GOP senators reject plans to dismiss Trump impeachment

a reply to: carewemust

I think we mostly agree. Actually

a reply to: carewemust
I want to hear from the ICIG. This must be good. Back dated whistle blower accounts second hand knowledge. Then then they lie and say the whistle blower had zero contact with congress on the form.

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: carewemust

Fine call all those witnesses. But to act like its abuse of power for the president to ask for an investigation is bs.

So far, not one person has said that President Trump told him/her that he delayed sending Ukraine Military Aid $$$, in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens. Just a few people who have "assumed he did".

That's why the Impeachment articles are so weak.

If its proven that Schiff/Ciaramella/Atkinson conspired to entrap President Trump, the entire House Impeachment is negated. That would be the best outcome of all.

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: carewemust
I want to hear from the ICIG. This must be good. Back dated whistle blower accounts second hand knowledge. Then then they lie and say the whistle blower had zero contact with congress on the form.

Despite pressure from House Republicans, Adam Schiff has still not released the ICIG closed-session testimony transcripts. And like I said earlier, he is being investigated by Congressional Republicans.

There's something really foul there. A potential bombshell that could have the entire House Impeachment nullified due to Whistle-blower fraud.

a reply to: carewemust

If fraud occurred to cause an impeachment then I think a hardcore special prosecutor might called upon. It may even be in the best interests of the people to suspend the 2020 elections until such time as the criminals are identified and rendered ineligible to hold further office/positions within the US government.

Now of course people are going to think of just the presidential vote. No, I am talking House and Senate elections as well. Which means everyone holds their seat until the matter is settled and a free and clear election can take place.

I predict the Senate will dismiss this. The Democrats obviously made up some fake impeachment garbage because they don't like the President and are desperately trying to prevent his re-election. No high crime or misdemeanor was ever committed by Donald Trump while in office. Speaker McConnell doesn't want to waste any more time with this and that's all there is to it.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

Also, its "Bern", "FEEL THE BERN!", not literally "Burn", jesus I know you people can't meme, but you couldn't even get your own Berni meme right 😒🙄

a reply to: Arnie123

Not my meme.

I wrote what I ment.

Feel the BURN. Not Bern, like Bernie. BURN, like fire. Like a chemical reaction.

Riiight, Suuure, that's what you "ment", huh? Lol smdh.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

Call all witnesses up - ESPECIALLY the ones Schiff didn't want questioned.
Question Schiff
Question Biden
Question Burisma
Question Eric Ciamella
.. to start!

Once the Bidens corruption comes out
Question Kerry's son
Question Pelosi's son

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Where any of those people on the phone when Trump attempted to bribe the president of the Ukraine?

If so, hell yeah, question them.

Doesn't matter if they were on the call. They used their positions to push a fake impeachment, that was all a set up. A soft coup attempt. If there was corruption in the Ukraine, the President is just using his powers in regards to the treaty we have with the Ukraine. Treaty 106-16.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: carewemust
I want to hear from the ICIG. This must be good. Back dated whistle blower accounts second hand knowledge. Then then they lie and say the whistle blower had zero contact with congress on the form.

Despite pressure from House Republicans, Adam Schiff has still not released the ICIG closed-session testimony transcripts. And like I said earlier, he is being investigated by Congressional Republicans.

There's something really foul there. A potential bombshell that could have the entire House Impeachment nullified due to Whistle-blower fraud.

I think the democrats would be wise to take a step back.... What they think is a gift, is not.

McConnell always said that he was going to give the opportunity to call witnesses. This has not changed.
McConnell always said that he was going to hold a trial and not simply dismiss the charges. This has not changed.

Democrats are assuming that Bolton will reveal facts in their favor, have they not learned to stop assuming?

When we start calling witnesses, then The American People will be able to see to what extent the democrats are willing to go out of hate.
And make no mistake, it is nothing more than hate fueling their actions.

It's just taking people out of the #show in Iowa

a reply to: ErEhWoN

We need a real change, for the PEOPLE. Not corporations. Let them leave if they don't like it.

Right...cause folks don't need jobs, money or silly things like food, clothing, housing. Bernie's gonna give'em all that stuff for free, huh ? And please, tell me...where is he gonna get all the money for that ?
Entire companies gone, no jobs, so who is he going to tax ?

Bah!! We don't need to worry about all that though, right? WE'RE GONNA GET FREE STUFF !!!

Not surprising really. Senators think they are of great importance and that we all must be interested in what they have to say on the topic.

Sure, let's waste millions more of our own hard earned dollars we paid in taxes on this.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

Call all witnesses up - ESPECIALLY the ones Schiff didn't want questioned.
Question Schiff
Question Biden
Question Burisma
Question Eric Ciamella
.. to start!

Once the Bidens corruption comes out
Question Kerry's son
Question Pelosi's son

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Where any of those people on the phone when Trump attempted to bribe the president of the Ukraine?

