EjFord and 3 others like this.
EjFord and 3 others like this.
EjFord, Bill Martin and nipper51 like this.
EjFord and 3 others like this.
EjFord, Bill Martin and Travis like this.
Doc&Ruby and 5 others like this.
Frankie55 and 4 others like this.
Bill Martin likes this.
Edward Neal and 3 others like this.
EjFord, Bill Martin and nipper51 like this.
FunCycle and 3 others like this.
I just saw a recording of this Prof Karlan stating back in 2017 she was in NY and while walking by Trump Towers she had to cross the street! Making a mockery of President Trump. This is a witness. She also donated thousands to varying Democratic resources. This is a witness.
Anyone see an issue with this?
Its the double standard that many people including our own Wolf seem to think is okay - - everyone is innocent until proven guilty - - - except Donald Trump
with Joe Biden they say that its just hearsay and no one has proven it - with Trump they say "I never liked him - he must be guilty"
even with Biden on tape they find reasons why it should not matter
You have me pegged Edward Neal . That is exactly my sentiment here.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.
Edward Neal why do you proclaim everyone is innocent until proven guilty and then cry foul when the Dems try to prove someone guilty? Seems you believe everyone(Republicans) is innocent and shouldn't be investigated unless proven guilty. That is a tall order sir.
Not to mention if a certain someone is proven guilty, "it is only because of partisanship, Never Trumpers and the Deep State". Trump is always innocent, because even if his own campaign members, contributors and party members say something bad about him they are "Never Trumpers".
Edward Neal why do you proclaim everyone is innocent until proven guilty and then cry foul when the Dems try to prove someone guilty?
The democrats have been constantly attempting to prove guilty from day one. Insurance policy/impeach 45/quid pro quo/impeach/impeach/election interference while under democratic control. Guilty, guilty, guilty. It's been unrelenting and destructing to the country.
The democrats have been constantly attempting to prove guilty from day one. Insurance policy/impeach 45/quid pro quo/impeach/impeach/election interference while under democratic control. Guilty, guilty, guilty. It's been unrelenting and destructing to the country.
Republicans have done the same thing with Hillary, who never was President. Were Republicans were rejoicing those investigations? They call her guilty of Murder, child trafficking, negligent homicide(Bengazi), pay for play, illegal mishandling of classified material, obstruction of justice, illegal campaign financing, corrupt charity contributions. All these things have been investigated, some exhaustively.
Her charity is to my knowledge still under investigation by the FBI. Trey Gowdy concluded a one year investigation into her with no hard, damning evidence. He only stated, "We found some interesting things that should be looked into further". I say, "Look into those "Interesting things". If there is a there, there, find it and prosecute her".
Many Republicans, regardless that not enough evidence was found in those investigations to convict her, insist she is guilty of every crime and then preach about "innocent until proven guilty".
For the record, I never once cried foul during any of the investigations into her. Yes, I said some were silly, but said if the Republicans feel it's warranted and it makes them feel better, it's no skin off my back. I'm not the one going to prison if they find something and I don't care enough about any politician to care if they are investigated, found guilty, prosecuted and imprisoned. I just don't. Many care way too much about their party, to really care about justice. They can pretend to care, they can even call out the same wrong doing by the other team, but when it comes to their team, "It's different", It's not.
Edward Neal why do you proclaim everyone is innocent until proven guilty and then cry foul when the Dems try to prove someone guilty? Seems you believe everyone(Republicans) is innocent and shouldn't be investigated unless proven guilty. That is a tall order sir.
Not to mention if a certain someone is proven guilty, "it is only because of partisanship, Never Trumpers and the Deep State". Trump is always innocent, because even if his own campaign members, contributors and party members say something bad about him they are "Never Trumpers".
