Defense Dismantles 3-Day Schiff Show In 2 Hours

ia reply to: neo96

I bet they already have it in the planning stages!

originally posted by: toolgal462
ia reply to: neo96

I bet they already have it in the planning stages!

Yep.

Prolly for the Wu-flu virus in China too.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The answer is clear as the nose on your face. Just like you don't know squat about how the US impeachment process and justice system is supposed to work, the Dems in the House know that their uneducated constituents sure as hell don't know how these things are supposed to work either. Dems rely on their ignorant supporters, who they have all jacked up with hate and TDS - to also not know or understand that the Dems aren't following the rules or playing fair.

They are merely attempting to sway the ignorant among us to believe their made up "crimes", knowing the average Democrat voter will never look beyond the sound bite. Like good little zombies, the people the dems are trying to reach with this crap, will believe anything they say - even when proved beyond all reasonable doubt - that they have been lied to and manipulated.
This is the real attempt to sway an election.

while all the attention is on the impeachment drama... the Dems/deep-state are setting the groundworks to harvest millions of Pro-Democrat votes for Nov. 2020 voting

early ballots/ armed forces/ immigrants with out legal right to vote/ and the multitude of other schemes to create ballots-votes out-of-thin-Air

my earlier post mentioned the Party (meaning progressive democrats) would reign supreme while POTUS45 & constitution ideology gets lessened in progressive steps

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: TDawg61

Bet you 30 stars that they keep control of the house in 2020.

No way that happens if one of the current Democratic candidates is the nominee. NO WAY.

originally posted by: toolgal462
ia reply to: neo96

I bet they already have it in the planning stages!

Most likely this is the 5th impeachment attempt since Trump took office.

H.Res.13 Introduced March 1, 2019 by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on the grounds of obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation
H.Res.257 Introduced March 27, 2019 by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)for opening an investigation with no specific accusation made
H.Res.396 Introduced May 25, 2019 by Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX) Violations of the Domestic Emoluments Clause
Violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
Obstruction of justice
H.Res.498 Introduced July 17, 2019 by Rep. Al Green (D-TX-9)[141] on the grounds of being unfit for office after various racist remarks

And finally the vote on december where the house actually got the votes and we now have the trial. I seriously doubt most americans relize just how many times they attempted to impeach Trump.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlueJacket

The one independent in the house voted yes for impeachment.

lol right...the never Trump Republican that was surely "shown the door?"

Justin Amash, MI?

a reply to: dragonridr

They don't care, they listen to people like Maxine Waters who says she will impeach him again.
These are not intelligent people I'm sorry to say but that's the truth.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have been following this impeachment since it started and heard all the hearing etc in the house but that was getting very complicated (ignorant never trumper foreigner here) with all the he said/she said so I wanted to step into the trial fresh.

The dems presented a compelling case, the republicans knocked a big whole in the "scheme" with this fact.

I can't understand how the dems would push so hard to convince the senate that they were obstructed in their investigation by Trump because he blocked the entire executive branch from answering the 70+ subpoenas and documents only to have it shot down with the simple technicallity that the house investigation hadn't officially started when the subpoenas were send.

Peace

Thats not how precedent and standard procedure operate. The house as a whole needed to vote on impeachment for those subpoenas to be valid.

Any testimony derived, would have to be thrown out...you are witnessing a vigorous attempt to over-throw an election.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

They did not have the votes to start it, so their leadership just did what they wanted to do without following procedure. It's what they have done from the start. Its the same reason they voted for obstruction because witnesses would not testify while there were court orders at the time preventing the witnesses from testifying. Democrats do not care.

Well I guess this is an open and shut case.

This will be over by next week. And we can all have a lovely pint at the pub.
🍻

Schiff,Nadler,Pelosi,Waters,etc will have to call ubers.

Cause they be too drunk to drive after drowning their sorrows in Smirnoff all night after LOSING.

This whole show just stinks of desperation from the dems....I think they know the next 4 years are going to see them all gone.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I agree. She may not even make it to the end of her present term before she announces her resignation. She's finished.

a reply to: xuenchen

Herr Schiff and Herr Nadler seem to be the mouthpiece of the große Lüge.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.“
-Joseph Goebbels

Why do you think you can’t say the name “Eric Ciaramella” on YouTube or Facebook?

been having fun on this topic , if they are trying to say getting rid of an ambassador is bad for trump why was it not bad for obama? older article from huff post and its tiny and ironically runs afowl of politifact and snopes by the barest of margins

www.huffpost.com...

