https://www.zerohedge.com/political/adam-schiff-exhibitWhile Joe and Hunter Biden have been absurdly off limits in the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is quickly becoming the GOP's "Exhibit A" over claims of an unfair trial in the House, as well as his involvement - and alleged coordination - with the anti-Trump CIA 'whistleblower' who kicked off the entire proceeding. Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly come under fire for conducting 'secret basement' hearings, while refusing to call key witnesses such as the Bidens, their business associates, or Ukrainian authorities with intimate knowledge of corruption claims. This anonymouse zerohedge blogger thinks (or wants you to think (or doesn't really care, in it for the clicks and knows how to fire you up)) that the trial was in the House and that it's Schiffs fault if the Bidens aren't subpoenaed in the actual trial, which is in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. The 'Ukrainian authorities' that are considered key witnesses that should be called to testify is also hilarious. Has anyone in congress actually suggested that? You don't care about facts, due process, trials, or anything.
Yeah I really do. The trial is in the Senate, not the House. It takes a simple majority vote (51) to subpoena a witness for the trial. There are 53 republicans in the Senate, so they decide who/what to subpoena or not subpoena anything at all. I don't think they would subpoena leaders of another country since they can't really hold them accountable if they lie, but not sure. Do you really think they are considering subpoenaing Ukraine officials? The corrupt prosecutor that got fired because of Obama who only prosecuted people who supported Ukraines independence from Russia wouldn't be very credible, if that's who they're thinking about. He's shown more loyalty to Russia than Ukraine, which is why Obama, the EU and IMA wanted him gone. No, really you don't. You just pay these ideals lip service. Your assumption that I don't care about anything is false. Why would I even be here posting about Trump investigations if I didn't care? And that's just one thing. I care about lots of other things also, including facts, which is why I pointed out that the blog you posted had a bunch of false statements. Don't take it personal. |
|
|
|
The likelihood of Trump being deposed is very small. The US economy is growing and is likely to grow even more.
You can't force someone to testify in their own trial. It's Trumps decision alone whether or not he testifies (I think there's basically a 0% chance of him deciding to testify) edit: I see deposed has two definitions: - remove from office suddenly and forcefully. - testify to or give (evidence) on oath, typically in a written statement. I didn't know about the first one. But yeah, I doubt he gets deposed (removed) or deposed (testifies).
American Democrats look a lot like the left-wing people in other countries. Look at what happened to Brazil with the leftist governments. Sank the country was considered the most corrupt government in the world. Brazil's current government is nationalist like Trump and is making the economy much better. Look at Venezuela's socialist government. They ended the country. Look at Cuba, Angola, etc. Good government has to be nationalist like Trump
Please stay on topic: Impeachment and Trial of Trump. There are plenty of other threads to discuss why the Democrats are bad and Trump is good. |
|
|
|
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/adam-schiff-exhibitWhile Joe and Hunter Biden have been absurdly off limits in the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is quickly becoming the GOP's "Exhibit A" over claims of an unfair trial in the House, as well as his involvement - and alleged coordination - with the anti-Trump CIA 'whistleblower' who kicked off the entire proceeding. Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly come under fire for conducting 'secret basement' hearings, while refusing to call key witnesses such as the Bidens, their business associates, or Ukrainian authorities with intimate knowledge of corruption claims. This anonymouse zerohedge blogger thinks (or wants you to think (or doesn't really care, in it for the clicks and knows how to fire you up)) that the trial was in the House and that it's Schiffs fault if the Bidens aren't subpoenaed in the actual trial, which is in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. The 'Ukrainian authorities' that are considered key witnesses that should be called to testify is also hilarious. Has anyone in congress actually suggested that? You don't care about facts, due process, trials, or anything.
Yeah I really do. The trial is in the Senate, not the House. It takes a simple majority vote (51) to subpoena a witness for the trial. There are 53 republicans in the Senate, so they decide who/what to subpoena or not subpoena anything at all. I don't think they would subpoena leaders of another country since they can't really hold them accountable if they lie, but not sure. Do you really think they are considering subpoenaing Ukraine officials? The corrupt prosecutor that got fired because of Obama who only prosecuted people who supported Ukraines independence from Russia wouldn't be very credible, if that's who they're thinking about. He's shown more loyalty to Russia than Ukraine, which is why Obama, the EU and IMA wanted him gone. |
|
|
|
...
