Today Schiff stood before Congress And Told Us A Well Spun Tale

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (106 posts)

83
Sharlee01posted 4 years ago

Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House impeachment inquiry. The video's clearly giving clear proof of hearsay, second-hand and opinionated testimony.

He spun a tale of corruption and obstruction on the part of President Trump. Nothing to back up not one of his accusations. It was a story was fictional. Yet, he has been given a forum on our Senate floor. So, when did a story, a story compiled of nothing but one after another unproven allegations warrant a President of The United States to be impeached? When did we become a people that sought to condemn without factual evidence? But only a well-spun story written with only hearsay, second-hand evidence,

Is this the Democracy we well have come to know or is this the "new definition of Democracy " that we need to become accustomed to?
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Some people are hopeless. You saw "nothing to back it up"?
  
  That's solely on you and your apparent inability to listen and comprehend.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No s**t! I've given up explaining anything to do with illegalities or court procedures to her, Sandy.
  
  She and others here have no clue how a grand jury works.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It's not worth all that effort. The truth will eventually be known, no matter how hard the Trump enablers try to cover it up. They might succeed in preventing a fair trial, but they will pay for it in the end. I sincerely believe that.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, Trump will be emboldened by the Republicans covering up his crimes and will go even further than before.
  
  His enablers will eventually see what a criminal they've chosen to lead them. Of course, many already have some of his most distasteful attributes.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I have to ask --- What does a grand jury have to do with any of this? I have found no information on the House requesting a special counsel during their investigation phase? ? It would have been up to the House to make a request for a special counsel If you have proof of this I would appreciate you providing it.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  They are trying to pick and choose which facets of a grand jury apply to the impeachment process, then claim that they are very similar, if not identical.
  
  In truth, the two (grand jury and House impeachment) are barely within shouting distance of each other; being the bedfellows Randy wants you to believe isn't even in the picture.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I've already asked you what the difference is, Dan. Feel free to enlighten us if you can. Shar, doesn't have a clue!
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Grand juries deal only the the law and those that violate it.
  
  Impeachments proceedings have nothing to do with the law - only with what the politicians do or don't want to have happen..
  
  That enough, or do you require more?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  All courts rely on grand juries to establish facts for an indictment. Are you claiming a Special prosecutor would not use a grand jury in an Impeachment investigation, Dan?
  
  I'm gonna have to call you on that one, brother!
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Can you show where I even mentioned a special prosecutor? What are you smoking, Randy?
  
  I'll also call you on "All courts rely on grand juries to establish facts for an indictment." as the large majority of court cases never see a grand jury at all. (Ever had a speeding ticket?)
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Do I have to specify misdemeanors, Dan? Or is this another WMDish claim?
  
  I don't understand your meaning re the GJ statement. Grand juries are not just for the law as thy are used in impeachment trials which are considered political.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "All courts rely on grand juries to establish facts for an indictment."
  
  Does "all courts" include those for misdemeanors? Yes, if you didn't mean "all courts" then you should specify which ones you were alluding to.
  
  "Grand juries are tools used as part of criminal procedure to bring an indictment against a defendant. However, they're not always required and in some cases not even used."
  "While all states have provisions in their laws that allow for grand juries, roughly half of the states don't use them."
  
  https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-p … -work.html
  
  Oh? Unless you consider the House to be the GJ, when did the impeachment go before one? Who were the jurors and who was the judge?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Members of Congress were the jurors because of the lack of a Special Investigator, but you already knew that I hope. Like any GJ, they are held behind closed doors with no legal representation for the person being considered for indictment.
  
  Both sides of the aisle are given an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. What part of these proceeding do you consider a sham, and why.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Then you're claiming the House was a grand jury, one without a judge.
  
  Nice try, Randy, but you and I both know the House of representatives is not a grand jury. It may have acted similarly to one in this matter if we wish to apply a similarity, but it is not a grand jury as you claimed.
  report
2. 94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I particularly liked the part where Trump was not absolutely horrified when no evidence of his corruption with Russia was found. That the Democrats consider him guilty of collusion with Russia came through loud and clear ("He did it again the VERY...NEXT...DAY!!!"), without a shred of evidence to back them.
  
  Just as they have none to back that Trump call the Ukraine to fix the next election. All I could do was laugh as Schiff went on and on how terrible it was that Trump didn't show remorse...for being exonerated of their false claims and rumors. It actually sounded like Trump was expected to apologize for not having done the crime what he was accused of!
  reply report
3. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Darn, I thought it was illegal to extort an ally to investigate a political rival, and help Russia at the same time.
  
  Or to totally stonewall the Congressional oversight role.
  
  Shows what I know!
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It would be illegal for a president to commit any form of extortion. President Trump has not been charged with extortion? He has been charged with abuse of power and obstruction of the House. If you have been watching the impeachment trial you might realize there just was no extorsion, There was no favor done for any form of reward.
  
  The President did not break any law by asking Zelinsky to investigate. we have a treaty with the Ukraine that gives the President the right to do just that. That is a fact randy, and I am very sure that when the defense has their day, they will give good factual proof of that treaty.
  
  In regards to Biden's, Trump would be lacks not to investigate the matter. I for one would dislike it if Biden became President, and was capable of pay for play.
  
