The Impeachment Thread

[tvolsfan]

I am sure you were for the Iraqi war?

I'm curious about your personal opinion on this matter. Who do you think is lying about Russian interference in the elections? US intelligence, or Russia?

 

[volfanhill]

What pisses me off is that piece of crap Lamar Alexander thinks he can override my vote. He knows where the majority of Tennesseans stand and it appears that he wants to be a liberal and stick his thumb up everyone's ass. I'll make it a point to spit in his face if he votes against the president and decide his voice is higher than the voters.

Your pissed off because a Senator might want to hear witness testimony? And he wasn’t elected to do what the majority of Tennesseans want him to do at any given time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was talking about Bolton specifically. It's adorable to pull out the disgruntled employee excuse when it seems to be a thing with former Trump employees turning on their former boss.


Well, except Sondland and Vindman.

This Sondland?


Note 1:33 where he said his testimony was about his own presumption/assumption. (I used that word for a reason.)

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

This Vindman?


Vindman, who testified about Trump and Guiliani, and also testified that he'd never met them, spoken to them, or been in the meetings he's testifying about? Who testified that his testimony was based on what he heard said on television?

 

[vols40]

Let's hear from Bolton. If we don't, it will be awfully easy for the Dems for the next 10 months to decry both Trump and GOPers running for reelection as perpetuating a coverup.

Let's hear from all the witnesses

 

[tvolsfan]

This Sondland?


Note 1:33 where he said his testimony was about his own presumption/assumption. (I used that word for a reason.)

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

This Vindman?


Vindman, who testified about Trump and Guiliani, and also testified that he'd never met them, spoken to them, or been in the meetings he's testifying about? Who testified that his testimony was based on what he heard said on television?

Vindman was on the call and Sondland delivered the quid pro quo message for Trump and said as much. So, despite Republicans desperately trying to convince us they were too stupid to understand what Trump really meant, this was not second hand information.

 

[C-south]

I'm curious about your personal opinion on this matter. Who do you think is lying about Russian interference in the elections? US intelligence, or Russia?

A dim President said it was impossible and the DNC ignored warnings like it was impossible. Are you suggesting dims are liars and morons?

 

[tvolsfan]

A dim President said it was impossible and the DNC ignored warnings like it was impossible. Are you suggesting dims are liars and morons?

I'm not saying the democrats aren't morons, but more importantly, I'm not denying their arrogance. You'll have to try another argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Vindman was on the call and Sondland delivered the quid pro quo message for Trump and said as much. So, despite Republicans desperately trying to convince us they were too stupid to understand what Trump really meant, this was not second hand information. Unless you actually believe Trump is the only one with first hand information.

Here's what you responded to:

Reread my post. It was spot on. Having ******, second-hand hearsay and assumptions is not "evidence to have done so" when it comes to overturning the will of the people in choosing their President. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending that.

Vindman testified that the he didn't see the call as anything malicious or worrisome, and literally testified--in the video I linked--that his testimony was his own assumptions. And yet you use him as an example to disprove mu accusation that the testimony was assumption.

Watch the video.

Sondlan testified that he never spoke to Trump or Guiliani, and also that he delivered a quid pro quo message for them? And you use him to disprove my accusation that his testimony is second-hand hearsay?

Watch the video.

 

[vols40]

That's a good argument. But it depends on what he says, doesn't it?

And the fact that if he does that his hopes of success with his book hinge on liberals buying it. Regardless of what is being reported no one not even the NEW YORK SLIMES do not have a copy of this manuscript. I don't think Bolton is a bad person. I and I will admit I have no proof of this, but I believe that if John Bolton really felt there was anything of relevance to this he would have reported it to the proper channels.

 

[C-south]

I'm not saying the democrats aren't morons, but more importantly, I'm not denying their arrogance. You'll have to try another argument.

So they only care if they believe it adversely affects them? I bet they would be ok with voter IDs if they thought they were losing votes through fraud instead of gaining them.

 

[Orangeburst]

I'm curious about your personal opinion on this matter. Who do you think is lying about Russian interference in the elections? US intelligence, or Russia?

I think it is a common occurrence that comes from several nations and non state actors since the advent of the internet. The social media posts were irrelevant and not a dang thing we can do about it. We get more misinformation from both political parties and politicians than from foreign misinformation campaigns. As far as the DNC hack, I suggest everyone and everybody secure their own networks.
In other words I think it is all overblown non sense.

 

[vols40]

Well, some testimony should clear things up.

And even if everything the left hopes comes out in testimony. It won't change the fact aid was released before the deadline with no investigation.

 

[tvolsfan]

So they only care if they believe it adversely affects them? I bet they would be ok with voter IDs if they thought they were losing votes through fraud instead of gaining them.

Or if, you know, there was any evidence this was a serious problem.

 

[vols40]

Vindman was on the call and Sondland delivered the quid pro quo message for Trump and said as much. So, despite Republicans desperately trying to convince us they were too stupid to understand what Trump really meant, this was not second hand information.

Vindmans testimony disagrees with your statement.

Sondland testimony was that the president wanted no quid pro quo. And that his belief that it was is based on assumptions.

Kavanaugh much?

 

[Orangeburst]

Here's what you responded to:



Vindman testified that the he didn't see the call as anything malicious or worrisome, and literally testified--in the video I linked--that his testimony was his own assumptions. And yet you use him as an example to disprove mu accusation that the testimony was assumption.