Who would have thought when Trump brought Bolton out from retirement that he would one day effectively call Trump a liar in his soon to be published book? This is a massive setback for Trump and his all-start legal defence team because Bolton will be called as a witness. The prosecutors would be guilty of dereliction of duty if they did not to subpoena him because he was part of the inner circle at the time.
It is all ifs and buts at the moment at least until the real drama in Court commences and to me it seems to look like the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
See WHO??? "Bolton's book manuscript clears Trump of all impeachment allegations by demonstrating that the President believed Ukraine interfered in US elections. Given that belief, right or wrong, pressuring Zelensky was completely within the job description of the presidency. " https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1221799382896394245Did the creator of Dilbert get hold of the transcript? Hopefully Trump sees this tweet and tells the GOP Senators to vote to subpoena Bolton. Whether it's damning for the Dems or Republicans, I am super interested to hear what he has to say after all these mixed signals. This is whole thing is more intriguing than any movie I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
There would be consequences to your political zealots keeping going on this. Might want to think about that. So far your team has made a number of very wrong decisions, both politically, economically, and from the point of view of practicality.
Wise up. Best to wise up fast, in my opinion. It's not Trump you are going to anger, it's the American people.
I'm trying to keep this thread a place to have serious discussion on the impeachment and trial, please keep the 'my team' vs 'your team' stuff, and being disrespectful out of this thread. If you don't think that's a reasonable request, just stop posting in this thread. To trump such testimony you would need actual physical evidence, such as a series of emails proving the contrary. The reason for this is suppose you have an opposing witness that says Ukraine was pressured.
Then you've got a "he said-she said" situation.
If Bolton testifies, and he is lying, Pompeo or Mulvaney or Trump or someone else senior in the administration could take the stand and refute his testimony. One of them would be risking prison time though and I think if someone credible was willing to take the stand and defend Trump, they would've been called already. |
|
|
|
Here you go TECHSHARE: (Works pretty much the same in states as Federally) I'm Just a Bill (Schoolhouse Rock!) . <--- Please watch this anyone who isn't sure how laws are passed in America. It's a great video and only 3 minutes! Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is? I'm just a bill.Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill. Well, it's a long, long journey To the capital city. It's a long, long wait While I'm sitting in committee, But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage. Bill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, "You're right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law. I'm just a bill Yes I'm only a bill, And I got as far as Capitol Hill. Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you? Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.Boy: Die? Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me. Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.Boy: Oh no! Bill: Oh yes! I'm just a bill Yes, I'm only a bill And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill Well, then I'm off to the White House Where I'll wait in a line With a lot of other bills For the president to sign And if he signs me, then I'll be a law. How I hope and pray that he will, But today I am still just a bill. Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no? Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old... Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it? Bill: No! But how I hope and I pray that I will, But today I am still just a bill. Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law! Bill: Oh yes!!! |
|
|
|
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/adam-schiff-exhibitWhile Joe and Hunter Biden have been absurdly off limits in the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is quickly becoming the GOP's "Exhibit A" over claims of an unfair trial in the House, as well as his involvement - and alleged coordination - with the anti-Trump CIA 'whistleblower' who kicked off the entire proceeding. Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly come under fire for conducting 'secret basement' hearings, while refusing to call key witnesses such as the Bidens, their business associates, or Ukrainian authorities with intimate knowledge of corruption claims. This anonymouse zerohedge blogger thinks (or wants you to think (or doesn't really care, in it for the clicks and knows how to fire you up)) that the trial was in the House and that it's Schiffs fault if the Bidens aren't subpoenaed in the actual trial, which is in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. The 'Ukrainian authorities' that are considered key witnesses that should be called to testify is also hilarious. Has anyone in congress actually suggested that? |
|
|
|
Is there a way to securely contact people such as this?
Google it. Find their website or read their (verified) profiles on social media. I'm sure they all have pgp keys and I think snowden actually has some service specifically for secure communications to connect whistleblowers and journalists. I wouldn't expect much of a response unless you have something very interesting to say though. |
|
|
|
This is probably because the DNC was tipping the scales against Sanders in the 2016 nomination cycle, and there is evidence they are doing the same this cycle. For example, in the last Democratic debate, Sanders denied telling Warren that a women could not win the presidency, Sanders denied this, and the very next question to Warren was praised in a way such that this is an accepted fact. Some are also speculating that the timing of sending the impeachment articles to the Senate was intended to harm Sanders by way of preventing him from being able to campaign immediately prior to the first primary.
