"Leaked" request by some Democrats that asked Nancy to coordinate censure vote instead of impeachment vote.

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Bob D said:

You finally admit that the only "witness' with first hand knowledge is Gordon Sondland.  Thank you.

The 12 witnesses only know what they testified to by meeting with and talking to Sondland.  Thank you.

 

False, as the purpose of the hearing was to elicit information from those with first hand knowledge about events occurring in the Ukraine with a view to determining if the President's actions warranted impeachment and that has now been clearly spelled out.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, SERWIN said:

I do believe the first thing the Senate needs to do with the articles of impeachment is set the rules, correct?

Not correct as the rules have been in place for a long time, but it would be interesting to learn where you believe the Senate has the power to sequester House Democrats en masse.

[Bob D + 562]

YOU, remake it, YOU stated the following

12 witnesses said who they met with and spoke to, including US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland who spoke directly with the President

Only Sondland spoke to the President.  The other 12 witnesses did not.  So stop writing 'first hand knowledge'.  Before you were simply uninformed.  Now it's a lie.  Stop repeating it.

 

[SERWIN + 749]

43 minutes ago, remake it said:

Not correct as the rules have been in place for a long time, but it would be interesting to learn where you believe the Senate has the power to sequester House Democrats en masse.

Actually, no, the rules are not set, they are established at the beginning of the procedure, as you would note from the last two impeachment hearings. Clinton and Nixon both used basically the same rules, but this time they have gone in and just done it willy nilly and made up the rules as they go along. If that is good practice in the House then it will be an EXCELLENT practice for the Senate hearings, wouldn't you say. What's good for the goose is good for the gander so they say. If they had followed the same procedures that had been used in the last two hearings then we would all be kinda stuck to following them, but since they decided to rewrite everything to be convenient for themselves, then the Republicans get the same leeway I would say.

When did you get plugged back in and turned on again?

[remake it + 288]

42 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Clinton and Nixon both used basically the same rules, but this time they have gone in and just done it willy nilly and made up the rules as they go along.

Again, that is not true as the rules  to be followed by the House were reconstituted in January.

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, remake it said:

Again, that is not true as the rules  to be followed by the House were reconstituted in January.

You really don't understand do you? They rewrote the rules to suit there particular wants and if they can do that then the Republicans can do EXACTLY the same. You can't take away rights from one without taking away the rights of all. Hell, the inquiry should hAve gone straight to the Judiciary committee, but Shitt decided he just wanted to handle it himself. And to what RULES are you refering? Show me a copy of the OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT RULES. Do you have them? They are established at the beginning of the inquiry. So when the Senate gets the case they will make up their own rules as to how the case will be handled, and they would be fools not to sequester the Demos, at least two thirds of them, but I would make sure it was all of them. Show the rules now, or do your usual and be obtuse and vague like every other post you have put on this page. Non factual garbage spewing out of a true believers mouth, you have been told what to think and say so please keep entertaining us....

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

Only Sondland spoke to the President.  The other 12 witnesses did not.  So stop writing 'first hand knowledge'. 

That is a minor issue given the Report that was linked uses documentary evidence and first hand knowledge of events aside from Sondland's testimony, and you keep forgetting this point. 

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, SERWIN said:

this time they have gone in and just done it willy nilly and made up the rules as they go along.

 

2 hours ago, SERWIN said:

They rewrote the rules to suit there particular wants and if they can do that then the Republicans can do EXACTLY the same.

As you subsequently noted (above) the rules for the House were not made up as they  went along, which was what you previously claimed, and the rules for the Senate are not just different, they are already in place so your contention on that point is without foundation.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

@SERWIN & @Bob D

guys you’re wasting your time, why bother?

[remake it + 288]

24 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@serwin &@Bob D

guys you’re wasting your time, why bother?

Excellent summary - they do not understand "hearsay," have not correctly stated the processes of Congress, and seem oblivious to the fact that the President cannot place himself above the law.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

@serwin &@Bob D

guys you’re wasting your time, why bother?

Excellent summary - they do not understand "hearsay," have not correctly stated the processes of Congress, and seem oblivious to the fact that the President cannot place himself above the law.

You've gotta love irony!

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

You've gotta love irony!

Witch is it?

On 12/4/2019 at 6:33 PM, Rob Plant said:

Absolute Gold!!!🤣

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

17 minutes ago, remake it said:

Witch is it?

 

No witches here!

We burned all ours in the 1700's

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

No witches here!

We burned all ours in the 1700's

Wooden know, "Newt" Gingrich might say he's cured but he left the House in a parlous state.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:56 PM, Bob D said:

Typing   fact witnesses   didn't and won't sway anyone here.  11 of your 12   fact witnesses   do not have 1st hand knowledge of the Ukrainian call.  We understand what hearsay means.  But I was pleased to see your efforts increased when you put   fact witnesses   in double quotes.  I have to say typing "fact witnesses" is devastating and should lead to a credible impeachment process.  LOL.   Thank you for not using parenthesis, brackets or umlauts.  That would be a case closed impeachment argument for sure.        

Spitting fire at this peach mints idiocy:

Gaetz explodes at impeachment witnesses: You don't get to interrupt me

 

^ Gaetz spitting verbal bullets right to the very end of his allotted time.