  It certainly has not been proven that the President stopped anyone from cooperating. The House did not subpoena the people they are now requesting? The president did not stop anyone with his executive privilege. I realize the president's attorney (Cipolonie) did write a letter and stipulated the White House would not cooperate in the investigation. It was up to the House to send out those subpoenas and go through the court process to get every witness they felt they needed to hear from. They did not. So far there is no proof the president would have used his authority to stop any witness. That's a fact. Not sure why you even think there is any evidence that can prove the Houses case. Lot's of smoke, just no real evidence but opinions.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, President Trump has not broken any laws, but then he is not charged with doing so.
  
  Instead he is charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors", a term so vague that in practice it boils down to "He did or said something I don't like".
  
  It was apparently set up that way under the theory that a House full of honest politicians would not subvert the words for their own profit. Our ancestors were good, but they weren't omniscient, were they?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Shar, there's a difference in using policy to investigate corruption and sending Rudy--who isn't an official at all--to stir up trouble in a foreign country.
  
  As I've told you many times, Trump could have had the toadie Barr meet with the president of Ukraine if he'd wanted to look into the Bidens. Now Barr says he was never contacted by Donnie to do that.
  
  Explain why the ambassadors and other witnesses were so upset by what Trump was doing as they'd seen everything during their many years in foreign service.
  
  I'm sure you know than they do so this could be an easy task for you. What upset them all?
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Explain why the ambassadors and other witnesses were so upset by what Trump was doing as they'd seen everything during their many years in foreign service."
  
  Do you convict someone on some being "upset"? I don't... I am not questioning any of the witnesses ' opinions, not at all. I will say that they were on the outside looking in. They had no way of knowing why Trump said what he did or why he held up funds. Only their opinions which they gave. Each one had their own reasons for being possibly upset or even disgusted. But again their evidence was opinion-oriented, they did not have enough information or facts to back up their opinions.
  
  In regards to Rudy acting on behalf of a client, I have no knowledge of any law that would prevent Rudy from acting on the behalf of a client?
  Good question. I actually don't think it illegal for Rudy to research this problem on his own? There is no doubt President Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's. That request was in his phone call. He asked Zelinsky to work with the AG to investigate the Biden's. Trump has never denied that he himself released the call.
  
  Randy, you seem to feel your opinion is a matter of fact? You read into what witnesses felt?
  
  "As I've told you many times, Trump could have had the toadie Barr meet with the president of Ukraine if he'd wanted to look into the Bidens. Now Barr says he was never contacted by Donnie to do that."
  
  He did ask that Zelinsky work with Barr? And I am not sure if the president asked Barr to investigate the Biden's or call Zelinsky. I have not been able to find a statement from Barr that suggests he was not asked to do an investigation on the Bidens?
  "
  
  A
  reply report
  91
  IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  From Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec:
  
  The Attorney General was first notified of the President's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky several weeks after the call took place, when the Department of Justice learned of a potential referral. The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son. The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine -- on this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine -- on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Oh buggers, The spoiler is back.
  
  Sidebar: Hey Island mom, I am finally a grandfather! 1/18/20, a boy. I hope your boys are doing well.
  
  GA
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Gee Gus, I've been a granddad for over 25 years! What took you so long!
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  My kids held me back. A 45-year-old that couldn't and a 33-year-old that wouldn't. You make me envious. I won't have the life memories you do. But the ones I will have will be great. I have raised two great-nephews that prove that point
  
  GA
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! I've only been one for 18 years! No wonder you're fighting senility!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Winning too! Can't say that about you though, Dan!
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GA, Congratulation! I don't have to tell you what it feels like the moment you realize you have a Grandchild. This little fellow is a clean slate and will bring you a form of unconditional love. It will be up to you as he grows to earn it. And I just know you will. What a joyous time.
  
  I have to share, my son too decided at 45 to have a child. I looked at it as one of life's greatest rewards. ( I have two adult grandchildren also, and it's been wonderful to watch them become young adults). This new little boy has me reliving all that comes with having a Grandchild. Again Congratulations.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  
  GA
  reply report
  91
  IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hey! Congrats! You must be so happy and excited. <3
  
  My kidos are great. So excited with all the presents they got for Christmas, Three Kings Day... Also a birthday yesterday so you can imagine how their bedroom looks right now.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Regarding the look of the bedroom . . . I do understand. We raised those two great-nephews just like grandkids and between us and the parents, Christmas was like buying a toy store. Those kids wanted for nothing.
  
  And with a 1/18 birthday, this 1st grandkid will either get short-changed, or a bonus. Time will tell. Although I am leaning to less but more meaningful birthday presents.
  
  GA
  reply report
  91
  IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  That's what we decided too. I think is better. We only got them two presents for Christmas. The ones they really wanted.
  
  Buuuut we have big families and everybody was excited for the new family members. LOL Even teachers at school gave them presents.
  
  (And yes, their bedroom looks like a toy store but also like a war zone. LOL)
  reply report
4. 89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sharlee that is your perspective. There are probably around 60 million folks that may disagree with you.
  
  I will agree with you that the 'evidence' presented is hearsay and circumstantial. And I will agree with you that this process is pure politics. I will even agree with you that the Democrats have been salivating for an opportunity like this since Trump won the election. To my mind, the integrity of their declarations is highly suspect.
  
  But, from what I have seen, the Democrat presentation, so far, is not a spun story. It may be slanted and biased, (as should naturally be expected), but it seems to be based on solid suppositions—not spun fairy tales.
  
  Just sayin'
  
  GA
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Just about as middle of the road as one can get, Gus!
  
