Trump has been impeached - Page 27 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060272
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, you have no clue why you want these people to be witnesses.

Did you just pull these names off some media pundit's website?

Take Eric Ciaramella, for example. Can he actually help the Senate understand what Trump did, or do you just want to target potential whistleblowers?


He was the impetus of this entire fiasco. He needs to be questioned under oath.

Why do you think he shouldn't be put under oath?
#15060275
BigSteve wrote:
Eric Ciaramella

Adam Schiff

Sean Misko

Joe Biden

Hunter Biden

Barack Obama


And it is just this morally bankrupt obstruction that makes reasonably intelligent people reject the entire republican agenda. But for a modern republican the very idea of a search for justice is absurd.

But they sure have their instructions from Putin down to a science. Traitors to the constitution all of them.
#15060280
Drlee wrote:BigSteve wrote:


And it is just this morally bankrupt obstruction that makes reasonably intelligent people reject the entire republican agenda. But for a modern republican the very idea of a search for justice is absurd.


It comes as no surprise that you have no interest in there being justice. If Nancy Pelosi set fire to a child and then accused Trump of doing it, you'd believe Pelosi and demand that Trump prove he didn't do it.

The names I've listed above have been batted around before. Why are you so afraid to see them questioned under oath? If they've done nothing wrong, it seems as though this would be the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that. Anti-Republicans like you should be salivating at the very thought.

No, there's a reason that people like you recoil at the very thought of those people having to answer questions under oath...
#15060286
BigSteve wrote:He was the impetus of this entire fiasco. He needs to be questioned under oath.

Why do you think he shouldn't be put under oath?


Because there is no evidence that he is actually the whistleblower. He has simply been accused of such by conservative pundits.

Keeping the identity of the whistleblower private is essential to preserving the role of the whistleblower.

To remove this essential protection would expose the whistleblower to punishment for exposing the alleged wrongdoing.

All the whistleblower did was provide a lead to possible wrongdoing. They did not provide any evidence. And since the whistleblower is not providing evidence, there is no reason to call the whistleblower to the stand.
#15060298
I wonder who President Trump will call as witnessing that he isn't quilty. I'm not talking about character witnesses, I mean real witnesses that can exonerate him. I've not seen a soul so far, just blanket claims that the evidence at hand doesn't amount to impeachable. And not much to say why
Last edited by Stormsmith on 20 Jan 2020 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
#15060299
No, there's a reason that people like you recoil at the very thought of those people having to answer questions under oath...


There most certainly is. The republican idea of doing this is to distract. Nothing more. And it is a childish attempt that anyone who cares to be objective can easily see. Call Obama. :lol:

The thing is Big Steve is that the people who this ploy fools are the ones not intelligent or engaged enough in the process to care.

Just for the record, in the United States, we do not go on legal fishing expeditions. The real question is, why muddy the waters? Try Trump then, if the republicans dare, go after the others. They have subpoena power in the senate. Why have they not done it before? We all know why. It is because they do not think anything is there but they have no problem using distraction to convince their dullard followers that there is.

At the end of all of this nonsense, we need to take a look at our schools. So many people without the basic constitutional knowledge to fight a traffic ticket....not to mention vote.
#15060309
What is @BigSteve bitching and whiney about now?


He got his feelings hurt. And, of course, as a Trump supporter it seems that he is afraid of the evidence against Trump and wants to try to muddy the waters.

But I am sad for him. I am sad for all sad people.
#15060311
I love how BigSteve's list is just an investigation into who truthfully reported the extensively documented way in which Trump attempted to interfere with the election that he has admitted to doing.

We need to get to the bottom of this mystery: how did anyone know about this genius plan when Rudy Giuliani, competence made manifest into physical form, was on the case!?
#15060313
I'm sad for those who like following the news. This smells like another Trey Gowdyesque affair of looooong days out of which comes Jack Squat.
#15060342
BigSteve wrote:That's actually not why they were found not guilty.

Do you even read what you're going to post? If their were no laws prohibiting what they did, how is it they were charged under those non-existent laws?

No, again, that's not why they were found not guilty. Furthermore, the owners were later found guilty of wrongful death in a subsequent trial. Odd you failed to mention that.

Then again, not so much.

Your impressive stretch to attempt to compare the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to the ridiculous charges against Trump is stupid...


As usual you missed the point and got it 98% wrong. I don't have any time right now to waste on super intelligent albeit brain dead self deluded "conservative" suck ups like yourself and your ilk. So good luck to you my friend. You have already been crowned the all time POFO Pissing Contest Champ and have the card collection to attest to your cluelessness. If you want to discuss photography, give me a ring …… in the meantime …. piss on. And remember …. I love you :?: .