I agree the way the question came off as if they were straight up calling Bernie a liar, but I don't think it was intentional, and if it was, it's on the CNN moderator, not the DNC. CNN: "cnn reported and Warren confirmed that you said a woman couldn't win, why'd you say that?" Bernie: "I didn't say that, lets move on" CNN: "just be clear, you didn't say that?" Bernie: "no!" CNN: "Warren, what did you think when he said that?" I think if the moderator got warren to actually say it, instead of "Warren confirmed to CNN", it would be fine because it would be more explicit. CNN: "What did Bernie say" and then CNN: "What did you think when he said that" Some are also speculating that the timing of sending the impeachment articles to the Senate was intended to harm Sanders by way of preventing him from being able to campaign immediately prior to the first primary.
The DNC has done shady things and definitely fucked Bernie last year, but these DNC/Biden conspiracy theories seem to be red meat for anyone who reveled in the Clinton conspiracy theories and are looking for any opportunity to make Biden Hillary 2.0 and experience that same sweet victory all over again. I'm not saying Bernie has nothing to complain about, he does, and so do his followers. But he's also been fiercly independent from the Democratic party his whole life. If he didn't have to register as a Democrat to run, he'd have an (I) next to his name, so getting the same love from the DNC as rank and file Biden is not something he's ever expected. |
|
|
|
I would discourage anyone from voting this way in 2020. Unless you like/dislike both candidates completely equally, you should vote for either the Democratic or Republican nominee. A vote for a third party is half a vote for the nominee you prefer less.
That may make sense in a state that's very close - think Florida or Michigan - but it doesn't in a state like NY or California. There one can easily vote third party and not affect the outcome. AND, the better a third party does the more attention is paid to the party platform and future Dem or Rep candidates will pay attention to the issues raised. You're right technically for states like NY and CA, but I feel like it's still a bad mentality for the population to have as a whole in any state that could swing one way or the other in the next decade (which is most of them). It's kind of natural to convince yourself your vote really doesn't matter because you already know what's going to happen. But that results in states not swinging the way they would if people didn't have this mentality. when a party decides to spend less campaigning there the next cycle, and then the next... I guess what I'm really saying is I think the electoral college is dumb. (and I'm not just saying that because Trump won it but lost the popular and has been a total embarrassment since, I know I know, different campaign strategies would have different results) |
|
|
|
|
One could argue that there are circumstances where donating to a campaign could be the most altruistic way to donate your money. (of course, you would have to factor in the possibility that your preferred candidate may still lose even if you donate)
For example, if you believe that if candidate A wins, millions of people will suffer because of their policies on [fill in the blank], but if candidate B wins, they won't.
The whole point of donating to charity is so that other people suffer less, right?
|
|
|
|
I just chked what write-in candidates are...
MF what freaking non-sense... Dems deserve to lose if they act in such an incoherent fashion...
Bernie will never win, no one likes to hear the truth and he makes ppl swallow it...
There needs to be a NOTA (None of the Above) for every election. This would help get a better sense of the electorate. There already is, it's called not voting. If a significant portion of the population doesn't vote then many reasons can be ascribed to explain why people don't vote: the people are content with how things are; they like both candidates, etc... However, if one shows up at the voting booth and selects NOTA then the ambiguity is gone. They just write in someone else's name. In 2016 the democrats that didn't like Clinton wrote down Jill Stein (Or Bernie). The Republicans that didn't like Trump wrote down Gary Johnson.  I would discourage anyone from voting this way in 2020. Unless you like/dislike both candidates completely equally, you should vote for either the Democratic or Republican nominee. A vote for a third party is half a vote for the nominee you prefer less. |
|
|
|
Nuclear war isn't something that's going to happen. It's something that can be used to scare the people, but what's the upside of a country attempting to use a nuclear weapon against another? Nothing, there's no benefit as everyone in both countries will end up dying from that.
Nuclear terrorism could occur, that's something that could truly happen as terrorists just want to prove a point and don't care about their own life. But at the end of the day, if there was a big enough threat all of the governments of the world would ensure that it was silenced and stopped. Nothing is worth all of those deaths when everyone can just be rich as all hell.
Get it?