  You are correct though. All of the evidence Schiff has admitted is rock solid. It won't make any difference to the enablers though.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Middle of the road is better than being in a ditch Randy.
  
  I don't mind where I am. I think, relative to the Ukraine issue, Trump is guilty as charged. But I also think there is no 'smoking gun' and the Democrat's' efforts are purely political. My opinion is that their political shenanigans will allow them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
  
  Which 'enablers' will you blame for that?
  
  GA
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Does anything here remind you of OJ Simpson? Where if only the standard of proof is reduced guilt could be declared?
  
  The House reduced the standard to less than any reasonable minimum, IMO. The Senate has yet to speak. But for myself I sit right where you do: a belief that Trump is guilty of charged (at least on the Ukraine thing), but a much stronger belief that simple belief is insufficient to remove a President that 60,000,000 voted for, that sits where he does because the people of American wanted him to.
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Couldn't some doubt be alleviated, either way, if we were able to hear what the first-hand witnesses have to say?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Truly, I don't think ANY witness can testify that Trump's intent with his Ukraine call was to harm a political opponent. Not honestly, anyway - at best they can give an opinion, and I for one am not real interested in the opinions of Trumps enemies.
  
  I hear enough people, right here on these forums, that claim absolute knowledge of Trump's intent - they use their ESP, their crystal balls, whatever, and KNOW why that call was made. Oddly enough, not one of them thinks Trump is doing a good, or even acceptable, job; I don't need to hear a bunch more enemies making the same foolish claim.
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I understand where you are coming from with intent. However, isn't there a reasonable doubt standard, which is consistently used in cases like these. I mean,what if someone testifies that Trump said, "The election is coming up soon, we need to get the Ukrainian's cooperation on that Biden thing"
  
  They could even take it further and state Trump straight said "I need dirt on Biden before the election."
  
  Both of these scenarios are more than enough to establish intent. How many people get away with, "I didn't mean to leave the watch in my pocket as I walked out the door?" We need to hold our President AT LEAST to the same standard of proof we hold our citizens to.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Particularly the second example would be pretty damning...if you believed the speaker. So far every witness has been an enemy of Trump; to hear one state that Trump actually SAID "I need dirt on Biden before the election.", well, I wouldn't believe a word of it.
  
  And that's the flip side of "reasonable doubt" - what is reasonable to one is completely unreasonable to another. I served on a jury last year where the accused was acquitted because one juror believed that a thief that stole a car and drove it for over a month for thousands of miles while using it as a home (he was homeless), just might intend to return it one day which would take it outside the "steal" category. Although I found her insistence in the face of 11 other jurors admirable, her opinion was foolish in the extreme. Her "reasonable doubt" was as unreasonable as it was possible to get...in MY opinion.
  
  In the matter of Trump's impeachment, I will add that watching the House vote very nearly along party lines tells me, beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a political ploy, not an actual attempt to prove wrongdoing. It just isn't possible that of well over 200 Democrats only two (both from very conservative areas) will find "reasonable doubt" in the testimony and "evidence" presented to them. Of course, the reverse, with Republicans is also true. Bottom line: it was a political dog and pony show for political power, nothing more. Having a "D" or an "R" in front of your name does not convey instant wisdom or stupidity; when the vote on so nebulous a question is completely along party lines the only conclusion left is that the vote was not about right or wrong, truth or lie; it was about "what is good for my party (and me personally) next November".
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it's political. But the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth. I think this does rise to impeachable levels, even more so than Clinton's lying about fellatio. So, I don't agree that this is "nothing more" than a political dog and pony show. I also think the whole process says more about just how far R's will go to save their political hind ends than it says about the Dems motivations.
  
  We don't see many trial acquittals around here. I know that.
  
  Let's hear what these witnesses have to say. What is the harm? I still see no answer to that.
  reply report
  87
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sondland is Trump's enemy?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "So far every witness has been an enemy of Trump;"
  
  This so wrong I don't even know where to start, Dan. Why would career officials be an enemy of Trump, especially as they were appointed by his own people. Taylor was begged to take the ambassador job by Pompeo and was reluctant to take the job.
  
  After he was removed from his job, Pompeo went out of his way not to meet up with Taylor because he didn't want to face him.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "After he was removed from his job, Pompeo went out of his way not to meet up with Taylor because he didn't want to face him."
  
  How can you know this to be true? This statement gives me a window into your thought process. You just have no way to prove such a statement other than your opinion. I think this may be why we have a different view of the evidence? You are very willing to believe opinions. Even when a given opinion may not be factual.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I know this because it was widely reported, Shar. Probably not on your Fox News though. I don't care if you believe it or not because you couldn't see a crime if it hit you up side the head at this point.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "After he was removed from his job, Pompeo went out of his way not to meet up with Taylor because he didn't want to face him."
  
  So you know for a fact that Pompeo avoided Taylor or are you as well as Taylor giving an opinion. Your opinion gleaned from media, Taylors his own opinion. There is no proof of Tayor or your statement as being factual? You are reading in your own opinion.
  