Watch the video.

Sondlan testified that he never spoke to Trump or Guiliani, and also that he delivered a quid pro quo message for them? And you use him to disprove my accusation that his testimony is second-hand hearsay?

Watch the video.

Was that where he backtracked on that answer when further questioned? If so, it made for a good dem soundbite.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And even if everything the left hopes comes out in testimony. It won't change the fact aid was released before the deadline with no investigation.

And good old Prez Z says there was never any pressure, threat or leverage. I don't believe the testimony about Trump's plan to leverage, but even if I did, the plan wasn't impeachable.

If I talked to my wife, planning to rob a bank so we can retire to Kokomo, and she begged me not to because it's a crime and I might get caught. Even if the NSA recorded the conversation through my smart TV, they could never convict me because I didn't go through with it. My wife talked me out of it.

There.
Was.
No.
Crime.

It would speak to my character. And I agree Trump is a low character oaf. It's why I didn't vote for him and won't this year either.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever strong armed Ukraine, threatened them with the aid, or withheld the aid. There is actually evidence (Prez Z testimony) that he never made a threat, and proof that the aid wasn't withheld.

 

[Orangeburst]

And even if everything the left hopes comes out in testimony. It won't change the fact aid was released before the deadline with no investigation.

BB and some others seem to be under the assumption that the aid was only released because Trump was caught. Trump was only a few weeks from being required to release the aid before the end of the fiscal year.

 

[tvolsfan]

This Sondland?


Note 1:33 where he said his testimony was about his own presumption/assumption. (I used that word for a reason.)

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

This Vindman?


Vindman, who testified about Trump and Guiliani, and also testified that he'd never met them, spoken to them, or been in the meetings he's testifying about? Who testified that his testimony was based on what he heard said on television?

Here's what you responded to:



Vindman testified that the he didn't see the call as anything malicious or worrisome, and literally testified--in the video I linked--that his testimony was his own assumptions. And yet you use him as an example to disprove mu accusation that the testimony was assumption.

Watch the video.

Sondlan testified that he never spoke to Trump or Guiliani, and also that he delivered a quid pro quo message for them? And you use him to disprove my accusation that his testimony is second-hand hearsay?

Watch the video.

Vindman was on the call (you know, the one that Trump insists was perfect) and made it clear he saw it as a partisan play. The only part I remember him saying wasn't malicious was the Trump edit of the transcript. I'm not watching the whole video of something I've already seen. You're going to have to give me the timestamp if you're talking about something more specific.

As far as Sondland, the "presumption" was about the aid. He made it clear the meeting was conditional on the investigation.

 

[vols40]

BB and some others seem to be under the assumption that the aid was only released because Trump was caught. Trump was only a few weeks from being required to release the aid before the end of the fiscal year.

Nice take. Aid released on September 27. This can't be argued

 

[1972 Grad]

100% chance Trump has pictures of Graham doing buttstuff with one or more indivduals that do not possess female genitalia.

F***ing homophobe.

 

[Septic]

What pisses me off is that piece of crap Lamar Alexander thinks he can override my vote. He knows where the majority of Tennesseans stand and it appears that he wants to be a liberal and stick his thumb up everyone's ass. I'll make it a point to spit in his face if he votes against the president and decide his voice is higher than the voters.

Wanting to hear all of the testimony instead of swinging from a partisan nut is trying to "override your vote?" This is hyperbole, right?

Didn't vote's like yours put Alexander into this position?

 

[Septic]

F***ing homophobe.

Who said I think buttstuff is bad?

Congratulations, you played yourself.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Vindman was on the call (you know, the one that Trump insists was perfect) and made it clear he saw it as a partisan play. The only part I remember him saying wasn't malicious was the Trump edit of the transcript. I'm not watching the whole video of something I've already seen. You're going to have to give me the timestamp if you're talking about something more specific.

As far as Sondland, the "presumption" was about the aid. He made it clear the meeting was conditional on the investigation.

Vindman never once claimed that Trump made a quid pro quo on the call. He gave a personal opinion about it being partisan and "inappropriate" for whatever that counts. He testified that Trump never tied the requested investigation to the aid. He testified that he assumed there was a quid pro quo.

And that is not what Sondland testified to. I posted a 5 minute video and you won't even bother watching it. I suspect I know why. Because you know damn well you're defending the overturning of an American election on **** "evidence".

In the first 20 seconds of that video, the meeting and the aid were brought up, and he made it clear that his tie of the meeting to the investigation was his assumption, and nothing he'd ever heard Trump or anyone else say.

If you don't want to admit that you support the overturning of our republic, then that's fine. But your best best is to sit down and shut up instead of all these replies that try to prop up the foundation of the impeachment as anything but a **** sandwich, while refusing to look at the facts that are presented.

 

[1972 Grad]

Who said I think buttstuff is bad?

Congratulations, you played yourself.

Homo.

 

[Septic]

It doesn’t matter what he insinuated..perceived thoughts are not a criminal offense.The aid was given and no matter what you butt hurt pansies say it doesn’t change the facts.

I think that "whats the big deal, the aid was given?" argument is my favorite intellectual gymnastic of all.

Dropping the cookie back in the jar once you've been caught doesn't count.