patrick.net

marcus says

Whatre you talking about? He DID both those things already.

He released the transcript AND the only people who were witness to the conversation affirmed Trumps innocence.

So, what extra transcript do you want? Whose opinion on this do you think is relevant? I'd suggest we need to show the US public details of the treasonous crimes they were discussing so perhaps you understand why investigating and prosecuting this treason is important.

Do you care about the Truth, marcus?

How about due process? Is that also not important?

If your answer to both is no, then your memes represent you perfectly.

Tenpoundbass says

Strong argument for the electoral college.

CBOEtrader says

So, what extra transcript

The one Schiff made up.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GN4CJ8MYLTY?start=234

Onvacation says

Tenpoundbass says

Strong argument for the electoral college.

Onvacation says

The one Schiff made up.

Lol, yeah that was hilarious.

I dont think Marcus is fully aware of where his opinions come from. He repeats what MSNBC says. So, when msnbc mistates that "we still need a transcript and eyewitnesses that Trump is withholding" despite the actual FACT that Trump immediately made both available, marcus repeats it.

^^this is why I press to see even the smallest shred of evidence to prove these statements. Or perhaps an explanation? Or anything. Who knows, maybe I'm missing something. Since he wont support his statements, noone will learn or grow from the exchange. Sad.

Tenpoundbass says

Is this real?

FortWayneIndiana says

Tenpoundbass says

Is this real?

Doubt it

marcus says

Trump did not allow

This is called executive privilege. Rights are an important part of due process. Disagreements go to a judge. Simple...but democrats disnt want to be bothered w process and judges did they?

marcus says

This is why obstruction of congress is one of the primary reasons he is being impeached.

Yup, and I think we just identified why that article is laughable.

marcus says

Why should I argue

Offering facts for why you believe something is too much for, then why are you here? Notice how I just explained myself above? It's not that hard if you have supporting facts and logical reasoning.

Marcus, do you have any supporting facts or logical reasoning? Please share

What transcript havent we read? And what witnesses did Trump no allow?

You do realize trump wasnt a lawyer, or any witnesses right? Is that also part of due process in your world, or does that go against due process?

I hope you can see why the world is laughing at this fraud of an impeachment. By all means, if I'm missing something relevant, please share.

marcus says

Offering facts for why you believe something is too much for, then why are you here?

Not to convince people of facts that are common knowledge in the real world.

You have been fed innuendo and half truths as facts. i dont think you can support your statements without exposing the weakness of your assumptions. This is why you wont try.

We dont read minds here like the democrats. You have to actually support your statements with something beyond mind reading assumptions of guilt. "Its not what Trump actually said or did, it's what he really meant that's the problem."

Good luck w that in the Senate where trump is allowed to speak up and fight back. This is gonna be a slaughter

LOL, you know I was gonna have her "Now Do Junker", but I'm pre-blocked. Proud.

marcus says

where they are trying to not allow any new witnesses or evidence.

They dont have to. It's called a trial. Discovery is supposed to happen before the trial on the house side BUT it didnt. The house wouldnt allow Trump a lawyer, or access to evidence, or to call witnesses, or even to face his own accusers. Is this what you call due process?

It's a joke, and anyone w half a brain can see it.

marcus says

in the hope that there might be something almost resembling a fair trial in the senate.

Fair would be throwing it out. OR hearing some new witnesses on both sides before voting down this obviously factless impeachment. The Senate WILL be fair where the HOUSE was not. You see how that works?

marcus says

Trump did not allow certain members of his admin to testify in the hearings and he also would not release key documents. This is why obstruction of congress is one of the primary reasons he is being impeached.

So now he's being impeached for not allowing impeachment? Bribery is out. Quid pro quo is out. Collusion is out.

What high crime or misdemeanor did Trump commit?

Not expecting answers.

marcus says

the Republicans are arguing that only evidence considered by the house should be allowed, and that no new evidence should be considered in the trial. Not even subpoenaed witnesses and documents that Trump obstructed the House from considering at the hearings.