  I did not say there were no crimes committed, I have said over and over there is so far no factual evidence other than second-hand, hearsay and opinion-oriented evidence. You just don't seem to understand the difference. Let me put it this way. If someone told me a store was robbed, and they saw you walking toward that store about the time it was robed, and you to have a bulge in your back pocket that could have been a gun, and I just felt you looked intense, nervous. Should you be arrested, and brought to trial without any evidence but my evidence. My opinion? There has been nothing presented but an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. No, as of yet I see nothing but conjecture. Schiff has well proved that today by doing nothing but going over the witnesses' opinions all day. Making up what if he or she meant or more apt what he wanted them to mean. All one needs to do is listen to him to see my point. He is doing nothing but putting each witness testimony in the context he hopes to sell. This is disgusting. Please listen to a few of his statements. He is using his opinion of "what went on that call.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  And truly you don't care if everything he's charged with is true either.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  This makes wonderful sense... However, it was up to the House during the investigation phase to obtain testimony from any and all they felt would be beneficial in proving their case. Too bad, they just did not follow that path. It makes one wonder why they did not? Time, maybe? They knew there was no there there, maybe? Did the House know how this would all end due to their lack of doing a proper investigation, maybe? Could this all be a political ploy, maybe?
  
  At any rate, it's not up to the Senate to investigate and prove a crime, that was up to the House. They just did not do thir job.
  reply report
  87
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it was because Trump wouldn't let anyone with direct knowledge testify?
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  And how could he stop them? If the house pursued witnesses vis the court they very well may have got all the witnesses they now want. Yes, it is true Trump could have stopped them by using executive privilege, but then it would have been on record that he truly bloke them from testifying.
  
  Aa it stands now, his defence will fall back on Trump did not use his executive privilege, and he did not stand in any witnesses way.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The house had subpoena power, they could have used that power on anyone, they just did not... It seems you are telling me, Trump was the blame for the House not using their power of the subpoena? The Blame is with the House, not Trump.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  If you believe over 70% of the people want to hear from witnesses and documents ,then there's going to be a lot of pissed off people if McConnell doesn't allow them to come forward.
  
  Over 69% of Republicans want this as well. Doesn't bode too well for them in the next election if they're not allowed.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I would not be surprised at all that many want to hear witnesses. You just are not understanding my point. We could have heard those witnesse if the Houses did their job. We most likely will not now. And this is due to and should be blamed on the House. And I truly feel the House knew it would come to this from the get-go. Randy this appears a cheap Dem political ploy. You can lash out and blame whoever you please. But it still comes down to the House did not do their job. You can go on a and on and blame Mitch or whoever.
  
  In regards to hearing witnesses, you need to put this into perspective. The House had the power, they did not use it, it is no one's fault but theirs. And we most likely will not hear too many witnesses due to the House not calling for them during the inquiry phase.
  
  Did you our do you think the Rep will shoot themselves in the foot by having witnesses? Did the Dem's in the inquiry phase have witnesse the Rep wanted? Wake yup this is political. One long boring Dem campaign ad. It is an ad I would think many are seeing through and tuning out.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Now there is a can of worms, if I ever saw one.
  
  But I will make an assumption about your message; I would have preferred a vote of Censure because I think his actions were wrong, and considering the political nature of this I can accept a House vote of impeachment in lieu of that. But I cannot support removal from office, via purely partisan political actions, based on opinion.
  
  So as you say, simple belief is insufficient for me to support removal.
  
  GA
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, OJ's trial had the most evidence most of us have ever seen and got off with Dershowitz 's help. This one however, most of the evidence and witnesses are being hidden from the people, with the same criminal lawyer who helped OJ escape justice.
  
  What about the more than 60,000,000 people who voted against the criminal, Dan. Are their voices simply muted?
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "solid suppositions" otherwise solid beliefs. Do we have the right to accuse and take a president into an impeachment on "supposition"? The House just has no evidence other than their beliefs... Smoke, nothing solid.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You're apparently watching a different trial than I, Shar. Why do you believe the Senators are afraid of witnesses and documents if they show nothing to further condemn Donnie?
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  GA, Should we be this far into an impeachment process on an uncertain belief that the President committed crimes that are serious enough to impeach him?
  
  In my opinion, I feel the House should not be presenting their "beliefs of a crime. They need evidence other than second-hand opinions that a crime was committed. I could tell you I believe you're a scientist because it's just my opinion on how your comments are very scientific. So, you must be a scientist? Could I prove you are a scientist with just my belief? A belief that was derived from comments? To prove or disprove my theory would I need to look further into my belief, and see if you have a degree in science? Have I condemned you to be a scientist via my "solid supposition" --- beliefs that helped me form an opinion that you are a scientist, your comments? In my opinion, the House is telling a story, yes perhaps due to their beliefs, but still fiction until they produce proof other than suppositions. Where will we be if this kind of law prevails? Can I just call you a scientist?
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sure you can call me a scientist, or you could call me something much less flattering. And you can also view my comments to be in agreement with yours. Because they are.
  
  I can't defend the president because I believe the Ukraine charges are correct, (the quid pro quo for personal benefit part), But that is just what I believe. I don't present my belief as an irrefutable fact. And I also don't present my belief as grounds for removal from office.
  
  I won't declare Pres. Trump innocent of those charges, and I also won't call for his removal because of them.
  
  GA
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So you believe Trump's trying to extort the Ukraine to investigate his political rival through a private proxy, as well as, doing so to a country at war with our main adversary, isn't worthy of removal from office, Gus?
  
  Just what the heck would be worthy of his removal?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Proof of the belief, perhaps. Or not - I can't speak for GA, but am reasonably certain his comment refers to removing because of an unproven belief.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  If you've watched the trial, you'll see the proof, Dan. Can't wait to see how Trump's "Dream Team" is going to counter a very strong case.
  