I am crying foul because you and the dems have said he was guilty without waiting for the evidence to be presented - - - heck when the whole collusion thing you and they swore he was guilty fell apart you even started calling him an "unindicted co-conspirator" as if you knew he was guilty even if there was nothing Muller could prove
The problem is that you and the dems dont want evidence because you think you already know the truth - - - -
the Dems have been searching for a crime from the day Trump got elected - and just like you they dont even care if they have to make it up
I am crying foul because you and the dems have said he was guilty without waiting for the evidence to be presented - - - heck when the whole collusion thing you and they swore he was guilty fell apart you even started calling him an "unindicted co-conspirator" as if you knew he was guilty even if there was nothing Muller could prove
The problem is that you and the dems dont want evidence because you think you already know the truth - - - -
the Dems have been searching for a crime from the day Trump got elected - and just like you they dont even care if they have to make it up
When the US courts found "Individual 1(Trump)" to be an " unindicted co-conspirator", you are correct, I then called him that. You are aware a sitting President can't be indicted, right? The term "unindicted co-conspirator" is exactly that, a person that is found to be guilty of the crime but not indicted. KNOWN TRUTH, FACTUAL TRUTH, UNDENIABLE TRUTH. A TRUTH that you Edward Neal refuse to acknowledge because of party blindness.
Evidence was presented before I called him guilty. Trump saying, "Russia if you're listening, please find the 30 thousand emails if you can" in public. Followed a few days later with a Wiki Leaks release of said emails, later PROVEN by our intelligence community to have been supplied by Russia.
Heck, as this impeachment investigation is on going, Trump is publicly calling on China to interfere in our election.
The problem for you is that when I learn the truth, I speak the truth rather than twist it and defend the indefensible.
Trump has been in around 2,000 law suits in his life. Most Trumpies refuse to believe that rich people can buy themselves out of convictions. Many believe all of those lawsuits were simply greedy people reaching for his money. He did pay a Florida politician with his charities money. He got caught and paid back the charity, is using charity funds to bribe politicians illegal? Yes. Did Trump get convicted or found guilty in a court of law? No, he settled out of court. His charity is now out of business for other laws he broke in regards to charities. Did he get convicted of a crime? No, he settled out of court. Trump is a shady piece of shit and if there is smoke, I say investigate it for a fire. The "Teflon Don" was a piece of shit, known criminal, everyone knew he was breaking laws, yet for decades, through many investigations never went to prison, until he did.
WOLF - Imma give you a little contrast here. Do you happen to remember a little gun operation gone bad called Fast and Furious during the Obama administration ??? He skated by that boondoggle with very little affecting him. Another little thing called the Iran Contra deal with my beloved Ronnie Reagan didn’t go so well either. Now imagine Trump doing the exact same thing in either instance?? The Democrats would want to give him the electric chair. My point is Trump is no better or no worse than his predecessors. Admittedly they may have been much smoother but in the end — Politicians !!!
True, however there was an investigation into Obama and his administration for "fast and furious" and you heard nothing from me calling the investigation a witch hunt, sham, trumped up charges, waste of time and money.... I just let it ride. No defense of Obama, just waited for the outcome. Same goes for Bengazi.
Contrary to Edward Neal 's conclusions of my conclusions during this impeachment trial. I stated before(if he would pay attention) I listened to every witnesses testimony almost in entirety. I didn't rely on pundits or news anchors to inform me in matters as important as impeachment. I didn't even watch pundits or news coverage through the whole process so that I could form my own opinion. I doubt he could claim the same and be speaking the truth, can you Edward Neal ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Why would I do that if I already made up my mind? By the way, as I type this I'm watching the hearing from today on C-Span, not watching pundits. Matt Gaetz made a very compelling argument a minute ago. Look it up if you are so inclined, you won't, because you know Trump is innocent and this is a sham investigation that shouldn't even happen, because Trump is innocent until proven guilty without an investigation, right Ed.
P.S. I apologize in advance if you did listen to every witnesses testimony and purposefully avoided news and pundits during those hearings so that you could form your own opinion.
It is weird that the professors are referred to as "witnesses" during this thing. There has to be a more accurate term. "Legal counsel" maybe?
