reasons for that, but the biggest contrast to the current situation is the procedures and attitude of the Democrats in the House.
Ideally, the House should do its best to determine if impeachment is appropriate. That involves seeking information on both sides of an issue. The current situation is an effort, plain and simple, to find justification for impeachment, which is a far different thing.
 
Thanks. I forgot that.

incidentally, my guess is that Sondkand held the phone out to be heard because he was bragging about talking to the president. He struck me as that kind of guy.

It's definitely possible, if not probable. Birds of a feather, something, something.
 
CNN has destroyed their reputation where is comes to political reports. Full stop. Once I saw the CNN tag I stopped reading.
I think that’s a mistake, whether it’s you and CNN or a lib and FNC. You should go ahead and read it, keeping in mind the credibility of the source.
 
It's definitely possible, if not probable. Birds of a feather, something, something.
I went back and edited my post because I remembered that it wasn’t Sondkand whom Trump accused of lying about overhearing the phone conversation. Sondland was the one with the phone. Trump questioned the veracity of the guy having lunch with Sondkand. But I knew what you meant. Even though this is HROT, I will not accuse you of lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
I went back and edited my post because I remembered that it wasn’t Sondkand whom Trump accused of lying about overhearing the phone conversation. Sondland was the one with the phone. Trump questioned the veracity of the guy having lunch with Sondkand. But I knew what you meant. Even though this is HROT, I will not accuse you of lying.

You're right, it was Holmes in regards to Sondland's call with Trump.
 
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.

He said it so you can stuff the "if".
 
He said it so you can stuff the "if".
When? Quite some time ago he was saying that if the House continued as it was going, one option for the Senate was to ignore the report. Is that what I am supposed to stuff? Or was there something more recent?
The last I heard, he and Grassley were being ripped for demanding to see all the evidence. I think that was yesterday.
 
Latest poll I've seen want trump impeached and REMOVED. I suppose they all watch cnn and are not capable of seeing a corrupt president who held back 391 million dollars of congress approved funds for our friend Ukraine who is in a war in their own country, having soldiers killed every day, with our adversary Russia, and is trump's friend. Wow, you republicans continue to show your freaking ignorance.
 
When? Quite some time ago he was saying that if the House continued as it was going, one option for the Senate was to ignore the report. Is that what I am supposed to stuff? Or was there something more recent?
The last I heard, he and Grassley were being ripped for demanding to see all the evidence. I think that was yesterday.

I tried and cannot google it, but I heard him say it and have seen that statement repeated multiple times.
 
That’s fine. Do you have any doubt about the Senate getting this right?
You seem to be one who thought the Mueller investigation was a partisan exercise while completely ignoring the fact that Mueller was appointed by Trump's on AG and given direction and scope by Trumps's own Deputy AG. The Democratic Party had little to nothing to do with how that was operated.

In this impeachment investigation, a whistleblower brought forth a concern that was deemed credible by Trump's own IG. The contents were then corroborated by Trump's own appointees, staff members of Trump appointees and decorated military personnel. This was not something initiated by the Democrats. They followed the rule of law where the investigation led.

If anyone or party is acting in a partisan manner, it's the GOP in their failure to put country over party to protect the president at all costs regardless of the evidence.
 
ADVERTISEMENT