The biggest risk is that someone fucks up and it results in Nukes flying. Came pretty close the 60s: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/tldr; Russian Sub goes stealth (no communication) and heads to Cuba a few weeks before Cuban Missile Crises US finds them, and starts dropping explosives alternating on their left and right to signal them to surface. They think they're being attacked, and the US assumes they know about the crisis and would understand the signals. The sub has a nuclear torpedo equivalent to the Hiroshima Bomb. Because they are completely cut off, the protocol is to fire it if 3 men all agree it's appropriate. 2 of the 3 say fire it and some guy talks the 3rd out of it. Then it almost happened again in the 80s during the cold war: https://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/Russias missile detection systems malfunctioned and showed 5 ballistic missiles incoming. The protocol was to return fire before the incoming missiles were halfway there, but the guy basically chickened out. |
|
|
|
and I'm gonna say they probably discovered multiple other illegal things he did before taking office and are just sitting on them.
No doubt. He had illegal dealings with Cuba but the statute of limitations ran out on that one but I have no doubt there's many more such things. Don't know much about the Cuba stuff. but If they discover evidence of a crime thats statute of limitations would pass while he could still be in office (most financial crimes, including tax related are 6 to 10 years I think), the sealed indictment freezes it. Just gotta convince a grand jury. |
|
|
|
If you want to post a meme, right click => copy image address => click the image picture:  paste the address in the image tags, and make sure that the address ends in .jpg, .png or .gif The ones from your link have some format parameters that would mess it up. So instead of this: [img]https://patriot.imgix.net/4cae648fbfb8afbe97474644ca8953b340e6e69a35a4fcfc7150fe5a31ed3489.jpg?auto=format[/img] delete everything after .jpg like this: [img]https://patriot.imgix.net/4cae648fbfb8afbe97474644ca8953b340e6e69a35a4fcfc7150fe5a31ed3489.jpg[/img] and preview to make sure it works. But wait, that's too big! Just change size in the opening tag like this: [img width=300 height=300]https://patriot.imgix.net/4cae648fbfb8afbe97474644ca8953b340e6e69a35a4fcfc7150fe5a31ed3489.jpg[/img] And voila:  (I picked the cringiest of your cringy memes list) |
|
|
|
angolosaxon elections including massively important ones are since decades 50+-1% elections its time they stop taking the rest of the world hostage with those elections
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, are you against elections? For the record, US presidential elections aren't always +- 1% either way. Our last 3: 2008: Obama 70 million votes, 365 Electoral Votes McCaine 60 million votes, 173 Electoral Votes 2012 Obama 67 million, 332 Electoral Romney, 61 million, 206 Electoral 2016 Trump 63 Million, 304 Electoral Clinton 66 Million, 227 Electoral |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's the same in most of the world. You have two political side fighting, and many in the population chooses a side and then fight like children.
In democracies, yeah. If you live in a country like that, don't take it for granted, even if it is annoying and messy, it's better than living in an authoritarian country...unless you're the one in charge I guess. |
|
|
|
Yeah, they must not have been paying attention in high school the day they taught the part of the constitution that deemed all write-ins be counted towards Trump's vote totals.
If they wrote in Bernie, they were essentially choosing not to vote for Clinton, which directly benefited Trump. So yeah, the Bernie write-ins definitely gave Trump a boost. |
|
|
|
The chance of him getting thrown out of office is pretty damn slim. But, it all comes down to the public and what they do which is another reason McConnell wants to rush this through. He knows the longer it drags out, the more chance more and more of the public will want him out. Watched a video last night and at the end the guy put up phone numbers of some senators for people to call and demand witnesses. Some of the people were calling their senators. The more this drags out, the more of that will happen.
The can only think of 2 scenarios where they vote to remove Trump, both are very unlikely but not impossible. A - The life long conservatives who have been horrified by his behavior but remain quiet because he could destroy their career get together and just blind side him without telling Mitch or anyone. Classic reality television strategy - don't let whoever you're planning on blind siding them so they don't have a chance to throw a tantrum and maybe convince one person to vote differently. B - They get some witnesses and documents, the trial drags on, Trump gets paranoid about what they're going to say and does something really really stupid like get recorded blackmailing Boltons wife or something. What I think will be more entertaining is once Trump is out of office. I suspect the knives of the republicans will finally come out and he will also end up in court for a hole host of things and he will no longer be "protected". It's going to make for some fantastic "entertainment".
I think it's very likely there are sealed indictments with his name on them at the SDNY offices 'do not open until Trump is out of office'. His lawyer is already in prison for crimes that Trump was obvious co-conspirator in, he had his fraud charity shut down in NY, and I'm gonna say they probably discovered multiple other illegal things he did before taking office and are just sitting on them.
The SNL cold open was pretty hilarious, I expect Trump to dedicate a few of his 100+ tweets tomorrow on it. Alan Dershowitz Argues for Trump Cold Open - SNL |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