  O.J. Trump has certain ring to it, doncha think, Dan?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yep sure can. Lots of people assuming an intent they cannot prove. But at the same time I understand that you do not share the requirement for proof of intent; assumption is good enough.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The House has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Dan. Witnesses and document's will prove my opinion even further, which will not affect your opinion in the least, if your past comments are any indication.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  We are in agreement, I certainly can't claim Trump innocent of being up to no good with his request to Zelinsky to investigate the Biden's. There certainly is plenty of smoke to assume he was up to no good. I started this thread to point out the lack of anything but smoke, and question should we be in an impeachment process with a lack of evidence. And should a body of United States Congressmen and women be allowed to present an impeachment case with such a lack of evidence on the floor of Senate?
  
  I can't dispute there is a glaring problem with the President's call to Zelinsky and his holding funds to Ukraine. My problem is with the way the House has handled their phase of the impeachment. If the House truly believed in their allegations, it was up to them to take every step, use all of their powers to prove those allegations. If one wants to read into anything in regards to this impeachment process. and speculate about why the House did not take the time to prove their case. One could conclude they were aware there was no case, and that witnesses would no benefit them. However, by crying foul in regards to the Senate preventing them from having witnesses certainly could work in their favor when it came to adding a bit more smoke.
  
  So, I too won't declare President Trump innocent, but I won't declare him guilty either Yes, he is barely visible due to all the smoke, and would it not be a shame to convict without factual evidence. It would have been nice to see the House do their job, but they didn't, and now we are left with another mystery. One that has furthered the divide, and made me very sure it's business as usual in Washington.
  
  I must say this fiasco is the worst I have ever had to witness. And I might add this fiasco is setting a dangerous precedent.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, this president is too dangerous to allow him to stay in office.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  That's your opinion. Mine is he is doing a good job, under great duress. He is daily continuing to work to make things better for America. There is great factual evidence of that. This is why the Dems must at all costs try to remove him. He has made it all look so easy, and certainly their latest fiasco this is even more evident. He has well exposed the Dems for what they are and what kind of lengths they will go to to try and regain government.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So you truly believe the impeachment is a hoax and Trump has done nothing wrong? And the only reason they're trying to have him removed is because everyone is afraid he'll be reelected, and not because he's a crook? Okay!
  
  He won't be reelected even if he survies his trial because the American people are seeing what a truly bad person he is to hold up funds from a desperate country just for his own personal purpose.
  
  Around 75% of the American public want to see witnesses and documents. 69% of Republicans, and the same percentage of Independents, want this as well.
  
  If the Republicans do not allow these important pieces of evidence to be seen and heard, there will be a strong backlash against everything Republican in the next election.
  
  Trump is not going to get away clean from this trial no matter the outcome. His presidency will always be tainted especially in the future history books. Be Proud, Shar!
  
  Adding new witnesses and documents will be much faster than in the House. With John Roberts cosigning the subpoenas, they'll be expedited and won't take long to settle any legalities. John Bolton is already ready to appear as well.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Around 75% of the American public want to see witnesses and documents."
  
  Are you saying that this impeachment is more about politics and curiosity than it is about constitutionality? Because for sure that 75% of the American people is not equipped to discuss, or often even understand, constitutional issues.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  A link to your claim,? Or are you speaking of your own ability to understand the Constitution? Apparently so ,as many Americas are very familiar with how a trial operates because they've been involved in one or have watched court TV or other courtroom dramas.
  
  Just because you don't know how a real trial operates, doesn't mean they do not. People generally know right from wrong without being educated to do so.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Considering the number of comments that "That's not constitutional" when the constitution does not even begin to address the question, can you really say that most (over 50%) of American citizens are constitutional experts? Do you think that most (over 50%) can even list the first 10 amendments?
  
  As far as a "real trial" - I haven't ever seen a court poll even the local population as to what they wanted to see in a "real trial". Have you?
  
  Yes, people generally know right from wrong - they know that an opinion without proof is insufficient to grant judgement, for instance. Then there are the others...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Thy know documents and witnesses are vital in a trial of this importance as well. And apparently, they can see right through what the Republicans in the Senate are trying to do.
  
  If by some fluke these witnesses and evidence are allowed to come in, I'll wager the jig is up for Donnie boy. Are you in?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yep - everyone can see what this farce is about - no disagreement there!
  
  No betting on how political power plays out. Now if it was all honest and on the up an up from day one (including a 3 year witch hunt based on false information) I might be on board. But it isn't and never was. It's about how to vote relative to retaining a job - if it were not there would have been an approximately even vote in the House...regardless of party affiliation. But there wasn't now was there?
  
  Not a single person in this country, that is honest with themselves, sees this as anything but political gamesmanship.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! How wonderful for you to speak for all of the "honest"
  people, Dan. How did you obtain this honor, Being so honest yourself? Does your claim include Honest Donnie?
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Honest people will understand the comment, Randy. Do you? I mean, even our legislators have made the same comment - that this impeachment is a political play, not a constitutional one. And that includes some on both sides of the aisle (although with a different thrust!).
  
  Can you, for instance, truthfully say that you honestly believe that all 200+ House Democrats voted their honest conclusion or did they vote the party line? How about the Republicans that also voted the party line?
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  If they saw the same inquiry as I did, the Left had to do their duty and impeach. Nancy didn't want to impeach Trump, but Trump changed her mind with his stupid Ukraine scheme. You can't let any POTUS of either party obstruct the oversight which was granted Constitutionally to Congress.
  
