The Impeachment Thread

#14,701
#14,701
DC_Vol said:
Is there evidence it was discussed elsewhere? Because it definitely wasn’t discussed or hinted at on the phone call.

You are correct that it’s not a verbatim transcript but it is put together by a team of people. And several people have testified that it is an accurate transcript.
Click to expand...
RockyTop85 said:
Wrong screen grab.

Trump: we’ve been very good to you, but it hasn’t always been reciprocal.
View attachment 234728
Zelensky: we’d like to buy some missiles.
View attachment 234730
Trump: Do me a favor, though, I want you to look for Hillary Clinton’s server.
View attachment 234731
Zelensky: I will do it.
View attachment 234732
Trump: and the other thing: look into Biden.
View attachment 234733
Zelensky: once my prosecutor is in place, I will do it.
View attachment 234735
Trump: I’ll have Giuliani and Barr call you.
View attachment 234736

Trump is clearly hanging continued support for Ukraine on a deliverable that is intended for his own personal political gain. It’s something he couldn’t do if he weren’t president. It’s something that Bolton and the entire NSC agreed was contrary to our national interest.
Click to expand...

If I couldn’t walk an impartial jury through that, in a closing argument I’d burn all my ties and never try another case.

Technical difficulties, apparently, but you can link back to the original post and see where it is in the conversation.
 
#14,702
#14,702
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes, it was. It wasn't explicitly spelled out if that is what you are looking for. And people have testified that which was included was accurate... it is not clear what was excluded.
Click to expand...

Right, it wasn’t explicit. You have to make some pretty remarkable leaps to get to quod pro quo. Like you did by hinging your argument on the word “though”.

For it all to work, the person on the other end would need to know what he must do to obtain alleged benefit. And he has no idea what you’re talking about.

Good luck with your partisan impeachment party. It’s going to be fun to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#14,703
#14,703
DC_Vol said:
Right, it wasn’t explicit. You have to make some pretty remarkable leaps to get to quod pro quo. Like you did by hinging your argument on the word “though”.

For it all to work, the person on the other end would need to know what he must do to obtain alleged benefit. And he has no idea what you’re talking about.

Good luck with your partisan impeachment party. It’s going to be fun to watch.
Click to expand...
Should be interesting.
 
#14,704
#14,704
DC_Vol said:
Right, it wasn’t explicit. You have to make some pretty remarkable leaps to get to quod pro quo. Like you did by hinging your argument on the word “though”.

For it all to work, the person on the other end would need to know what he must do to obtain alleged benefit. And he has no idea what you’re talking about.

Good luck with your partisan impeachment party. It’s going to be fun to watch.
Click to expand...
That is just flat out wrong... and it seems like you haven't read the transcript. Read RockyTop85's post in post #14,701. There was very clearly a quid-pro-quo and it was more than hinted at. By not explicitly spelled out, I mean Trump didn't say "Hey, I have a quid-pro-quo for you, Volodymyr." but it was more than just hinted at. Read it.
 
#14,705
#14,705
BowlBrother85 said:
That is just flat out wrong... and it seems like you haven't read the transcript. Read RockyTop85's post in post #14,701. There was very clearly a quid-pro-quo and it was more than hinted at. By not explicitly spelled out, I mean Trump didn't say "Hey, I have a quid-pro-quo for you, Volodymyr." but it was more than just hinted at. Read it.
Click to expand...

I’ve already said about five times. I have read it.

Is the charge that he wouldn’t sell them missiles until the president agreed to look into the shady Biden dealings?
 
#14,706
#14,706
RockyTop85 said:
If I couldn’t walk an impartial jury through that, in a closing argument I’d burn all my ties and never try another case.

Technical difficulties, apparently, but you can link back to the original post and see where it is in the conversation.
Click to expand...

What would the world do with one less lawyer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, hjeagle1vol, volfanjustin and 3 others
#14,707
#14,707
DC_Vol said:
I’ve already said about five times. I have read it.

Is the charge that he wouldn’t sell them missiles until the president agreed to look into the shady Biden dealings?
Click to expand...
...and Hillary Clinton's server. Trump even mentions the relationship not being "reciprocal". Trump obviously wanted something in return for this military aid and what he wanted in return was of direct political benefit to him. He wanted a potential opponent investigated.
 
