Romney plays the long ball. Votes guilty.

[PhilFish]

Mitt is IT!!

Mitt Romney 2024

 

[llovejim]

the GOP could do a lot worse, and not a lot better. but i honestly think romney just did the logical thing any moral person with an IQ would have to do- see the clear overwhelming evidence even without further witnesses that Trump withheld vital military aid to try and force Ukraine to do his stupid ass own personal political bidding, about the bidens FROM 3 YEARS AGO!! plus his obvious obstruction of justice and congress. slam dunk.

 

[PhilFish]

the GOP could do a lot worse, and not a lot better. but i honestly think romney just did the logical thing any moral person with an IQ would have to do- see the clear overwhelming evidence even without further witnesses that Trump withheld vital military aid to try and force Ukraine to do his stupid ass own personal political bidding, about the bidens FROM 3 YEARS AGO!! plus his obvious obstruction of justice and congress. slam dunk.

And yet. No.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

He voted Guilty on one article
Not Guilty on the Other.

So, basically splitting the baby because of butthurt.

1 - Can't With-hold aid- when they received it early.
2 - Can't Obstruct anyone when you go by your Constitutionally protected rights

Maybe had Pelosi Gone by the Constitution, and wasn't in a hurry- she may have had a case.

She chose not to.

 

[llovejim]

And yet. No.

try being honest and thinking about how many people in this country have been found guilty in COURT, with a much higher bar, of bribery with less evidence....how much do you need? good god. a signed confession? a recording of him beyond what we have of him telling zelensky we need a favor, though, you need to work with rudy and barr to investigate the bidens from 3 years ago, to also include a recording of him telling mulvaney to withhold the aid for the quid pro quo, which mulvaney admitted in public, and a recording of him telling sondland, his hand picked diplomat in Ukraine there was a quid pro quo and to work with rudy to get her done, as sondland did admit under oath...

try to think. try to not be biased.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

try being honest and thinking about how many people in this country have been found guilty in COURT, with a much higher bar, of bribery with less evidence....how much do you need? good god. a signed confession? a recording of him beyond what we have of him telling zelensky we need a favor, though, you need to work with rudy and barr to investigate the bidens from 3 years ago, to also include a recording of him telling mulvaney to withhold the aid for the quid pro quo, which mulvaney admitted in public, and a recording of him telling sondland, his hand picked diplomat in Ukraine there was a quid pro quo and to work with rudy to get her done, as sondland did admit under oath...

try to think. try to not be biased.

You can quit fighting Jim.

What you believe & defending was found to be false- and defeated in Court.

It's over.

 

[llovejim]

He voted Guilty on one article
Not Guilty on the Other.

So, basically splitting the baby because of butthurt.

1 - Can't With-hold aid- when they received it early.
2 - Can't Obstruct anyone when you go by your Constitutionally protected rights

Maybe had Pelosi Gone by the Constitution, and wasn't in a hurry- she may have had a case.

She chose not to.

pelosi was not in charge of the impeachment. why do you post when you have no clue about what is going on? good god. as i have posted before- bribery is against the law if it is even offered- it does not have to be successful!! try to freaking remember shit for more than a week or two.

www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

 

[llovejim]

You can quit fighting Jim.

What you believe & defending was found to be false- and defeated in Court.

It's over.

bullshit. before the trial repub senators said they would not even read the transcripts, would not be impartial, would work directly with the white house...and it has not been defeated in court at all, strange person. it was the type of trial white guys used to get in the south when they beat up or killed an uppity black guy...that was why the DOJ and Congress came up with civil rights laws and later hate crime laws, to stop local and biased good old boy juries from refusing to do their job and stop making decisions based on racism, bigotry, or in this case, gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

pelosi was not in charge of the impeachment. why do you post when you have no clue about what is going on? good god. as i have posted before- bribery is against the law if it is even offered- it does not have to be successful!! try to freaking remember shit for more than a week or two.

www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Uh, Yeah she is.

She is Speaker of the House
She did not have the authority to declare an impeachment authority without a House vote- The ENTIRE House. Can't delegate the sole power of impeachment from the House to a committee.

Bribery ? Ok There's the definition. May as well be Murder. Because you said it- doesn't mean it happened.

Everyone under oath said there was none Including Yovanovich.

It's over Jim. Move on.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

bullshit. before the trial repub senators said they would not even read the transcripts, would not be impartial, would work directly with the white house...and it has not been defeated in court at all, strange person. it was the type of trial white guys used to get in the south when they beat up or killed an uppity black guy...that was why the DOJ and Congress came up with civil rights laws and later hate crime laws, to stop local and biased good old boy juries from refusing to do their job and stop making decisions based on racism, bigotry, or in this case, gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons.

Uh, yes it was. Acquitted yesterday.

You have a Partisan Impeachment- Expect a Partisan Acquittal.
JUST the way the founders intended - so no one tries it again.

 

[llovejim]

Uh, yes it was. Acquitted yesterday.

You have a Partisan Impeachment- Expect a Partisan Acquittal.
JUST the way the founders intended - so no one tries it again.

nope. not a court. get a dictionary. hard to believe you even post when you are so uninformed about reality.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

nope. not a court. get a dictionary. hard to believe you even post when you are so uninformed about reality.

Where did I mention 'court' in that post ? Oh wait- I didn't.

But -Please tell Justice Roberts That.

Oh wait, he would be in a court yesterday- overseeing the acquittal.

Which also happens in- (wait for it)- a court.

