Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

McConnell Doesn’t Have The Votes To Block Witnesses Yet —

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

RedSoloCup

He also needs to get used to these two words for another 5 years or so.....

PRESIDENT TRUMP.

 

 

:yes: :exactly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Question for the moderators: Can y'all come up with a filter that identifies and zapps childish posts such as the above ?

Mod Note: If you don't like his posts, put him on ignore.

 

 

ETA: Other people stop the personal attacks/namecalling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

What most conservatives want is to humilate Democrats by definetively showing their impeachment claims to be counterfactual overeach. Are really going to tell me thats NOT what you want?

 

Now if that really is what happened, and that really was what Bolton, Mulvaney, Juliani and others involved witnessed happening then you, like Trump, like Congressional Republicans would be DEMANDING for directly involved witnesses to come testify.

 

 

Unfortunately that is not what happened, the President conducted himself reprehensibly and Congressional Republicans know that damn well, even if they don't want to remove him. That is exactly why they just want to wrap this up asap without any of that damaging testimony.

 

The rest is just you rationalizing the shady behaviour of the Republican Senate against a clear feeling in your gut that a trial were pertinent witness testimony is suppressed is a transparent sham.

Yeah, how dare the republicans bring up Hunter Biden Sending out strippers to buy him a dildo. The nerve! Next they’ll uncover how he flew with his dad getting sweetheart deals having no skill set at all. Other than apparently doing something with strippers and dildos.

 

Have you ever read one of your posts? My guess is no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Alexander is now a “No” on additional witnesses....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

A lie detector would be best.

 

A simple "Which Number Is Bigger" test would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

What most conservatives want is to humilate Democrats by definetively showing their impeachment claims to be counterfactual overeach. Are really going to tell me thats NOT what you want?

 

Now if that really is what happened, and that really was what Bolton, Mulvaney, Juliani and others involved witnessed happening then you, like Trump, like Congressional Republicans would be DEMANDING for directly involved witnesses to come testify.

 

 

Unfortunately that is not what happened, the President conducted himself reprehensibly and Congressional Republicans know that damn well, even if they don't want to remove him. That is exactly why they just want to wrap this up asap without any of that damaging testimony.

 

The rest is just you rationalizing the shady behaviour of the Republican Senate against a clear feeling in your gut that a trial were pertinent witness testimony is suppressed is a transparent sham.

Re-read your own post, skippy.

 

Do you see all the poorly formed grammar? How about the multiple mis-spelled words? How about the complete and total lack of anything even approaching a fact?

 

That is what the Democrats are doing in this sham impeachment on a national scale. Poorly formed. Wrong. No facts. No crime.

 

Do you really think that the Democrats need help to "humilate" themselves, "definetively" or otherwise?

 

I think not. They "humilate" themselves all on their own, much like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Re-read your own post, skippy.

 

Do you see all the poorly formed grammar? How about the multiple mis-spelled words? How about the complete and total lack of anything even approaching a fact?

 

That is what the Democrats are doing in this sham impeachment on a national scale. Poorly formed. Wrong. No facts. No crime.

 

Do you really think that the Democrats need help to "humilate" themselves, "definetively" or otherwise?

 

I think not. They "humilate" themselves all on their own, much like you.

 

:exactly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

This all ends today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

Bolton is already on record as stating he would lie for what he perceives as a benefit to national security.

 

Doesn't that make him Adam Schiff??

 

cool_shades.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Alexander is now a “No” on additional witnesses....

 

Collins is a "Yes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

This all ends today

It should because this whole fraudulent scam has been given way too much time and effort already.

 

They have no case and never did and for justice to prevail it needs to end right now.

 

Then go after all of the democrap criminals and deep staters who tried this crap and put them all in prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

What most conservatives want is to humilate Democrats by definetively showing their impeachment claims to be counterfactual overeach. Are really going to tell me thats NOT what you want?

 

Now if that really is what happened, and that really was what Bolton, Mulvaney, Juliani and others involved witnessed happening then you, like Trump, like Congressional Republicans would be DEMANDING for directly involved witnesses to come testify.

