Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thursday Impeachment Hearings Begin

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Both of yesterday's witnesses were called by the Republicans. These witnesses were expected to provide testimony helpful to the president. They did not. Let that sink in.
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-hurting-trump

    Trump apologists have resorted to outright lies in characterizing this week's proceedings. You might have noticed that none of the Republicans on the committee questioned any of the facts. They resorted to spinning absurd conspiracy theories and assassinating the character of career diplomats. A disgraceful performance that will haunt them for the rest of their (probably shortened) political careers.
    Sheesh, talk about spin. Completely false and you know it. But hey, when your impeachment dreams just flew out the window, AGAIN, I can see why you would follow Schiff's lead and flat out lie to try and save face. The witness list was made public but Schiff refused to allow Republicans access. Hmm. Pretty fair, right? You may have noticed when Republicans asked the witnesses if they ever saw quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery they all said no including Sondland who finally admitted Trump specifically said no quid pro quo which, if you remember, was the whole basis for the impeachment inquiry until Schiff moved the goal post after focus group feedback. Gee, strong strategy, Libtards. Now you crazy nut jobs are sending Sondland death threats. Oh, the civility. I guess answers from straight-up questions are not the facts. Funny how you talk about disgraceful performance when the Chairman of the whole process lies to the American people about knowing the whistleblower's identity yet stops any witness answer that would have named him. How is that possible? How bout reading his fake, made up transcript of Trump's phone call when he had the real one sitting next to him. Gee, how the integrity cup overflows. So tell me something, this past week was the smoking gun that you promised us all? This was the bombshell you promised was gonna take down Trump, AGAIN? From what I see you've been played by your own party again. The poles are reflecting what a disaster this sham has been for the Dems. Disapproval of the impeachment inquiry took a double-digit jump (11%) among independents. Not good 11 months from an election. Face it, you got "Muellered", again. But we appreciate it. As I always say, the Dems are the gift that keeps giving. Merry Christmas!!!

    https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio...p-witness-list

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rea...hment-hearings

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Trump water boy Devin Nunes has his own scandals breaking. Rudy's pal Lev Parnas was helping Nunes with "consulting" in Europe and one of his questionable PACs was spending exorbitant sums on perks like nice hotels and tickets to sporting events. No wonder he's been a train wreck all week. I know his district is solidly red but surely the local GOP can come up with someone more qualified?
      So it begins!

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/polit...ion/index.html

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hor...probe-document

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Sheesh, talk about spin. Completely false and you know it.
        Sorry, I'm not following. Please clarify what part of the under-oath testimony from the fact witnesses you are claiming is "completely false".

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          The witness list was made public but Schiff refused to allow Republicans access.
          Sorry, not following this part either. I already gave you a link that proved yesterday's witnesses were requested by the Republicans.

          If you're talking about the whistleblower, his/her testimony is unnecessary given that his/her claims have been corroborated by at least 6 other witnesses and his/her identity is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which was passed during a Republican administration.

          If you're talking about Hunter Biden, his testimony is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry. There is no credible evidence that he did anything wrong, and Trump's claim that security assistance was withheld due to "corruption" was proved laughably false by multiple fact witnesses.

          So please clarify what you mean by "refused to allow Republicans access"

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            You may have noticed when Republicans asked the witnesses if they ever saw quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery they all said no including Sondland who finally admitted Trump specifically said no quid pro quo . . .
            Um . . . here's a video of Sondland acknowledging the quid pro quo under oath.
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d00_story.html

            You're going to have to do better than this. Your gaslighting won't fool anyone with more than a couple active brain cells.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Um . . . here's a video of Sondland acknowledging the quid pro quo under oath.
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d00_story.html

              You're going to have to do better than this. Your gaslighting won't fool anyone with more than a couple active brain cells.
              It’s not that hard when you pull your head out of your ass to see there’s always another side to the story

              https://youtu.be/DRVdV_7SItg

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                It’s not that hard when you pull your head out of your ass to see there’s always another side to the story

                https://youtu.be/DRVdV_7SItg
                Ok, I literally just fell off my chair laughing.

                Your "other side of the story" is that TRUMP told Sondland there was no quid pro quo? Trump denied committing an impeachable offense? In your feeble brain, Trump's denial constitutes proof there was no quid pro quo?

                I didn't think you could actually be that stupid, but apparently I was wrong.

                Comment


                  #53
                  You should probably read your own links before posting. The CNN article says:
                  ". . . the inspector general concluded the alteration did not change the validity of the surveillance application."
                  ". . . those mistakes do not undermine the premise for the FBI's investigation."

                  And the Fox News article says:
                  ". . . the document was not central to the legality of the FISA warrant obtained against Page."

                  So I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you're just trying to throw up a smokescreen to distract from the fact that we have a criminal in the white house.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Sorry, not following this part either. I already gave you a link that proved yesterday's witnesses were requested by the Republicans.

                    If you're talking about the whistleblower, his/her testimony is unnecessary given that his/her claims have been corroborated by at least 6 other witnesses and his/her identity is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which was passed during a Republican administration.

                    If you're talking about Hunter Biden, his testimony is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry. There is no credible evidence that he did anything wrong, and Trump's claim that security assistance was withheld due to "corruption" was proved laughably false by multiple fact witnesses.

                    So please clarify what you mean by "refused to allow Republicans access"
                    You know who is refusing access? Trump. He's threatened legal action against all the witnesses he claims can exonerate him. It's only a matter of time until the courts - probably SCOTUS - will determine if Congressional subpoena power is really a thing or just something in name only.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Ok, I literally just fell off my chair laughing.

                      Your "other side of the story" is that TRUMP told Sondland there was no quid pro quo? Trump denied committing an impeachable offense? In your feeble brain, Trump's denial constitutes proof there was no quid pro quo?