 

[PhilFish]

try being honest and thinking about how many people in this country have been found guilty in COURT, with a much higher bar, of bribery with less evidence....how much do you need? good god. a signed confession? a recording of him beyond what we have of him telling zelensky we need a favor, though, you need to work with rudy and barr to investigate the bidens from 3 years ago, to also include a recording of him telling mulvaney to withhold the aid for the quid pro quo, which mulvaney admitted in public, and a recording of him telling sondland, his hand picked diplomat in Ukraine there was a quid pro quo and to work with rudy to get her done, as sondland did admit under oath...

try to think. try to not be biased.

I can't try and be honest with somebody who refuses to.

Mulvaney corrected himself did he not? Go on try being honest instead of clinging to what he quote un quote admitted in public..

What did sondland say? Go ahead try being honest I dare you... He presumed.

Did I say he's innocent? Anywhere?

Go on try being truthful...

The fact of the matter are that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt such that he would be removed from office. Further there is the question of weather some extortion actually occurred. My belief is it did not. Why. because it didn't

That's in evidence, not something I'm pulling out of the sky

 

[UPNYA2]

bullshit. before the trial repub senators said they would not even read the transcripts, would not be impartial, would work directly with the white house...and it has not been defeated in court at all, strange person. it was the type of trial white guys used to get in the south when they beat up or killed an uppity black guy...that was why the DOJ and Congress came up with civil rights laws and later hate crime laws, to stop local and biased good old boy juries from refusing to do their job and stop making decisions based on racism, bigotry, or in this case, gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons.

"... stop making decisions based on racism, bigotry, or in this case, gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons."

I have a question on this matter that I would like to ask you if I may.

When you speak of making decisions based on, "gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons", why is it you always and only apply it to the Republican Senators?

See, since before this even was forwarded to the Senate all we read and heard about was how the dems need to "pick off 4 republicans", if they had any chance of forcing the Senate to finish the House's duties of impeachment. Do you remember that?

Never once was it discussed how the dems may need to pick off 8 or 10 republicans in case there were a couple of dems who saw or heard the evidence and voted to not convict. Or did I miss all those news stories hidden among the hundreds and hundreds fretting over the possibility of not getting the 3 to 4 republicans that all the left were counting on.

Why, truth be told, it was almost as if everyone knew and understood that ALL of the dems would vote together, the same, long before any of them ever saw or heard anything concerning the impeachment...

Doesn't any of THAT come across to you as, making decisions based on, "gutless chickenshit partisanship and political reasons"?


Rhetorical question, you already know that I know the reply. No need to go through a long, drawn out, possibly even eloquent rant in return. Suffice it to say we will both agree to go with the more simple, only truly honest answer;

That's DIFFERENT damnit!

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Not to Jump in @PhilFish BUT- for the record to back you up. With facts. It defeats every belief @llovejim Has. Someone must be partisan and willfully ignorant to ignore it.

Seeing many overblown (and outright false) reports about Ambassador Sondland's testimony. Here's what he actually said.
1. I did not (and still don't) know why aid was held up
2. I "PRESUMED" it was because of corruption
3. I told Yermak my assumption

See paragraph 4 here:

 

[Fast Eddy]

Mit should switch to a Democrat because the GOP will not support him.

 

[PhilFish]

Not to Jump in @PhilFish BUT- for the record to back you up. With facts. It defeats every belief @llovejim Has. Someone must be partisan and willfully ignorant to ignore it.

Seeing many overblown (and outright false) reports about Ambassador Sondland's testimony. Here's what he actually said.
1. I did not (and still don't) know why aid was held up
2. I "PRESUMED" it was because of corruption
3. I told Yermak my assumption

See paragraph 4 here:

View attachment 48210

Feel free to jump in at any time. I appreciate the input. I myself just don't like to waste the time illustrating what is patently obvious, factual, and in the record transcribed.

But then again you know how it goes

 

[PhilFish]

Mit should switch to a Democrat because the GOP will not support him.

He'll switch to whatever the hell he needs to. Not running must be eating him alive

 

[llovejim]

I can't try and be honest with somebody who refuses to.

Mulvaney corrected himself did he not? Go on try being honest instead of clinging to what he quote un quote admitted in public..

What did sondland say? Go ahead try being honest I dare you... He presumed.

Did I say he's innocent? Anywhere?

Go on try being truthful...

The fact of the matter are that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt such that he would be removed from office. Further there is the question of weather some extortion actually occurred. My belief is it did not. Why. because it didn't

That's in evidence, not something I'm pulling out of the sky

how can you misremember what somebody told you to do and you did it? try to think and be honest, do you think mulvaney is an idiot? that he could actually misremember being told to freeze the aid? and that is more likely than him changing his story once trump and his team told him it was very damaging, go into "i must have misremembered mode?" good god. nobody is that stupid. quit faking it.

you have to be lying or you have to be incredibly stupid. you have 3 high up trump confidants and cronies, among all the others who were not as close, specifically saying trump ordered the aid withheld to force Ukraine to work with rudy to look into the bidens from 3 years ago, not corruption in general, for his own political gain.

bolton, mulvaney and sondland. and his phone call, and the texts between volker and sondland and taylor. quit lying.

 

[llovejim]

Feel free to jump in at any time. I appreciate the input. I myself just don't like to waste the time illustrating what is patently obvious, factual, and in the record transcribed.

But then again you know how it goes

you haven't even tried to do that..you keep spewing total bullshit.