Should Democrat Leadership Be Punished ??

[b]Should Democrat Leadership Be Punished ??[/b]

Should Democrat Leadership Be Punished for perpetrating lies, making shit up, attempting to over turn the last election and interfere / meddle in the 2020 election?

Schiff's 'rock solid' evidence against Trump never surfaced. None of the 'witnesses' witnessed anything. All the real evidence points to the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong - yet the left persists. Obviously, their motivation has nothing to do with any wrong doing.

These false distractions have been the focal point for democrats and the media for three years now! The topic had a negative effect on America in many respects.

I don't know if it's a crime for politicians to lie - I suppose if it were, DC would be a ghost town. But, this rises to a level that in my opinion can not be ignored or allowed to happen again. In my opinion the people that put us through this mess need to be punished - severely.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

monte3 · 70-79, M

If the President is SO innocent why not let Bolton testify? You are aware of the manuscript from Bolto that has come out?

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@monte3 Has anybody actually seen the manuscript?

monte3 · 70-79, M

@sunsporter1649 to my knowledge no, but it will say what has been reported in the NYT. Which is why he should testify, so we can hear what he has to say.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@monte3 LOL, NY Slimes reporters are now controlling the government? Well I'll be darned. Next you will tell me that vindamins brother is editing the book, which is where the NY Slimes got their leak, right?

monte3 · 70-79, M

😊 no I am simply saying that the Times reporting will turn out to be true. And since you seem to doubt that they reported the manuscript accurately you should be demanding that Bolton testify under oath. @sunsporter1649

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 [quote]are aware of the manuscript from Bolto that has come out?
[/quote]
[quote]No one has seen the manuscript[/quote]
[quote]The NYT has reported on the manuscript[/quote]

Monte - do you notice any ,... disconnects in these statements?
Given fairly recent history of NYT 'reporting', how confident are you in this particular report on a manuscript that no one has seen?

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Budwick my point, and a very simple one at that, is that, is that if you doubt the reporting you Republicans should be clamoring for his testimony. But I don’t see that happening. And obviously I meant no one in the general public. 🙄. The reporting will turn out to be correct. 😉

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 Calling witnesses to testify in a case without merit is senseless.

I mean think about it - shall I call witnesses to testify about a crime you didn't commit? And, there is no evidence of?
Or, should I just leave you the fuck alone?

LeopoldBloom · M

@Budwick Too late, there’s already a trial going on, so not calling witnesses is senseless.

Imagine if there were enough senators to convict Trump - wouldn’t you want defense witnesses to be called?

Budwick · 70-79, M

@LeopoldBloom [quote]there’s already a trial going [/quote]

The time for discovery / witnesses was in the House.

Monte wants bring new evidence that doesn't even exist!

The House failed to make a compelling case.
The Senate will likely move for acquittal.

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Budwick ahhh another one who has not read the phone call transcript or notes there of, or listened to any of the testimony. Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch. And Sondland. Your boy! “Everyone was in the loop”. Fiona Hill telling about the concern over the “drug deal”. It was on television.
We have been over this before

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Budwick you also missed the second part of the impeachment, obstruction. Trump ordered no cooperation. Messing with subpoenas, as in the case of McGann, would have delayed the impeachment when bring it forward was critical.
And despite what you believe and will believe no matter what evidence is presented, there was more than enough presented justify the impeachment and make getting to the truth imperative.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 All those things support President Trump's case.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 [quote]no matter what evidence is presented, there was more than enough presented justify the impeachment [/quote]

And, according to you, part of that evidence doesn't even exist.

I just don't know what to say Monte.
You look, but you don't see.
You listen, bit don't hear.

Be careful Monte.
Your reasoning skills, [or lack thereof] make you a prime target for scammers.

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Budwick according to me part of the evidence doesn’t exist???? Respectfully what the f*** are you talking about. I said there HAS been enough evidence presented to justify the impeachment. And there is more evidence previously held up by the obstruction that should be presented. In other words Bolton’s testimony. I seriously don’t understand why you people (sorry if that term bothers you) don’t want testimony if you think your boy is so innocent.
Nice try on lowering the discussion to an insult exchange, by the way.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 Keep up Monte.
I can't pull both sides of a conversation.
The manuscript that no one has ever seen.

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Budwick and the one that I think we should see. And the one the that you don’t want to see 5he light of day, that manuscript?
You can pull both sides of a conversation, what does that mean??

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 [quote]You can pull both sides of a conversation, what does that mean??[/quote]

It means that obvious references to earlier comments are lost in you.

How do we even know the manuscript exists?
Cuz the NYT says so?