#14,709
#14,709
BowlBrother85 said:
...and Hillary Clinton's server. Trump even mentions the relationship not being "reciprocal". Trump obviously wanted something in return for this military aid and what he wanted in return was of direct political benefit to him. He wanted a potential opponent investigated.
Click to expand...
Hillary isn’t running. Not a political opponent.

Why do you care about him asking about her server?

Why shouldn’t we want the FBI to examine her server?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, BigOrangeD, VolnJC and 1 other person
#14,712
#14,712
BowlBrother85 said:
...and Hillary Clinton's server. Trump even mentions the relationship not being "reciprocal". Trump obviously wanted something in return for this military aid and what he wanted in return was of direct political benefit to him. He wanted a potential opponent investigated.
Click to expand...

Good luck. The guy who was supposedly strong armed has said twice he didn’t feel pressured to do anything. Going to be a tough case to make.

Did Ukraine purchase the missiles and get the aid package?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#14,713
#14,713
DC_Vol said:
Good luck. The guy who was supposedly strong armed has said twice he didn’t feel pressured to do anything. Going to be a tough case to make.

Did Ukraine purchase the missiles and get the aid package?
Click to expand...
Of course he isn't going to say anything against Trump while Trump is still in office. He knows which side of the bread the butter is on. It's not a tough case to make at all if a person is objective and can read.
 
#14,714
#14,714
BowlBrother85 said:
Of course he isn't going to say anything against Trump while Trump is still in office. He knows which side of the bread the butter is on. It's not a tough case to make at all if a person is objective and can read.
Click to expand...
Should be smooth sailing for you guys then. Watch out for tree stumps just below the water though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD and VolnJC
#14,717
#14,717
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes, they do. Some people are under the very mistaken impression that it exonerates Trump.
Click to expand...
Having read the transcript, by itself, it doesn't damn Trump IMO. I'm open to the idea that the transcript combined with other facts may paint a more damning picture, but the transcript alone is weaker than the Mueller Report. I don't really see quid pro quo from the transcript itself, but if you think it's there, I'm open to you pointing out exactly where.

I do question the involvement of Rudy G. Should not have happened IMO. Don't think it rises to the level of impeachment.

If you ask me if I think Trump is crooked, my answer would be absolutely. If you ask me if the Dems have enough to actually impeach Trump, my answer would be not if it relies upon that transcript. There has to be more. Where's the definitive proof? Leaving it up to partisan opinion does not hold weight IMO.

Both parties seem to think they have this figured out on how it will play to the overall American public. I don't think either side actually does. But I'm quickly reaching the point where I no longer care. Impeach him, don't impeach him, whatever the decision, they need to make it and get this over with. I'm expecting the left wants to drag it out until election time, but I don't think that will work out as favorably as they think. The longer it draws out, the more it seems like a witch hunt, as if no real evidence exists. So if they think they have a case, they need to stop drawing it out and act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC, luthervol, Sandman 423 and 1 other person
#14,718
#14,718
RockyTop85 said:
@37L1

That’s one thread. I didn’t bother with the dozens of posts where you only Insulted people for arguing it was wrong for Trump to obstruct justice.

Why would you even lie about that?
Click to expand...

Why stop there?

My disdain for the way Democrats have handled themselves and my disdain for some of the stuff that Trump haters have posted is clearly evident. Thanks for your research.

"Trump is such a despicable and horrendous human being he doesn't deserve to hold the Office. He is a blot and stain on the nation and everything it stands for. He is racist, misogynist, divisive, grifter, conman Johnny come lately carpet bagging ************ . Since he is all those things, he must have done something illegal. Let's find out what it is and remove him from office."

January, 2017:

iu


Now look up the stuff that I have posted about what I don't like about Trump and how I perceive this current investigation. That should be a lot easier because there is less of it but it's there. Well, maybe it will be harder for you since your TDS might impede your search somewhat. Just so you know, I don't begrudge your opinion of Trump, he has earned it and I don't believe I have insulted you when you have argued "it was wrong for Trump to obstruct justice." Why do you think that is?