                      I didn't think you could actually be that stupid, but apparently I was wrong.
                      Yeah, let's believe the guy with 12,000+ lies on record just because he said so. LMAO!

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Ok, I literally just fell off my chair laughing.

                        Your "other side of the story" is that TRUMP told Sondland there was no quid pro quo? Trump denied committing an impeachable offense? In your feeble brain, Trump's denial constitutes proof there was no quid pro quo?

                        I didn't think you could actually be that stupid, but apparently I was wrong.
                        Funny, your whole argument is from the guy who presumed, believed, and felt that there was a quid pro quo. Really? So speculation is the name of the game. I guess so when hearsay evidence is stronger than direct evidence, right? Yovanovitch, Volker, Vindan, Kent, Taylor, and Morrison all testified under oath no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion. That's pretty damaging to your case. In your feeble brain, are all these government fact witnesses called by Schiff lying? No mention of their testimony. Why is that? Oh, I know. It doesn't fit your narrative. Your whole argument is based on a guy who destroyed under cross-examination. His story changed more times than Schiff's accusations. He must have talked to focus groups too. LOL!. We can go back and forth all day but the bottom line is there is still no smoking gun, bombshell evidence. You're trying to impeach the POTUS based on feelings. The whole democratic angle was "how did that make you feel?" In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The proof is in the pudding. The poles are showing what this sham means to the voters. But there is a silver lining. The Senate will most likely have their days in the sun to refute the accusations and now a formal investigation into the "debunked" Ukrainian scandal has been launched. Thanks, Adam! That along with the IG Report that is already showing big problems for the Dems, you guys might be on a rocky road. We shall soon see!

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          You should probably read your own links before posting. The CNN article says:
                          ". . . the inspector general concluded the alteration did not change the validity of the surveillance application."
                          ". . . those mistakes do not undermine the premise for the FBI's investigation."

                          And the Fox News article says:
                          ". . . the document was not central to the legality of the FISA warrant obtained against Page."

                          So I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you're just trying to throw up a smokescreen to distract from the fact that we have a criminal in the white house.
                          Hmm, looks like the damage control patrol is in full effect. One little leak before the year-long investigation has been released and you've already made your conclusion. Don't you need to see the facts? Oh wait, what was I thinking. I'm talking to Libtards! "We believe truth over facts." Hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence". "I don't know who the whistleblower is". "I should have been more honest and transparent about the whistleblower." Scratch that, "I have no knowledge of the identity of the whistleblower." These are the leaders of your party. Why are you guys so nervous about that IG report? You have done nothing wrong, right? Just chill. Remember the TS libtards have already debunked these conspiracy theories. You're good! LOL

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Funny, your whole argument is from the guy who presumed, believed, and felt that there was a quid pro quo. Really? So speculation is the name of the game. I guess so when hearsay evidence is stronger than direct evidence, right? Yovanovitch, Volker, Vindan, Kent, Taylor, and Morrison all testified under oath no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion. That's pretty damaging to your case. In your feeble brain, are all these government fact witnesses called by Schiff lying? No mention of their testimony. Why is that? Oh, I know. It doesn't fit your narrative. Your whole argument is based on a guy who destroyed under cross-examination. His story changed more times than Schiff's accusations. He must have talked to focus groups too. LOL!. We can go back and forth all day but the bottom line is there is still no smoking gun, bombshell evidence. You're trying to impeach the POTUS based on feelings. The whole democratic angle was "how did that make you feel?" In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The proof is in the pudding. The poles are showing what this sham means to the voters. But there is a silver lining. The Senate will most likely have their days in the sun to refute the accusations and now a formal investigation into the "debunked" Ukrainian scandal has been launched. Thanks, Adam! That along with the IG Report that is already showing big problems for the Dems, you guys might be on a rocky road. We shall soon see!
                            I had to hold my nose to get through the stench of BS in that post, but let's start with this:
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Yovanovitch, Volker, Vindan, Kent, Taylor, and Morrison all testified under oath no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion.
                            Since you're stating this as fact, let's see the "proof in the pudding", as you said. Show me links or videos to back that up. And please actually read or watch the links before you post, or you'll end up looking as stupid as you did earlier today.

                            I'll wait.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              I had to hold my nose to get through the stench of BS in that post, but let's start with this:


                              Since you're stating this as fact, let's see the "proof in the pudding", as you said. Show me links or videos to back that up. And please actually read or watch the links before you post, or you'll end up looking as stupid as you did earlier today.

                              I'll wait.
                              Please clarify your request. Are you asking for me to provide links on the testimonies or the polls showing about the growing number of voters upset by this sham? They're both easy to find. I have no problem making you look stupid, again,

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                Hmm, looks like the damage control patrol is in full effect. One little leak before the year-long investigation has been released and you've already made your conclusion. Don't you need to see the facts? Oh wait, what was I thinking. I'm talking to Libtards! "We believe truth over facts." Hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence". "I don't know who the whistleblower is". "I should have been more honest and transparent about the whistleblower." Scratch that, "I have no knowledge of the identity of the whistleblower." These are the leaders of your party. Why are you guys so nervous about that IG report? You have done nothing wrong, right? Just chill. Remember the TS libtards have already debunked these conspiracy theories. You're good! LOL
                                Wait, who's "nervous" about the IG report? You mean the IG report that will supposedly show that the Russia Investigation was "witch hunt" and was conducted illegally? The "witch hunt" that indicted, convicted or obtained guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin? The "witch hunt" that proved obstruction by the POTUS and would have indicted him if not for the OLC memo?

                                Yeah, I'm really worried that investigation will be rendered invalid. Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X