The Impeachment Thread

[Orange_Crush]

Shhhhh...don't tell our local sheep

Election tampering. Abuse of power to damage a political rival. Arrest the hell out of them. Right?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Lol

You could tell Cruz wanted to punch that stupid reporter for asking such a stupid question as that.
If that were me the mofo would have been choked out.

 

[vols40]

What I find entertaining is after President Trumps 3rd and final term I can see him being a political consultant. No way the media will not cover him. LMAO

 

[BowlBrother85]

Was never called

He was asked to testify and said that he would sue, and drag it out in court. This was done on instruction from the White House... you know this.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You are free to believe what you wish, but I don't because it's not consistent with someone who is a Purple Heart recipient and the veteran of a foreign war operation.

Now, I have seen you deride "hearsay" in the past... is hearsay suddenly credible because you think it works to the advantage of discrediting someone who has testified to information which is damaging to Donald Trump?

Exactly what high crime or misdemeanor has he testified to?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Retired Army Officer Remembers Lt. Col. Vindman as Partisan Democrat Who Ridiculed America - Tennessee Star

Words from Vindmans co-worker. If you are not able to decipher he was talking bad about Americans. And was called on it. Not a hero.

Again... sometimes "hearsay" is credible in your eyes and sometimes it's not. It all depends on whether or not it serves your political agenda.

 

[vols40]

You could tell Cruz wanted to punch that stupid reporter for asking such a stupid question as that.
If that were me the mofo would have been choked out.

Choking out a reporter would definitely shift the narrative from Bolton.

 

[1972 Grad]

You are free to believe what you wish, but I don't because it's not consistent with someone who is a Purple Heart recipient and the veteran of a foreign war operation.

Now, I have seen you deride "hearsay" in the past... is hearsay suddenly credible because you think it works to the advantage of discrediting someone who has testified to information which is damaging to Donald Trump?

He was riding in a vehicle hit by a roadside bomb. I have no idea of the extent of his injuries. That alone, doesn't tell me anything about him other than he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He may have been a desk jockey, taking a ride to get ice cream..

 

[hjeagle1vol]

It's all about selling books and newspapers. John should do the right thing and recall.

 

[vols40]

You are free to believe what you wish, but I don't because it's not consistent with someone who is a Purple Heart recipient and the veteran of a foreign war operation.

Now, I have seen you deride "hearsay" in the past... is hearsay suddenly credible because you think it works to the advantage of discrediting someone who has testified to information which is damaging to Donald Trump?

Even though their boss corroberated the story?
And that someone who testified was prevented from answering a question concerning Eric C by Adam Schift. A question that would be damaging to Schift.

 

[Orange_Crush]

He was asked to testify and said that he would sue, and drag it out in court. This was done on instruction from the White House... you know this.

So? He was within his legal right to do so, as was the WH. How does this change the fact that the House Dems claimed to have irrefutable, iron-clad evidence of Trump's guilt. Now, they're crying before the nation because they don't have enough evidence of his guilt.

How can you sit and ignore the obvious admission that your Democrats impeached a president without the evidence to have done so? Ho can you sit and defend their attempt to overturn an election, and then admit they still need proof enough to justify/complete it?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Again... sometimes "hearsay" is credible in your eyes and sometimes it's not. It all depends on whether or not it serves your political agenda.

And it would seem that sometimes it's credible in yours, and sometimes it's not. You may want to pick a different fight.

 

[BowlBrother85]

He was riding in a vehicle hit by a roadside bomb. I have no idea of the extent of his injuries. That alone, doesn't tell me anything about him other than he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He may have been a desk jockey, taking a ride to get ice cream..

He didn't have to be there at all. He chose to put himself in harm's way in service of his adopted country. Your disdain for him and your attempts to disrespect his service are completely motivated by politics. You are placing political party affiliation over country. It's pathetic.

 

[vols40]

He was asked to testify and said that he would sue, and drag it out in court. This was done on instruction from the White House... you know this.

So they did not call him? Asking is not calling

 

[BowlBrother85]

So? He was within his legal right to do so, as was the WH. How does this change the fact that the House Dems claimed to have irrefutable, iron-clad evidence of Trump's guilt. Now, they're crying before the nation because they don't have enough evidence of his guilt.

How can you sit and ignore the obvious admission that your Democrats impeached a president without the evidence to have done so? Ho can you sit and defend their attempt to overturn an election, and then admit they still need proof enough to justify/complete it?

If there is more evidence from a firsthand witness, then that witness should be heard at trial.

 

[vols40]

He didn't have to be there at all. He chose to put himself in harm's way in service of his adopted country. Your disdain for him and your attempts to disrespect his service are completely motivated by politics. You are placing political party affiliation over country. It's pathetic.

God rest his soul John McCain but as a public servant he was a hack.

 

[vols40]

If there is more evidence from a firsthand witness, then that witness should be heard at trial.

But the Democrats did not call him before. Why the interest now?

 

[Orange_Crush]

He didn't have to be there at all. He chose to put himself in harm's way in service of his adopted country. Your disdain for him and your attempts to disrespect his service are completely motivated by politics. You are placing political party affiliation over country. It's pathetic.

Wait. You aren't a patriot unless you believe vets are above reproach?

 

[BowlBrother85]

But the Democrats did not call him before. Why the interest now?

They did ask if he would testify, there has always been interest.

 

[vols40]

They did ask if he would testify, there has always been interest.

But did not think enough of the process to call him as a witness? The Republicans in the House asked for Eric C to testify.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Wait. You aren't a patriot unless you believe vets are above reproach?

Did I say that? No. I don't think that the service of a foreign war veteran with a Purple Heart should be disrespected over politics. This is a smear campaign. It reminds me of the John Kerry "swift boat veterans for the truth" where you had men supposedly giving first hand testimonial accounts of Kerry. As it turned out, at least two of those men were giving accounts of events to which they were never present. This looks like more of the same... all because of politics. It's disgusting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If there is more evidence from a firsthand witness, then that witness should be heard at trial.

They said they had all they needed, now they say they don't. I'm amazed that doesn't concern you. You are putting party above the republic.

 

[BowlBrother85]

But did not think enough of the process to call him as a witness?

I'm tired of your circular games... I've explained why he wasn't subpoenaed. It was a political calculus. It may or may not have been the best way to handle it... but they did obviously want his testimony. Now talk to someone else. You are boring.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did I say that? No. I don't think that the service of a foreign war veteran with a Purple Heart should be disrespected over politics. This is a smear campaign. It reminds me of the John Kerry "swift boat veterans for the truth" where you had men supposedly giving first hand testimonial accounts of Kerry. As it turned out, at least two of those men were giving accounts of events to which they were never present. This looks like more of the same... all because of politics. It's disgusting.

Your attributed motives aside, that's what you said. It was a pretty ignorant comment.

 

[vols40]

Did I say that? No. I don't think that the service of a foreign war veteran with a Purple Heart should be disrespected over politics. This is a smear campaign. It reminds me of the John Kerry "swift boat veterans for the truth" where you had men supposedly giving first hand testimonial accounts of Kerry. As it turned out, at least two of those men were giving accounts of events to which they were never present. This looks like more of the same... all because of politics. It's disgusting.

The guys boss backed up this account. Does that not matter to you? Vindmans is a Russian asset ask Hillary