The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

he didnt fire them all imediatly he let a few serve for about 9ish months

www.theguardian.com... then there was this

Barack Obama has rewarded some of his most active campaign donors with plum jobs in foreign embassies, with the average amount raised by recent or imminent appointees soaring to $1.8m per post, according to a Guardian analysis. The practice is hardly a new feature of US politics, but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office. On Tuesday, Obama's chief money-raiser Matthew Barzun became the latest major donor to be nominated as an ambassador, when the White House put him forward as the next representative to the Court of St James's, a sought-after posting whose plush residence comes with a garden second only in size to that of Buckingham Palace.

old traditon to give donors the top cushy diplomat jobs apparently i am unsure if trump continued the tradition but hey this is the guardian from 2013

www.npr.org... Npr says the same

but wait you say what about his treatemnt of whistle blowers!?!?! orange man bad must not allow! www.motherjones.com... from left of marx mother jones but bonus points for them also talking about the president having unilateral control over who to drone or not

White is black and down is up. Leaks that favor the president are shoveled out regardless of national security, while national security is twisted to pummel leaks that do not favor him. Watching their boss, bureaucrats act on their own, freelancing the punishment of whistleblowers, knowing their retaliatory actions will be condoned. The United States rains Hellfire missiles down on its enemies, with the president alone sitting in judgment of who will live and who will die by his hand.

ill give mother jones this at least they at least critizied trump and obama for the same thing even though it was legal in both cases and another snippit

On the Other Side of the Mirror The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers, and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president’s political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama’s crusade against whistleblowers, told me, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.” The Obama administration has charged more people (six) under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history, one being Daniel Ellsberg, of Nixon-era Pentagon Papers fame.) The most recent Espionage Act case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, charged for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists about the horrors of waterboarding. Meanwhile, his evil twin, former CIA officer Jose Rodriguez, has a best-selling book out bragging about the success of waterboarding and his own hand in the dirty work. Obama’s zeal in silencing leaks that don’t make him look like a superhero extends beyond the deployment of the Espionage Act into a complex legal tangle of retaliatory practices, life-destroying threats, on-the-job harassment, and firings. Lots of firings.

also bonus points for the article in talking about how stuxnet was used against iran to attempt to limit its enrichment in the midst of the iran deal ,and so far its obama 6 prosecutions of whistleblowers to trumps "he said mean things about one" in comparison but orange man bad must impeach right?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: xuenchen

Last week, Schitt and GoNadler threw a massive boomerang thats about to come back and take them out.

We just saw the first volley

Members of the defense team granted several interviews this evening. Monday/Tuesday's arguments will be well worth watching, due to the tremendous boomerang you mentioned.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlueJacket

The one independent in the house voted yes for impeachment.

So what?

3 Democrats voted against it. The Founders were very clear, and as previous impeachments have shown, it must have BI-PARTISAN support, and not a single Republican voted for this, and 3 Democrats defected.

It is exactly what the Founders were afraid of - using impeachment as a weapon to deprive the power of the Executive branch.

Learn something about your country, go read what the Founders actually said in their own words and what impeachment was intended to solve. HINT: NOT THIS.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well no they just wanted a majority of the house and super majority of the senate. There we’re no parties when the constitution was made.

What if we are looking at this all wrong. The Dims know this will be thrown out. They know they can't win. But the Dims are always planning 50 years ahead. What if the plan is to have it thrown out. Then in years to come the tables are turned and the Republicans file bogus impeachment articles for no real reason. The people are already sick of the process, sick of the pettiness, sick of the constant hate and fighting. The dims scream for re-writing the constitution (that they hate) and Pandora's Box is open.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Schiff and The Nadler are on television now refuting the defense and repeating what they had been repeating for the past 3 years.

This isn't surprising, it all they have, nothing. I was also surprised that schiffilis spoke the democratic truth when he said:

The warning goes full circle from Schiff’s opening statement when he moved to take the decision out of the hands of the American people to decide who their president is by questioning the integrity of the 2020 election should Trump win. “The President’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff said then.

This was never about impeachment it was all about clearing the field so their dictator can take over.

www.bizpacreview.com... tion-878870