What exactly did John R. Bolton, then the White House’s national security adviser, see and hear last year that convinced him a group of diplomats and aides were cooking up a geopolitical “drug deal” involving Ukraine? Of course Bolton needs to testify. He has even agreed to so, please, no bullshit about "executive privilege" or pretend concern about national security. In fact let's have the fat guy with the flapping jaws in the below picture testify under oath. If that unlikely event were to happen, jimjam predicts that, on the outside, he would perjure himself in 16 seconds :lol: .

Image
#15060346
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because there is no evidence that he is actually the whistleblower. He has simply been accused of such by conservative pundits.

Keeping the identity of the whistleblower private is essential to preserving the role of the whistleblower.

To remove this essential protection would expose the whistleblower to punishment for exposing the alleged wrongdoing.

All the whistleblower did was provide a lead to possible wrongdoing. They did not provide any evidence. And since the whistleblower is not providing evidence, there is no reason to call the whistleblower to the stand.


I'm sure, in your head, that all makes sense.

It's no secret who the whistleblower is...
Last edited by BigSteve on 20 Jan 2020 04:57, edited 1 time in total.
#15060347
Stormsmith wrote:I wonder who President Trump will call as witnessing that he isn't quilty. I'm not talking about character witnesses, I mean real witnesses that can exonerate him. I've not seen a soul so far, just blanket claims that the evidence at hand doesn't amount to impeachable. And not much to say why


He doesn't need to exonerate himself. He doesn't need to provide witnesses who will say he's not guilty. He doesn't have to produce any evidence which demonstrates that.

It's pretty clear you have no clue how our justice system works...
#15060348
Drlee wrote:There most certainly is. The republican idea of doing this is to distract. Nothing more. And it is a childish attempt that anyone who cares to be objective can easily see. Call Obama. :lol:


Your fear at seeing them called is glaringly obvious. You're afraid. You should be...

Just for the record, in the United States, we do not go on legal fishing expeditions.


Oh, please. It started with Comey...

The real question is, why muddy the waters? Try Trump then, if the republicans dare, go after the others. They have subpoena power in the senate. Why have they not done it before? We all know why. It is because they do not think anything is there but they have no problem using distraction to convince their dullard followers that there is.


No, they haven't done it prior to now because Pelosi sat her fat ass on the articles of impeachment instead of sending them to the Senate. Every Republican I've spoken to or heard on television seems to be quite comfortable with the idea of a trial in the Senate...

At the end of all of this nonsense, we need to take a look at our schools. So many people without the basic constitutional knowledge to fight a traffic ticket....not to mention vote.


You can start with Stormsmith, who foolishly thinks the accused should be required to prove his innocence...
#15060349
jimjam wrote:As usual you missed the point and got it 98% wrong. I don't have any time right now to waste on super intelligent albeit brain dead self deluded "conservative" suck ups like yourself and your ilk. So good luck to you my friend. You have already been crowned the all time POFO Pissing Contest Champ and have the card collection to attest to your cluelessness.


I imagine it must suck to be proven wrong all the time. I just figured you'd be used to it by now.

You said the owners of the sweatshop were found not guilty because there were no laws prohibiting what they did.

Well, that's not why they were found not guilty. You just lack the moral fiber to admit you were wrong...

If you want to discuss photography, give me a ring


Don't flatter yourself...
#15060350
Drlee wrote:He got his feelings hurt. And, of course, as a Trump supporter it seems that he is afraid of the evidence against Trump and wants to try to muddy the waters.

But I am sad for him. I am sad for all sad people.


Believe me when I say that no one here is adept enough, or meaningful enough, to hurt my feelings.

And I'm hardly sad. I'm just about the happiest guy I know...
#15060353
BigSteve wrote:I'm sure, in your head, that all makes sense.

I never used the words ""Ciaramella" and "whistleblower" in the same sentence.

Why did you?


Why even bother bringing up his name then lmao.

Why even make your dumb list investigating who reported the attempts to interfere in the election that the president has already admitted to lmao.
#15060355
If Republicans took their Congressional Oath of Office seriously, they would have investigated Trump's violation of the Emoluments Clause and then taken the appropriate actions, depending on the results of the investigation.

After all, the Emoluments Clause is in the Constitution.

Republicans have refined the lack of curiosity about Trump's activities to a fine art.
#15060356
SpecialOlympian wrote:Why even make your dumb list investigating who reported the attempts to interfere in the election that the president has already admitted to lmao.


They wouldn't be investigated, they would be questioned.

Perhaps you're unaware of the difference.

The very fact that so many libs are averse to the very idea tells any intelligent person that the idea is a good one...
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 40

App makes killing Palestinians as easy as order[…]

Election 2020

The hell kind of an incompetent baffoon goes afte[…]

Nope, and I don't remember the network nor the an[…]

Ideality

I having started my masters for teaching I've beco[…]