  Unless you want a king or dictator/tyrant, of course. Do you?
  
  You seem to feel you speak for ALL honest Americans. Reminds me of your role model.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Can you, for instance, truthfully say that you honestly believe that all 200+ House Democrats voted their honest conclusion or did they vote the party line? How about the Republicans that also voted the party line?"
  report
5. 83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully many are tuning into the impeachment trial today. The defense is giving example after example of witness testimony in full context, not just bits and pieces of well-picked words.
  
  So refreshing to finally have the media rhetoric, and the Houses rhetoric in regard to the Houses witness testimony torn down, and have the opportunity to have a look at the full contents of their testimonies. It well gives proof that the witnesses provide nothing but second-hand, opinion testimony. No real factual evidence.
  
  The defense is rearing down the Houses Tale to be nothing but fiction... Fictions that have been artfully put together to feed American's lies.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Trump feeds Americans lies every day. You should be accustomed to it by now.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The subject in my comment was in regard to -- the defense is giving example after example of witness testimony in full context, not just bits and pieces of well-picked words."
  
  Proving the point I had hoped to when I posted this thread.
  The defense is rearing down the Houses Tale to be nothing but fiction... Fictions that have been artfully put together to feed American's lies.
  
  Again, I hope you will listen to the trial today, and I think it will help you why my opinion on the impeachment is so different than yours. The full context just matters when making accusations, and condemning anyone of any form of crime.
  
  Randy, the House spun a story, but they failed to tell the story in full. In my opinion, this is precisely why the House did not seek any further witnesses. They just knew they had no case. They did not follow the protocol for the same reason. They just did not push for more time to call witnesses or ask for a special counsel for that same reason. All they had was a well-spun story. With nothing but opinion to back it up.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they did, Shar. Plenty enough to kick the cretin out of the WH, but not near enough to convince his enablers. That's where the witnesses and documents come in. Bolton can clear this right up if he's allowed to speak.
  
  But they won't let him!
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Could you please supply evidence that is not just someone's opinion? All we heard from the Managers are unproven scenarios. They sought to tell their story, opinions of what Trump thought, what Zelinsky thought, what anyone involved thought. There is nothing but hysterical based opinions. This has nothing to do with facts. "Convince enablers"? The facts speak loudly, it's not Trump enablers that are not hearing the truth. It's only those that are not willing to hear the truth. It certainly was laid out for all yesterday, with clam truthful rebuttal. No drama, no opinions seeking to tell you what others were thinking, just plain truth. Given in a calm matter a fact way for all to hear.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Did you miss Holmes testimony where he heard Trump talking to Sondland on the phone, Shar? What part of that is opinion or hearsay?
  
  Trump's legal team spun so many falsehoods yesterday I don't know where to begin.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I have stated I do believe Holmes gave firsthand information in regards to what he heard Trump say. "is he going to announce the investigation". The other part of his testimony where he quotes Sondland is opinion. Sondland shared his opinion of what he felt Trump felt about a situation.
  
  I also expressed the firsthand info was no biggy - Trump asked in the Zelinsky call for an investigation to be done on the Bidnes. Does not seem out of place Trump asking Sondland if Zelinsky was going to do or announce the investigation. The fact that Trump asked for the investigation is a fact, right out of Trump's mouth. he has in no way disputing that fact.
  
  Would you be willing to offer perhaps another bit of evidence that you feel is firsthand or a fact? I truly would be interested in your thought process, in regard to what you feel is evidence. It seems the managers are spinning a narrative on what you should believe due to their putting opinions together and wanting their audience to believe their narrative as factual. They have no facts. This might not please some, but it is what we are left with.
  
  What supprises me is many don't realize the House should have done a more thorough investigation. Now they are spinning excuses as to why they did not. The fact is the defense pointed out much of the time the Houses did not follow the protocol to obtain records and witnesses.
  
  Why not put the blame for this impeachment mess on the House? They are going to be systematically ripped apart by the defense spouting law, and relying on the Constitution. Not sure why many don't realize this impeachment will rely on proving the President should be impeached with evidence, and that he in some respect did not disrespect the Constitution.
  
  After watching the trial so far, I see no evidence, and the fact the House did not present a case that can prove anything. The one-piece of evidence so for is that the House never followed protocol in asking for documents and did not issue subpoenas as they could have... And clear evidence that the House is trying to impeach a president on nothing but opinion.
  
  I have to conclude if the House really felt they needed witnesses they would have followed protocol and subpoenaed them. They knew where this would end up. They used impeachment as a political ploy, a chance for a 24-hour campaign ad. This week I think they will be very sorry they opened this can of worms. It just seems like the Dems are poor presentation in Washington. If I were a Dem I would be madder than hell.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Jack Kingston, my former congressman, was asked this morning if he understood the GJ part of the House inquiry, and like you, didn't have a clue why no one was allowed to go behind the closed door sessions and defend Trump.
  
  It was embarrassing to watch him admit he wasn't aware how a GJ operates. Even when they explained to him why it has always been this way, he still protested it was not a fair process.
  
  Some still seem willfully ignorant of the process used in this inquiry. Would that be you, Shar? Or do you finally understand?
  