Some Republicans on the Committee say they want to here from more witnesses. Jonathan Turley(my favorite professor of the 4)says the Dems should wait for those that are refusing to testify to testify for a fuller picture and more complete investigation. I agree with them. That would mean dragging this thing out. It would also come with McConnell crying that it is dragging on too close to the election. That is fine with me and if they really want to know more they should persuade Trump, Bolton, Mulvaney, Guilliani, Barr and Pence to testify. I would very much like to hear from them and the people the Republicans mentioned they think are pertinent.
Some Republicans on the Committee say they want to here from more witnesses. Jonathan Turley(my favorite professor of the 4)says the Dems should wait for those that are refusing to testify to testify for a fuller picture and more complete investigation. I agree with them. That would mean dragging this thing out. It would also come with McConnell crying that it is dragging on too close to the election. That is fine with me and if they really want to know more they should persuade Trump, Bolton, Mulvaney, Guilliani, Barr and Pence to testify. I would very much like to hear
if anyone anybody can provide a “fact” witness I would be glad to hear from them. We have already had more than enough “opinion” or “hearsay” witnesses. Maybe use the same rules of evidence as they do in a real courtroom -,just a thought 
Some Republicans on the Committee say they want to here from more witnesses. Jonathan Turley(my favorite professor of the 4)says the Dems should wait for those that are refusing to testify to testify for a fuller picture and more complete investigation. I agree with them. That would mean dragging this thing out. It would also come with McConnell crying that it is dragging on too close to the election. That is fine with me and if they really want to know more they should persuade Trump, Bolton, Mulvaney, Guilliani, Barr and Pence to testify. I would very much like to hear from them and the people the Republicans mentioned they think are pertinent.
and shifty
Another tidbit in a little different vein but relevant to our conversation. Obama was a community organizer - becomes President for 8 years then three years later can plunk down $11.75 million for a MFing house in Martha’s Vineyard ??Oh well - he didn’t build that 
Another tidbit in a little different vein but relevant to our conversation. Obama was a community organizer - becomes President for 8 years then three years later can plunk down $11.75 million for a MFing house in Martha’s Vineyard ??Oh well - he didn’t build that
And that is not counting the UP-KEEP 
Another tidbit in a little different vein but relevant to our conversation. Obama was a community organizer - becomes President for 8 years then three years later can plunk down $11.75 million for a MFing house in Martha’s Vineyard ??Oh well - he didn’t build that
And 8.1 M for the house in Washington ....
Good work if you can get it 🥴
Just a theory; the whistleblower was set up with bad info. They were known to be a mole for the dems and knowing the dems were desperate used to set up the dems. The dems got way ahead of the situation not thinking the transcript wouldn't support the claims. After going all in on the investigation they can't fold. If the dems fold they lose, if they can't find a winning hand with the public they lose.
And 8.1 M for the house in Washington ....
Good work if you can get it 🥴
1.5 Million Dollar home in Chicago ....
4.25 million dollar home in Rancho Mirage, CA
8.7 million dollar home in Hawaii officially purchased by a corporation controlled by financier Marty Nesbitt that the Obamas "rent" ... they don't have any traceable legal claim to the property but are the only "renter" ....
Aaaaaand all of these, including the the two others mentioned, are under 24/7 monitoring by the Secret Service courtesy of your tax dollars for as long as they own/"rent" them ............
.... 
Now that the Dems are going to impeach Trump I have a simple question. How will this have any negative impact on Trump when the same thing had no negative affect on Clinton? It makes great political theater but it really doesn't accomplish anything does it?
Now that the Dems are going to impeach Trump I have a simple question. How will this have any negative impact on Trump when the same thing had no negative affect on Clinton? It makes great political theater but it really doesn't accomplish anything does it?
Based on the testimony heard already, it depends if they can get Rudy and Bolton on the stand. Then it may accomplish a bi-partisan impeachment. Outside of that, you are right. The Senate will shut it down without as much as a witness and it will look like a failed coup by the Dems.
