The entire impeachment process is political which is being borne out...again.
That is not the standard that the founder's envisioned for the upper chamber.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The entire impeachment process is political which is being borne out...again.
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.
That is not the standard that the founder's envisioned for the upper chamber.
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.The entire impeachment process is political which is being borne out...again.
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.He denied it was possible to overhear the phonecall that Sondland testified to hearing.
Nixon was smart enough to resign before being convicted.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.CNN has destroyed their reputation where is comes to political reports. Full stop. Once I saw the CNN tag I stopped reading.
What was once hidden from the public, will be revealed. (FISA DECLAS)What is this supposed to mean? Honest question.
Then you are, by definition, ignorant.CNN has destroyed their reputation where is comes to political reports. Full stop. Once I saw the CNN tag I stopped reading.
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.It's definitely possible, if not probable. Birds of a feather, something, something.
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.
I’ve preached this for a long time.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.
What was once hidden from the public, will be revealed. (FISA DECLAS)
Actually, you are ignorant. You are purposely ignoring stories based on a preconceived notion.By definition I’m not.
Actually, you are ignorant. You are purposely ignoring stories based on a preconceived notion.
Do you have any doubt?
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.
It’s not an opinion; it’s fact.I’m fine with your opinion of me, really.
I think we can agree that sondland is very punchable.You're right, it was Holmes in regards to Sondland's call with Trump.
I have a lot of doubt with letting the executive to continue to acquire power.
That’s fine. Do you have any doubt about the Senate getting this right?
Yes I do.
Interesting. How do you see wrong manifesting?
I'm afraid too many minds are made up, before their roll in the process has even begun.
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.
Including yours, of course.I'm afraid too many minds are made up, before their roll in the process has even begun.
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?He said it so you can stuff the "if".
Indeed. But the fact you have made up your mind means that unless the Senate comes to the same conclusion you have reached, you will think it didn’t do its job.I'm not a Senator.
Indeed. But the fact you have made up your mind means that unless the Senate comes to the same conclusion you have reached, you will think it didn’t do its job.
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.
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.That’s fine. Do you have any doubt about the Senate getting this right?