This is how a judicial process works. You dont keep rolling out new witnesses after discovery and investigation process is over. That would be unfair to everyone involved.

Unfortunately the democrats did such a purely partisan hack job in the house, that the Senate must now try to slap together an investigation and a trial.

The fact is, it is Trumps #1 job as potus to root out corruption. W prima facie evidence like Hunter Biden receiving $1 million/yr from corrupt ukrainian oligarchs and billions in loans from china, all while working hand in hand w the same people and companies that fabricate the dossier... there is perhaps noone more relevant to trumps day to day POTUS obligations that Hunter Biden, and his smokescreen of corruption.

This will blow up in the dems face as the corruption is revealed piece by piece, justifying Trump and his administrations intent to investigate his foreign dealings. It's amazing that you dont care about corruption as long as your team is doing it though.

The impeachment is just another attempt to steal power from the american voter.

This has turned into a circus, by pelosi design.

marcus says

You can say that this is some kind of wild spin. But not without showing the kind of dishonest Trump Cuck you truly are.

Considering I offer facts while you do nothing but adhom, I accept the apology you should be offering me for both being wrong and a child.

marcus says

Don't personally bribe a leader of another country to say something.

Evidence for this personal bribe?

I'll give your country X for a UN Vote/Assistance with Investigation isn't quid pro quo, it's standard as fuck.

However, in this case the incoming Ukraine Pres did not know aid was being delayed as it was being reviewed per the law:



As has been mentioned multiple times.

marcus says

care, but it's not relevant to the question of whether Trump held back aid in exchange for an announcement of a Ukraine based investigation of the Bidens.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So you think Trump "held back aid" ? Yet noone involved says he did, neither is there any record or evidence of him doing so. It would also be his prerogative to hold back money if the recieving end is corrupt or not doing what they are supposed to do. So this comes back to mind reading. "We alone know why Trump does what he does! It's not to fight the prima facie corruption evident in the actions of hunter Biden, and fusion GPS. Nah, its cause he wants to spear innocent hunter and god fearing fusion GPS." Your team has gone full retard.

And you suggest he did it " in exchange for an announcement of a Ukraine based investigation of the Bidens?" Wheres your evidence? How is a press conference an impeachable offense? It is not the POTUS's prerogative to make an investigation public or not. I dont see how Trump did this nor do I see how it could be a problem if he did.

Do you have a problem w a POTU helping his former SOS spy on, and formulate a fake dossier against, hide intelligence from, and generally do everything he can to lead a conspiracy of powerful deepstaters to effectuate a coup of POTUS candidate and later of POTUS elect?

If what you think Trump did is bad, why hasnt obama been impeached 25 times over for a zillion times more manipulation of our electoral process?

marcus says

Don't personally bribe a leader of another country to say something.

Who did that? Are they being charged with bribery?

Biden extorted Ukraine to STOP his son from being investigated. Is that what you're talking about?

marcus says

I disagree with the arguments you parrot from republicans. But suppose you are right. That they can make the argument that somehow things that were subpoenaed for the House hearings and held back from congress (illegally ? obstruction of congresss ?) need not be considered at all, based on technicalities.. Maybe they can even make that argument successfully, becasue the jurors are majority Trump Cucks.

Or say they are right even. Why would they choose this path, rather than looking at all evidence and proving that Trump didn't do anything wrong ?

This is for the history books.

Your framing of the question makes no sense. There is no evidence of a crime. None. Given zero current evidence, you think a court should override executive privilege? Do I need to ask you again about due process? It would be criminally irresponsible to throw out executive priviledge because orange man bad. Everyone has rights, even Trump.

^^I cant imagine the propagandized mind that would think this is ok. Smfh, I hope the dems lose everything in 2020. They desperately need a dose of reality.

The Senate trial should be as unbiased as the House Inquiry.

marcus says

:

If he is guilty of all that why was he not charged with all that?