 

Meanwhile, here is an exceedingly level-headed assessment.  Worth watching:

Constitutional Law Prof. Stuns Dems on Impeachment: 'It's YOUR Abuse of Power'

 

[SERWIN + 749]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

@SERWIN & @Bob D

guys you’re wasting your time, why bother?

I'm just blowing off steam on an obvious snowflake, kinda harmless fun right? I do not allow snowflakes under my skin, they really aren't worth it, you know? They have this unrealistic unicorn and rainbow way of looking at the world but no clue how it really works, and besides, like I said before it hasn't PROVEN a thing that it has said yet. I guess if you say it, it becomes true in their world..... And to be honest, I don't think the Democrats really are comprehending how thin the ice they tread upon is getting. Again, I really do believe that there is about to be a brief civil war in our near future, but 300 million guns minimum, and over a trillion rounds of ammo will tell the tale, soon to be a short story for them....

[SERWIN + 749]

7 hours ago, remake it said:

Excellent summary - they do not understand "hearsay," have not correctly stated the processes of Congress, and seem oblivious to the fact that the President cannot place himself above the law.

That's the funniest thing about all of this, they really believe that hearsay is going to hold up in any court in this country. I really don't believe that even in the most liberal courts that it would hold water, they know it would be overturned almost immediately by the next higher court. Another funny thing about this though, I do believe that Justice Ruth will be leaving us soon by the looks of it, and we do know what that means, don't we?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Another funny thing about this though, I do believe that Justice Ruth will be leaving us soon by the looks of it, and we do know what that means, don't we?

The Senate Confirmed Four Federal Judges While The House Heard Impeachment Testimony

[SERWIN + 749]

   Yes, Trump has put so many conservative judges in permanent positions, it won't be too long before even the 7th court gets their act together. I do believe he has put more judges in than any other sitting POTUS, but even if not, we do know that the appointees are all conservative and will uphold the constitution like they are supposed to. And if Justice Ruth retires or passes on the SCOTUS will be firmly conservative again. Now I do not know where that will put us on the whole abortion rights thing, I tend to stay away from that one. I will tell you this, we have been faced with the prospect and we could never have gone through with it, my wife thought she was pregnant and neither one of us wanted another child, but there was absolutely no way we would have had a child aborted. Just a personal conviction, and I do believe that everyone has to look into their conscience and make that determination for themselves. It has to do with integrity, that thing that seems to have been lost in our government and society seems to be losing it as well.

   I have said it for years, your first instinct should be the one you go with, and as humans if we debate about something long enough we can talk ourselves into almost anything. And ANYONE that does not believe that needs to look at what happened in Germany about 80 years ago.... 

[juangalt + 1]

On 11/26/2019 at 1:30 PM, remake it said:

Yes, as shown by not knowing that ignoranti is the Italian version of the Latin ignorante, while the Latin word ignoramus is a verb and has already been expressed in its plural form from its derivative, but to most its all Greek.

you sound like a lot fun on a bus trip

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, SERWIN said:

That's the funniest thing about all of this, they really believe that hearsay is going to hold up in any court in this country.

Impeachment occurs through Congress and not the Courts, while there was a link which you must not have read that clarifies a few dozen exceptions to "hearsay" are allowed under rules of evidence in the US, so maybe it's time for you to "school up" rather than catch sunburn.

[SERWIN + 749]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Impeachment occurs through Congress and not the Courts, while there was a link which you must not have read that clarifies a few dozen exceptions to "hearsay" are allowed under rules of evidence in the US, so maybe it's time for you to "school up" rather than catch sunburn.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! That is SO FUNNY!!!!!!! There's a link alright, it's the one missing in your brain!!!!! When hearsay becomes evidence in ANY court, we all will be open to the kind of law in the ME, Sharia. Anyone could say anything and you wouldn't stand a chance of defending yourself......

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

When hearsay becomes evidence in ANY court, we all will be open to the kind of law in the ME, Sharia. Anyone could say anything and you wouldn't stand a chance of defending yourself......

Most nations with sound judicial systems have allowances for hearsay to be recognized as evidence, as in this link which might (say those hoping the concept is possible) enlighten you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Premium peach mints.  Yummy.  (These are actually sold in Japan).

 

House Democrat Gives the Game Away: 'No Limit to the Number of Times' We Will Try to Impeach Trump

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said he hopes House Democrats will be able to impeach President Trump on a wide variety of issues because there is no limit to how many times they can impeach a president. 

"My hope is that we will expand this and take up additional issues. But I would also say this for your viewers for education purposes, a president can be impeached more than once. So we can do this. We can move forward with what we have on the table currently. We can take this before the Senate and we can still investigate other issues and when the president has committed additional offenses, and my suspicion is that he will, we can take those before the Senate," Green told CSPAN on Thursday.

"There is no limit on the number on the times the Senate can vote to convict or not a president. No limit to the number of times a House can vote to impeach or not a president. So my belief is that the Speaker will probably say we are going to move forward with what we have now, but we are not going to end investigations and that there may be possible opportunities to do other things at a later time."  ...

[Bob D + 562]

13 hours ago, SERWIN said:

That's the funniest thing about all of this, they really believe that hearsay is going to hold up in any court in this country. I really don't believe that even in the most liberal courts that it would hold water, they know it would be overturned almost immediately by the next higher court. Another funny thing about this though, I do believe that Justice Ruth will be leaving us soon by the looks of it, and we do know what that means, don't we?

I'm convinced Remake It's handler thinks Hearsay is the name of one of the witnesses.  LOL