Simply put, get it out in the open, knock off the secret squirrel leaks. If it is proven that "some people did something" then bring forth articles of impeachment and have a trial. That goes for the Mueller "investigation" as well as the "Impeachment Inquiry" and whatever investigation/inquiry the Democrats can come up with if this latest gambit of getting Trump out of office fails.

Otherwise, here's an idea, let the people decide in November, 2020, which I believe that this charade is all about anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#14,719
#14,719
DC_Vol said:
Right, it wasn’t explicit. You have to make some pretty remarkable leaps to get to quod pro quo. Like you did by hinging your argument on the word “though”.

For it all to work, the person on the other end would need to know what he must do to obtain alleged benefit. And he has no idea what you’re talking about.

Good luck with your partisan impeachment party. It’s going to be fun to watch.
Click to expand...
Good luck with the hyper partisan Trump cover party. Still watching a few republicans going through the evolution of a back bone.
 
#14,721
#14,721
37L1 said:
Why stop there?

My disdain for the way Democrats have handled themselves and my disdain for some of the stuff that Trump haters have posted is clearly evident. Thanks for your research.

"Trump is such a despicable and horrendous human being he doesn't deserve to hold the Office. He is a blot and stain on the nation and everything it stands for. He is racist, misogynist, divisive, grifter, conman Johnny come lately carpet bagging ************ . Since he is all those things, he must have done something illegal. Let's find out what it is and remove him from office."

January, 2017:

iu


Now look up the stuff that I have posted about what I don't like about Trump and how I perceive this current investigation. That should be a lot easier because there is less of it but it's there. Well, maybe it will be harder for you since your TDS might impede your search somewhat. Just so you know, I don't begrudge your opinion of Trump, he has earned it and I don't believe I have insulted you when you have argued "it was wrong for Trump to obstruct justice." Why do you think that is?

Simply put, get it out in the open, knock off the secret squirrel leaks. If it is proven that "some people did something" then bring forth articles of impeachment and have a trial. That goes for the Mueller "investigation" as well as the "Impeachment Inquiry" and whatever investigation/inquiry the Democrats can come up with if this latest gambit of getting Trump out of office fails.

Otherwise, here's an idea, let the people decide in November, 2020, which I believe that this charade is all about anyway.
Click to expand...
They have about as much class as BB.
 
#14,722
#14,722
Weezer said:
Having read the transcript, by itself, it doesn't damn Trump IMO. I'm open to the idea that the transcript combined with other facts may paint a more damning picture, but the transcript alone is weaker than the Mueller Report. I don't really see quid pro quo from the transcript itself, but if you think it's there, I'm open to you pointing out exactly where.

I do question the involvement of Rudy G. Should not have happened IMO. Don't think it rises to the level of impeachment.

If you ask me if I think Trump is crooked, my answer would be absolutely. If you ask me if the Dems have enough to actually impeach Trump, my answer would be not if it relies upon that transcript. There has to be more. Where's the definitive proof? Leaving it up to partisan opinion does not hold weight IMO.

Both parties seem to think they have this figured out on how it will play to the overall American public. I don't think either side actually does. But I'm quickly reaching the point where I no longer care. Impeach him, don't impeach him, whatever the decision, they need to make it and get this over with. I'm expecting the left wants to drag it out until election time, but I don't think that will work out as favorably as they think. The longer it draws out, the more it seems like a witch hunt, as if no real evidence exists. So if they think they have a case, they need to stop drawing it out and act.
Click to expand...
The Dems are not drawing it out. The stonewalling for the last 3 years has. The past year has been court battles over evidence and testimony. I also don't think the flow of information from the WH will be more than a trickle, which will drag it out longer. The Hillary witch hunt went right up to the election. That didn't hurt the Republicans one bit.

No argument just a difference of opinion.
 
#14,724
#14,724
The Real Reason Democrats are Hiding ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella — He’s a Manufactured Whistleblower With Less Credibility Than Adam Schiff

This has been said before but it’s worth repeating. In fact, it’s worth beating this drum again and again until the truth is shared with as many Americans as possible. Alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella is being distanced from the impeachment inquiry for one reason and one reason only: He’s a manufactured whistleblower who may be the only person in Washington DC with less credibility than Adam Schiff.
...
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top