If so, hell yeah, question them.

we already heard from Vindman, he was on the call, and all he could really say is that the transcript that was released to the world, was in fact, accurate. So please explain what could be gained from another "first hand witness to the call".

It'd be fun to have them call Schiff just to see what he knew, when he knew it, and did he conspire with the so-called whistleblower.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I wonder what Hunter will say, under oath

And Adam Schiff ... and he He Who Shall Not Be Named aka the Whistleblower.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

The only Senator mentioned is Susan Collins

a reply to: Gothmog


From the article...

“I think our members, generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is part of GOP leadership.

Collins is leading an effort among some Republicans,including Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to ensure the ground rules include plans to eventually consider voting to call witnesses.

As far as the rest , did you even read the article ?

Did you?

Roy Blunt was speaking objectively .

So the article cites three senators Collins, Romney and Murkowski.

I call those three senators and raise two democrats Joe Manchin and Doug Jones .

Manchin is in a heavy red District and vote’s with Republicans regularly . Doug Jones from Alabama is feeling the heat from angry Republican voters that are just looking for reason to turn out . His chances on reelection are slim to none if he ends up being the vote that screws Trump .

It doesn’t matter anyway dismissing the charges out right is too risky .


I’m going to address another of your replies .

Where any of those people on the phone when Trump attempted to bribe the president of the Ukraine?

I guess it’s safe to assume your conclusion is in line with the rest of the Democrats . That Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainian president to get political dirt on Joe Biden .

Dirt on Biden that’s what started everything .

Could you tell me what actual evidence your party had that Trump was going to use the investigation against Biden ?


Wait I’ll answer that . The Democratic’s didn’t have any evidence .

What they had was the first of many assumptions which started the b̶a̶l̶l̶ bull rolling .

That’s not the way a investigation should begin.

Especially when the assumption was being blared by every media outlet as a fact . Accompanied by Democratic House members agreeing that it was a fact . While lying through their teeth knowing damn good and well it wasn’t.
I
So to sum things up .

The impeachment process started on an assumption with assumptions presented as evidence .

To make a case that Trump was extorting dirt on a political opponent through the Biden investigation .

Which was a investigation that no one had ever heard of until the Democrats brought it up .

My God Tom Clancy couldn’t fix that script .

This whole thing is so ridiculous I think just about every Democrat in the country is knowingly lying. Because nobody can be that stupid .

But you could blow my whole position up in one fell swoop.

If you can show me evidence Trump was going to use the investigation against Biden during the election.

“ It’s obvious” doesn’t cut the muster .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Not to mention, the so-called corruption of the Bidens in Democrat eyes has been circulating now for so long that it will have lost any electoral effectiveness.

a reply to: ketsuko

Cynical and a very good point on top of that .

I like!

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

We need a real change, for the PEOPLE. Not corporations. Let them leave if they don't like it. Every billionaire that leaves creates a space for a thousand millionaires!

Think of the opportunity!

If you can not see the opportunities right now you will not see them once Sanders is in office creating a much bigger overpowering Government. You might need to be a millionaire by then just to have a quality of life you are looking for....lol

Much of Sanders is not just taking from the rich, but everyone who works... "Rich" is a moving amount as to how much in taxes they need. Taxing the rich 100% is 600 billion, so who gets taxed when he needs 10 trillion? Tomorrows rich with be anyone who makes more than 90k....

This model will not make people rich it will make everyone poor, so ya we can all be equally poor.

a reply to: network dude
Vindeman also testified he told people about the call. When questioned about who he told under oath Schiff shut down the direction of the questioning. By saying that it would out the whistleblower. There are plenty of questions for Vindeman.. How many people did he tell? Who were they? Were the conversations Professional in nature or was he just telling his opinion to friends. Did he possibly break any laws by divulging this information. If he was the one that told the whistleblower. What exactly did he say? Did that conversation spark the whistleblower complaint? When did these conversations take place. When pressed about who Vindeman told by Nunes. Vindeman said that he told someone from the CIA who had the correct clearance but couldn't say who on advice from council. Who were probably advised by Schiff. To not let him answer those kind of questions.
Pretty weird that both Vindeman and Schiff say they have no idea who the whistleblower is but they both know when to shut down questions that could lead down that path. Lots going on there. Nunes called Schiff out after he shut down the questioning. Schiff said that they couldn't talk about anyone from the Intelligence agencies. To which Nunes replied "this is the intelligence committee" we have over site over those agencies why can't we ask those questions? That's when Schiff admitted that he was protecting the whistleblower. Nunes followed up by asking Schiff if he knew who the whistle blower is. Schiff said that he didn't. Nunes called Schiff out again how can you protect the whistleblower if you don't know who it is?

So if they call Vindeman in the Senate they can ask who he told at the CIA. And since as they all say nobody knows if that person is the whistleblower. Then they can legitimately call the CIA person as a witness to Vindemans testimony.