 

 

Unfortunately that is not what happened, the President conducted himself reprehensibly and Congressional Republicans know that damn well, even if they don't want to remove him. That is exactly why they just want to wrap this up asap without any of that damaging testimony.

 

The rest is just you rationalizing the shady behaviour of the Republican Senate against a clear feeling in your gut that a trial were pertinent witness testimony is suppressed is a transparent sham.

And we have anouther non post based in fantasy and not supported by facts. But thanks for not changing your MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

It should because this whole fraudulent scam has been given way too much time and effort already.

 

They have no case and never did and for justice to prevail it needs to end right now.

 

Then go after all of the democrap criminals and deep staters who tried this crap and put them all in prison.

 

:exactly:

 

This all ends today

 

It was dead from the word go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

This all ends today

Let’s hope this all ends Friday. But Schumer is going to pull some childish acts to prolong it past Tuesday. They don’t want Trump to take a victory lap in the SOTU address.

 

The Dems have really shot themselves in the foot on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

And we have anouther non post based in fantasy and not supported by facts. But thanks for not changing your MO

The Alton's are probably sitting there right now wondering why you're talking about Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

Murkowski just announced her vote is no. This is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Murkowski just announced her vote is no. This is over.

 

So has Lamar Alexander of TN, who some had considered one of the 4 potential 'yes' votes.

 

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

 

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …
Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

– Senator Lamar Alexander

 

I especially like the bit about "the consent of the governed".

 

That leaves only Romney and Collins.

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Murkowski just announced her vote is no. This is over.

Yep. May bring out fireworks later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

McConnell Doesn’t Have The Votes To Block Witnesses Yet

 

 

 

He does now.

Edited by GrimV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Fair warning, Lefty wanks are in total meltdown on Twitter.

 

They didn't get their way, so like infantile crybabies they're declaring an end to democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

So has Lamar Alexander of TN, who some had considered one of the 4 potential 'yes' votes.

 

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

 

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …
Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

– Senator Lamar Alexander

 

I especially like the bit about "the consent of the governed".

 

Acquittal seems the right thing since the evidence as they claim it to be is nothing more than opinion. There is no proof of any wrong doing.

 

 

Seems to be a good time to see what else Lamar Alexander ® said:

 

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/31/lamar-alexanders-yes-he-did-it-statement-trump-annotated/

 

 

 

 

Hear that kids? A mountain of evidence that Trump did exactly what Democrats accused him of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

Seems to be a good time to see what else Lamar Alexander ® said:

 

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/31/lamar-alexanders-yes-he-did-it-statement-trump-annotated/

 

 

 

 

Hear that kids? A mountain of evidence that Trump did exactly what Democrats accused him of doing.

Yet, you leave out this money shot.

 

“ , but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.”

 

Bless your heart.

Edited by erp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

Seems to be a good time to see what else Lamar Alexander ® said:

 

"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

 

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

 

 

https://www.washingt...rump-annotated/

 

 

 

 

Hear that kids? A mountain of evidence that Trump did exactly what Democrats accused him of doing.

 

Hey kid -- were is the EVIDENCE of intent that has consistently been claimed? An assertion is not proof. There was sufficient reason to investigate Hunter Biden (and by extension his father) WRT national security concerns, Joe Biden's Presidential candidacy notwithstanding. . . ..

 

 

coffeenpc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

Seems to be a good time to see what else Lamar Alexander ® said:

 

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/31/lamar-alexanders-yes-he-did-it-statement-trump-annotated/

 

 

 

 

Hear that kids? A mountain of evidence that Trump did exactly what Democrats accused him of doing.

 

Also from your link:

 

"the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate." - Lamar Alexander

 

 

If you democrats had any sense you would stop parking your car in front of the Trump Train!

 

trump-train.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

 

 

Hear that kids? A mountain of evidence that Trump did exactly what Democrats accused him of doing.

 

If you already had a Mountain of Evidence why did you need more evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...