Trumped

[tdawg87]

I have a mediocre penis.

[St1ck]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I have a mediocre penis.

You are giving yourself too much credit.

[tdawg87]

The GOP has had this info since December 30 btw. Just so you remember this shit means absolutely nothing. 

[Jason]

Have the Lefties started slobbering on Bolton’s nuts yet? He’s going to sell a lot of his books to liberals and that is pretty funny

[gotbeer]

12 hours ago, sht1ckboy said:

It depends on if the Dems can get four Republicans to vote for witnesses keep Warren, Sanders, and Klobuchar from campaigning. If they can, it might take a month, or so. If they can't, Mitch will probably have them voting by the end of the week.

Double Fixed.  Forgot about Klobuchar, and it seems that Iowa has not.

Edited January 27, 2020 by gotbeer

[St1ck]

11 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Double Fixed.  Forgot about Klobuchar, and it seems that Iowa has not.

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying the Republicans might want to extend the trial, to keep the Dem senators from campaigning in Iowa? 

[gotbeer]

4 minutes ago, sht1ckboy said:

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying the Republicans might want to extend the trial, to keep the Dem senators from campaigning in Iowa? 

I'm saying the Dem's might want to extend the trial to let Biden campaign in Iowa.

[St1ck]

3 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

I'm saying the Dem's might want to extend the trial to let Biden campaign in Iowa.

The Dems don't have any power to extend the trial. 

[Crampknees]

47 minutes ago, Jason said:

Have the Lefties started slobbering on Bolton’s nuts yet? He’s going to sell a lot of his books to liberals and that is pretty funny

What will be even funnier is when the Righties start saying Trump has never met Bolton. 

[St1ck]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-bolton-revelations-make-it-increasingly-likely-senate-will-call-witnesses-155904850.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

[Jason]

If Bolton was so concerned about these high crimes and misdemeanors why didn't he come forward at the time? Why wait until right before his book comes out? All Trump had to do was give Bolton a war to earn his loyalty. 

[Jason]

32 minutes ago, sht1ckboy said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-bolton-revelations-make-it-increasingly-likely-senate-will-call-witnesses-155904850.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

This would make the trial much more interesting 

[Taylor]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

If Bolton was so concerned about these high crimes and misdemeanors why didn't he come forward at the time? Why wait until right before his book comes out? All Trump had to do was give Bolton a war to earn his loyalty. 

Bolton has no morals. I don't know if he's a trustworthy witness.

But it's telling that the Republicans are so adamant about not calling witnesses.

[Taylor]

Supreme Court to the rescue?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

Quote

An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

 

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Bolton has no morals. I don't know if he's a trustworthy witness.

But it's telling that the Republicans are so adamant about not calling witnesses.

It doesn’t matter, everyone has their minds made up. This is just for show to sway voters in November 

[St1ck]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Supreme Court to the rescue?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

 

While he could, I don't think he will override the senate's vote. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, and there are at least 4 Republicans that vote to hear witness testimony. 

[Blarg]

I guess we can't waste enough money over this since the Democrats felt no guilt over spending a billion dollars to lose the election. 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I guess we can't waste enough money over this since the Democrats felt no guilt over spending a billion dollars to lose the election. 

Since this is a sham trial, why not call the witnesses so that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a sham?

[Jason]

In all honesty, I have not paid attention to this impeachment trial for one minute. I do have a serious question though. If they are impeaching Trump for trying to withhold approved military aid until they investigate Biden does that equal stupidity or a crime? From what I understand is that Ukraine did get the military aid on schedule. Is wanting to withhold the aid as much of a crime as actually following through with the threat to withhold it? I do not doubt for one second that Trump wanted to leverage our support for the investigation into Biden (who should be investigated). Trump could have just asked Ukraine to investigate without the discussion of the aid and he would be in his right to do that. 

[St1ck]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

In all honesty, I have not paid attention to this impeachment trial for one minute. I do have a serious question though. If they are impeaching Trump for trying to withhold approved military aid until they investigate Biden does that equal stupidity or a crime? From what I understand is that Ukraine did get the military aid on schedule. Is wanting to withhold the aid as much of a crime as actually following through with the threat to withhold it? I do not doubt for one second that Trump wanted to leverage our support for the investigation into Biden (who should be investigated). Trump could have just asked Ukraine to investigate without the discussion of the aid and he would be in his right to do that. 

Yes it was a crime, according to the GAO:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-16/gao-report-says-trump-administration-violated-law-withholding-aid-ukraine

 

Yes, Trump could have asked the Ukraine to investigate Biden, and his son. Rather if he wanted to, he should have had the DOJ investigate them. Why was his personal lawyer Rudy involved anyway whatsoever. 

As far as on schedule? Trump was holding up the payments months after they were available. Most was paid before the end of the year, but this was also after the story had already been broken about them holding up the aid. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783487901/the-hold-on-ukraine-aid-a-timeline-emerges-from-impeachment-probe

[Lou]

21 minutes ago, sht1ckboy said:

As far as on schedule? Trump was holding up the payments months after they were available.

Those are two different things. 

[UndertheHalo]

I think they should do a senate trial to determine whether Lindsey Graham is a dick sucking homo.  That would be more interesting then this stupid shit.  <he is> 

[Jason]

29 minutes ago, sht1ckboy said:

Yes it was a crime, according to the GAO:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-16/gao-report-says-trump-administration-violated-law-withholding-aid-ukraine

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

Those are two different things. 

This is where I am confused. Didn't Ukraine receive all the aid that was agreed upon by congress? Is this because they got the aid later as opposed to sooner? I'm not saying Trump didn't try but it sounds like he was unsuccessful in his attempt. If they call witnesses they probably should call in the Ukrainian leaders involved in this too. I'm sure they'd rather deal with someone other than Trump in the future.  

[Vegas Halo Fan]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Bolton has no morals. I don't know if he's a trustworthy witness.

In other words, a perfect Trump servant. Check your ethics at the door.

[St1ck]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

This is where I am confused. Didn't Ukraine receive all the aid that was agreed upon by congress? Is this because they got the aid later as opposed to sooner? I'm not saying Trump didn't try but it sounds like he was unsuccessful in his attempt. If they call witnesses they probably should call in the Ukrainian leaders involved in this too. I'm sure they'd rather deal with someone other than Trump in the future.  

The answer to your first question is in the article.