Not expecting a cogent answer.

And he's still yo' President.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

Given zero current evidence, you think a court should override executive privilege?

Pathetic.

If there's zero evidence, then let them have what they claim is evidence and make their case. Show them to be the clowns that you say they are.

Don't run and hide saying "no no no, omg we can't let you prove that you have no case !! We prefer to make it look like Trump is guilty and that we are afraid of the truth "

Otherwise the history books will show obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice by the President. Lies and off the charts ridiculous bullshit assertions can't change the simple truth.

Simple choice:

Choice A) Maybe get Trump off on a technicality,becasue you know he's guilty.

Choice B) Let the democrats make fools of themselves by making their case becasue they have no case. This would be so great for Trump poli...

Seek help. TDS is off the charts.

Does trump deserve rights and due process? If so, then everything you said is backwards. It's not trumps job to prove he is innocent, though he may take this opportunity to prove a few things about the prosecutors. We shall see.

The investigation and prosecutors have failed to bring a single shred of evidence to make anyone think this isnt a purely political hack job. You've been lied to and dont care.

Tte most fair way to proceed would be to throw the case out for lack of evidence.

We made the right choice in 2016

marcus says

marcus says

Choice A) Maybe get Trump off on a technicality,becasue you know he's guilty.

Choice B) Let the democrats make fools of themselves by making their case becasue they have no case. This would be so great for Trump politically. That is if he weren't guilty of what he is accused of.

The history books will be extremely clear, regardless of your TCS.

Bannon says Trump wants to do the 2nd, but I dont believe anything Bannon says.

This could easily turn into a 3 month long circus if we start bringing in Hunter Biden and fusion GPS to testify. The senate rules are not designed to do an investigation, just a trial.

What could any of these people say that hasnt already been said, that would clear trump? Both Trump and Ukrainian Zelenski say no quid-pro-quo. The only two eye witnesses say this didnt go down like the democrats suggest it did.

What more do you want?

Noone is suggesting that Trump actually DID anything wrong, but somehow you think his INTENT was to do something wrong, so orange man bad.

There is literally nothing to disprove, nor is there any way to PROVE what you suggest. It's all mind reading nonsense. Ignore the people involved in the phone call, only Adam Schiff and N Pelosi know what Trump really meant. It's so fucking stupid, man.

Therefore, the witnesses (if allowed) will be a string of Biden/Ukrainian oligarch corruption witnesses showing why the investigation into them is important.

Meanwhile the dems will bring in random administrators multiple levels removed, who are pre screened to agree w their delusion. They will be handed leading questions and ready with their soundbite answers.

Then you will be back here w your propagandized soundbites declaring victory, while the entire world laughs at the circus

NoCoupForYou says

LOL So True, So True!

So will you admit you're a full of shit hack if none of these statutes are even mentioned?

marcus says

"Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee. and the rules of confidentiality."

Are these requirements to be a US president?
Or how did you end up in a competition between that lady and Trump in 2016?

marcus says

I get that you're making the best argument you can come up with.

I'm stating the facts I see, you are representing a narrative. A fake one at that.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing in the transcript or in Trumps actions. The house investigation was the most deeply biased, lacking of due process, railroading process I've ever seen in a supposedly fair country.

After not being able to respond and not being allowed to even have his lawyer present, it makes sense at some point for Trump to use his rights available to him to tell people to stop cooperating.

If the process has a right to hear from those individuals, they can take it to a judge. This happens in every case, in every court of law. It's called due process, which Trump was denied.

Let me ask you this, what would "prove" to you that Trump is innocent? See, I think people who are as far gone in CNN-lalaland as you are will NEVER see Trump as anything but guilty despite lack of evidence. As is, we have a total, and complete lack of evidence. We have a whistle blower and adam Schiff who most likely lied as per the inspector general's report, and adam Schiff who did lie with his re-enactment of the transcript.

The fact you think there is something there there now, tells me you are already lost.