  I know you still can't get your head around why the House couldn't get the witnesses and documents they wanted. No other POTUS has totally stonewalled a House Inquiry in our country's history. Essentially refusing to allow oversight on a person who really needs it.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Kingston really embarrassed himself this morning. He is accustomed to lying without being challenged.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago
The Republicans in the Senate, Gus. If you believe they're following their oaths in this trial then you'd be sadly mistaken. It's very plain--just by the witnesses testimony and documents--Trump tried to leverage the Ukrainian President to investigate his chief political rival.

He was warned it would cause problems, but ignored the warnings as is his manner. Do you believe he didn't know what he was doing was wrong? Seriously?
reply report
1. 89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I already said what I believe in my response to Sharlee—that you responded to.
  
  Did you miss it?
  
  GA
  reply report
2. 83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, The Senate id doing their job. They are looking into the allegations. The allegations as they are do not warrant the impeachment of the president. There is no real evidence to prove the articles. It's all opinionated hearsay as it stands today. If the House did their job and took the time to try to prove their allegations the Senate may have had a more compelling case. It is their job to consider the evidence as what was handed to them. It is not their job to continue to investigate while the til is being conducted. The House knew what to expect so don't kid yourself.
  They knew well and good how this was all going to end, as many of us did. The Senate is doing their job, and you may be getting ahead of yourself. They may well call witnesses from both sides. I much doubt it, but they may. All they are at this point responsible is conducting a trial on the evidence that the House offered. The House claims even if they don't get new witnesses that their cs is strong. Should be no problem, they claim their evidence is strong. The trial should move along on what the House has presented.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The Senator are deathly afraid of new witnesses and documents, Shar. This will be the first trial in Senate history where they refused to allow both documents and witnesses.
  
  It's not even close to the Clinton trial as Moscow Mitch claimed it was modeled on. Trump won't learn anything from his getting caught and will do even more damage in the future if he gets away with these crimes.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  First, we just don't know as of yet if the Senate won't want to hear from some witnesses.
  
  I just can't comprehend why you feel the impeachment process is not being conducted as it should be. The House phase was completed as they saw fit to conduct it. It was their decision to end the investigation phase. No one was twisting their arm. So, we have to respect they had their time and felt they had a strong case. They have claimed as of yesterday their case is strong as is.
  
  The Impeachment is now in the enate phase. They are doing everything to the letter. They have the articles, they have the Supreme Court Justice, they have a trial in progress. Legally it is up to the Senate to OK new witnesses. As of today we still have no idea if they will. Not sure why you feel the Senate will not allow documents and witnesses? Let's wait and see, there will be plenty of time to bash the Senate if you feel they did not conduct a fair trial.
  reply report
  87
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Keep in mind that if this is allowed to stand, it will become permissible for Presidents to use foreign governments to investigate their political opponents and pretty much anything else they deem acceptable. Further, this ruling will allow all future Presidents to withhold Congressional funds for virtually any reason they want. There goes our Constitution, a document you profess to admire.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  And there goes Congress because it will be powerless to do anything to stop the cretin.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The president should have the right to investigate any American he feels may have committed a crime. We have a treaty with the Ukraine that permits the president to do just that. If the Biden's are under suspicion of breaking the law they need to be investigated. It has been reported that the Obama administration did look into Hunter Biden's involvement in the Ukraine gas company, and found no problems. I would like to see proof of that investigation. And I don't want to find out in the future, just in case Biden would by chance win in 2020.
  
  The House disrespected the Constitution by bringing an impeachment to the Senate without any factual evidence. Have you listened today to the tale Schiff is weaving? he has put nothing forward but conjecture. No real evidence, nothing but his opinion, drawing a picture of a crime. But can't in any respect prove that crime. This is the kind of action that has disrespected out Constitution. You may want to put your feelings aside, and truly listen to just a bit of Schiff's testimony today. It should make you see what I am saying is true.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So again Shar, why didn't Trump do it the correct way? Was he simply ignorant of the rules? And why is he covering his actions up if he did nothing wrong?
  
  It would be easy enough to prove his claim by releasing a few documents and letting those in the know to speak. But he knows that will be the end of his presidency if he allows this.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "So again Shar, why didn't Trump do it the correct way? Was he simply ignorant of the rules? And why is he covering his actions up if he did nothing wrong?"
  
  He did not break any laws by asking for Zelinsky to investigate the Bidens or CrowdStrike. he was not incorrect in the manner he asked for the investigation. How is the covering up anything, he released the transcript of the call, he has not used his executive privilege, he did via his attorney state he would not cooperate with the investigation. he could have been forced via the courts to cooperate or use that privilege. The House could have accomplished this, they did not. Ask yourself why?
  
  You assume documents will end his presidency. How could have fought for those documents? The House...
  
  Randy this all was political, the House knew every move they would make and every move they would not make. In my opinion, and I have said this frequently this was a cheap political ploy. The House wanted to put out all this conjecture on "crimes of the president" What a better forum... However, the House, in my opinion, looks foolish in disrespecting our so Constitution so badly. This has backfired, and the defence will well prove this.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Again, why didn't he do it the correct way and instead had his private attorney take on the task? Can you come up with any possible reason he didn't go through the proper channels?
  
  You keep saying he didn't break the law, but that's not according to the GAO. But then, you probably don't trust them because they're a non-partisan govt.agency.
  
  You also continue to claim the only evidence is hearsay and opinion. David Holmes was sitting with Sondland and heard the conversation containing "He's gonna do it. He loves your ass. He'll do anything you want him to." In regards to announcing the investigation into the Bidens.
  
