It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.
And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.
originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.
And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer
But if that one piece is so strong, stronger than anything thus far ... why didn't they go there? The House is where they make the case of a crime, yes? It would seem that would be one, right?
Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer
Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.
That would put him on par with Clinton wouldn't it?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.
And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.
But this impeachment hearing is one of the ways they are making said case.
I keep saying this over and over again, but TRUMP isn't getting removed from office. There is no universe in the multiverse where a Republican controlled senate votes to remove Trump. If Trump starting going nationwide shooting his own supporters in the face door to door the senate still wouldn't vote to remove him. Its just not going to happen, so the concept that these proceedings may lead to that is a fallacy I think.
originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I respectfully disagree with your reply.
The Democrats should focus on no borders, weed and medicaid for all, higher taxes, more regulations to save the planet.
That is what they believe they should stay on point...oh yea and free college.
I know I missed a lot but that is what I hear from them.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.
And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.
But this impeachment hearing is one of the ways they are making said case.
I keep saying this over and over again, but TRUMP isn't getting removed from office. There is no universe in the multiverse where a Republican controlled senate votes to remove Trump. If Trump starting going nationwide shooting his own supporters in the face door to door the senate still wouldn't vote to remove him. Its just not going to happen, so the concept that these proceedings may lead to that is a fallacy I think.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
The news about the Impeachment process are always the most entertaining news right now.
I like to go here to see the little trumpistas having their heads blown off, telling themselves "this is a circus! this a witchhunt! this is unnecessary!" while shaking in their boots.
Fun times.
I hope they end soon and Demented Donald gets a nice loud "good bye and never call us back!" on the way out. Soon.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer
Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.
Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.
Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?
originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
a reply to: DBCowboy
It is beyond ridiculous. We have" presumed" and now " inferred". The screeching Karlan about Barron's name was beyond the pale- she looked like a fire breathing dragon, and not a cute one.
originally posted by: scauma
Huh? What kind of nonsense is this? Trump's cronies hid the call because they knew it was wrong. Trump has put forth no defense because he has no defense. He resorts to name calling and deflection, like a child would do. he got laughed at and cried his tail on home. Trump released the funds only AFTER he realized he got caught. Why the hell did he make it a point to say no quid pro quo? Because the whistle blower had accused him of a quid pro quo. You guys defending him have no credibility. You'd be better off just being honest and saying you're white and you're afraid 'your' country is leaving you behind and you made at all the blacks and illegals.
originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: DBCowboy
Nope, none of that is accurate. I'm not making any assumptions. The facts (those pesky little things) say his lawyers briefed him in late August on the whistleblower complaint, then congress starts asking questions, then he releases the funds. Do you dispute any of that? If so please provide facts to back up your assertion. A much better argument you guys had was he did it, but it wasn't an impeachable offense. You might actually get somewhere with that. But putting your head in the sand and pretending like we don't see what we see, and hear what we hear is kind of ridiculous. If you'd like to have an honest debate, I'm available.