And the FBI. And Gordon Sondland. And the entire State Department crew in Ukraine. And Trump himself, who keeps trying to silence witnesses.
The FBI who abused the FISA courts and have direct evidence of several biased agents involved, Sondland who's only direct knowledge was of Trump literally saying "no quid pro quo", the DOS people who had zero direct knowledge, and Trump protecting his people from likely perjury traps. But just keep spinning your leftist delusions.
No, it wouldn't.
And "minority" unemployment is historically high, not low. It's low now.
Yes, minority unemployment is currently at a historical low.
So all your bullshit about John Roberts is ignorant rubbish.
Because he doesn't want to follow procedure.
Leftist conspiracy theory.
I'm old enough for that to be a synonym for "record". Sorry to have confused you.
"Taped" was never a synonym for "written down".
"Officials" don't make transcripts. Few have the skills.
It's not a transcript, if it's reconstructed from memory.
Russia, meanwhile, also recorded the call (according to US intelligence agency observers) - as did Ukraine, according to some. So we can follow Trump's lead, and beg or bribe a copy from them.
And if you were even half-informed on the subject, you'd know that "transcript" is not, here, used in the literal sense of being verbatim. Too bad you never seem to read any legit sources to form your opinions. And you repeating your claims about Russian and Ukrainian recordings
without ever citing a single source is just further evidence of the leftist conspiracy theories necessary to keep your ill-informed beliefs afloat.
Trump has admitted to firing Comey because Comey was continuing to investigate the Russian connections. (Trump has also admitted to pitching his hotels and resorts as places for visiting dignitaries to stay, and promised them personal contact with the President if if they did.)
In other words, Trump stated the cause in public. He said he was trying to obstruct Comey's investigation. That's impeachable, whether he admits it or not. And we don't need Trump's permission to remove him from office.
Wrong again. Trump fired Comey because Comey would not publicly admit that Trump wasn't personally under investigation, although he later testified to Congress that he told Trump, three times, that he was not under personal investigation. Your claims are a muddled mess of leftist nonsense.
(the only possible motive for that firing being abuse of power...and not mentioned in the articles of impeachment)
Abuse of power is not a motive, it's a high crime for which Presidents can be impeached.
Abuse of power is mentioned in the articles of impeachment, and in the Constitution.
I know it can be hard to parse simple English when you intentional leave things out and fragment single sentences. Here, let me help you out:
Trump has admitted no wrongdoing, he fired Comey for cause but didn't stop the Mueller investigation (the only possible motive for that firing being abuse of power...and not mentioned in the articles of impeachment), and SCOTUS has agreed that congressional subpoenas are not beyond legal challenge.
Stopping the Mueller investigation, the one that took over what Comey was doing, would be the only motive to fire Comey that would possibly rise to an abuse of power. Stopping Mueller would be the motive, not your idiotic read of an intentionally out of context quote. Firing Comey is not mentioned in the impeachment articles. Again, simple English.
You depend on me for all your information?
I am posting in reply to somebody who apparently thinks slaves are counted as unemployed. There's a limit to the work I will do in that circumstance.
Deflection, because you obviously cannot come up with
a single source to cite.
And now you're lying to cover for your immoral claim that slaves were merely employed. Slavery does not count as employed nor unemployed, and you trivializing it either way is sick. Saying a slave is either is as stupid as claiming your pocket watch is employed. Yes, it does work, but something considered property cannot hold a job, nor be counted as not holding a job. It's, all around, completely ignorant and suspiciously racist.
The limit to the work you will do to support or verify your own opinions seems to be absolutely zero. Even when you cite something, it seems to only be a pretense for a claim the citation doesn't support.
Not at all. There's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence - enough to launch a formal investigation of anyone except possibly a sitting President.
Circumstantial, like evidence that would not be allowed in a court of law. Enough to launch a wholly political and partisan witch hunt.
The impeachable articles include several statutory crimes, if the Senate is interested - from extortion to treason, obstruction of justice to violation of the Emoluments Clause.
No, they don't. The articles nowhere mention extortion, emoluments, or obstruction of justice, and only mention bribery and treason while quoting the Constitution about the House's duty in impeachment. Again, you're only demonstrating your ignorance of things readily available. Here's a link to the full articles of impeachment, trying reading them for once:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...achme/5d0f5a8d150481cbb981/optimized/full.pdf
Your link says that Obama used the unemployment rate (unlike the employment rate, it incorporates"workforce participation" and similar dubious numbers) to hide a net loss of jobs. That's one reason it's a poor measure of economic performance - it's easy to play games like that with it.
Again, no economist uses your ignorant "employment rate" and
you've yet to cite a single source to show otherwise. But at least you seem to have given up on the lie that only "Trump and the Republicans are so fond of it". Apparently you were completely ignorant to Obama and Clinton using it before I told you.
So?
As far as economic performance, Obama inherited the Second Republican Crash (remember it took Clinton eight years to dig out from under a milder Republican trashing of the economy, and he had help in Congress) - what's Trump's excuse?
Another leftist conspiracy theory. Somehow the whole economy was anemic until the moment Obama left office, but the boom was somehow Obama's doing and his eight-years of failure was somehow Bush's doing.
Three claimed, two were not called to testify. They weren't needed.
Then prove it. The best I can find is that witness talking about three Trump admin officials, not him and two other witnesses to the call. Again, you seem to lazily muddle the actual facts.
And since you've yet to cite a single source for using "employment rate" as an economic metric, I an only assume you have no clue and cannot even make a stab at having one.
No one can stop you from making idiotic assumptions with Google at your fingertips - or wants to.
I find them revealing, and useful. Like the rest of the bandarlog ...
IOW, you have nothing and have to go to this length in the hopes of distracting from that obviously painful facts. If you had anything in reality, you'd simply cite it to "bite down" on me once and for all. That's all the proof anyone needs that you have nothing at all. Thanks for that!
We'll find out.
So far it's been good enough that McConnell is resorting to unprecedented and frankly desperate measures to keep it from being heard by the Senate.
And it pins John Roberts to a wall of simple and uncomplicated facts, with no way to fog the subject that will distract the people he wants respect from. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who is willing to look like a fool in public to protect perps like Donald Trump.
Again, you're ill-informed. McConnell can't do anything until Pelosi quits delaying and sends the articles over to the Senate. Until she does that, the House's duty has not been met and Trump technically hasn't even been impeached. And for what, a vain and unconstitutional attempt by the House to dictate how the Senate operates? Delay until far enough into the primary to get the competition to Biden off the campaign trail? Who knows. She has no leverage and no obvious end-game.
Or maybe it's just so rubes will believe nonsense like McConnell is "keeping it from being heard".
Oh, and your repeated, and willful at this point, ignorance about Roberts having any say in the outcome.