  Sondland said it was his recollection as well. Spin that, Shar!
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I can't read Trump's mind on why he wanted to investigate the Biden's. Most likely he wanted dirt on him. There could be a couple of reasons he may have wanted dirt on the Biden's? I could come up with several theories, but they would be nothing but opinion-oriented. Only Trump can answer your question
  
  Yes, David Holmes testified he overheard a phone call between Soundland and Trump. He can and did give the first-hand testimony of what he overheard. yes, DH claims to have heard --- Quote
  
  “I then heard President Trump ask, quote, ‘So he’s going to do the investigation?’” Holmes testified. “Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘he’s going to do it’, adding that President Zelenskiy will, quote, ‘do anything you ask him to’.” "He loves your ass"
  
  However, no one even Trump is disputing the call to Zelinsky or the fact he asked Zelinsky to do an investigation of the Biden's. Not sure why you feel this statement is a riveting piece of evidence? The phone call transcript is factual evidence of fact Trump asked for an investigation. The Transcript clearly expressed Trump's request. So, I guess one could say DH gave first-hand evidence that Sondland and Trump can verify. Not sure what this proves or why it helps the House's case? I will admit it is factual evidence, not sure if it is any proof of anything that Trump has not admitted to? I guess we are looking at this evidence differently. I am not sure it will play a part in the trial because no one is disputing Trump asked Zelinsky to do an investigation?
  
  David Holmes Quote
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … nd-ukraine
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  One doesn't have to be a mind reader to know what Trump had in mind. Everyone knew it as shown by the witnesses and evidence.
  
  He was afraid of Joe Biden and didn't want to play by the rules. That's Donnie's MO, if you know anything at all about his past.
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Again, Randy, you are reading your own opinion into deciphering what Trump was thinking, and how you see the evidence. I see the evidence as hearsay, second-hand, opinion-oriented. It is clear we have a different way of processing or thoughts. I am a matter of fact, you are willing to be open to what if. I do not want you to think I am trying to insult you. I am just pointing out we think differently. This is why we are butting heads.
  
  It is clear you feel because of the "evidence" you have heard is enough for you to believe Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's due to fear of him winning in 2020. While even if I were to be inclined to have an opinion on Trump being afraid. I would lean the opposite way than you have. I recognize a man that never seems to flinch under pressure, a man that seems to have no fear? I also will admit he also seems to be a man that will definitely jump on any conspiracy theory. So, was he caught up in just that a conspiracy that he wanted to solve? I could go on and on if I were going to just give my opinion of what was in Trump's mind. The point is none of what I have said can be proven as true. So, do we convict on opinion, hearsay or do we give due process, and keep to innocent until proven guilty? Do we as a nation want to go down that road as a society? Do you yourself want to be accused and found guilty without nothing but opinion?
  reply report
  95
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The bottom line in this impeachment is....WE the people read the transcript. Ukraine GOT the funding. NO investigation was conducted on the Biden. That is pretty much end of story. The rest is politically motivated with NO substance to it.
  
  Democrats know President Donald Trump will get reelected in 2020 and there is nothing they are able to do to stop it. That is what has motivated this sham impeachment.
  
  reply report
  83
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and I love how you summed it up in so few words.
  reply report
95
Readmikenowposted 4 years ago
What impeachment managers in Trump's Senate trial seem to be forgetting

There are four inconvenient—but key—facts that haven’t changed since this impeachment hoax began.
\
1. The call transcript shows zero link between aid and political investigations. (And remember, President Trump declassified and released the transcript all on his own.)
2. The aid was released without any commitment to new investigations.
3. Ukraine did not know aid was withheld at the time of the July 25 phone call.
4. President Trump and President Zelensky have both repeatedly said that there was no pressure. In fact, there are multiple Ukrainian officials on the record saying there was no pressure and no link between the aid and investigations.
Funny how these all seem to have been forgotten by the impeachment managers.
1. The call transcript shows zero link between aid and political investigations. (And remember, President Trump declassified and released the transcript all on his own.)
2. The aid was released without any commitment to new investigations.
3. Ukraine did not know aid was withheld at the time of the July 25 phone call.
4. President Trump and President Zelensky have both repeatedly said that there was no pressure. In fact, there are multiple Ukrainian officials on the record saying there was no pressure and no link between the aid and investigations.
Funny how these all seem to have been forgotten by the impeachment managers.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-im … bbie-lesko
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose you haven't heard about the audio tape given to the House where Trump tells Lev to "get rid of her, take her out, do it tomorrow."
  
  Is this a good look for your role model, Mike?
  reply report
  95
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Randy. President Donald Trump is an excellent role model.
  
  You fail to comprehend that the President of the United States has the authority to appoint or remove any ambassador he chooses. So, President Donald Trump removed a person who wasn't performing up to his expectations. That is part of running the country. Sometimes you have to get rid of people. So, yes, I like how he made the bold move to get rid of someone he felt needed to be removed.
  
  Being decisive is a good trait. He is a good role model.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know as I would go that far (Trump a good role model). While he has some pretty major positives, he also has some pretty big negatives. All in all, he may be a decent/good president, but probably not someone I'd hold up as a role model.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Today Schiff stood before Congress And Told Us A Well Spun Tale

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Today Schiff stood before Congress And Told Us A Well Spun Tale

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies