The Impeachment Thread

#8,151
#8,151
Mick said:
Lucky the queries are documented and audited. But they probably have another database where it's not.
Click to expand...

I actually thought we were lucky that we got a congress that would pass a law telling them to stop that crap . Apparently No really does mean yes to Secret Squirrel Agencies
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and AM64
#8,153
#8,153
lawgator1 said:
Well, for one thing you are now offering worthy reason B (to make sure it was spent wisely).

If worthy reason A (out of protest at European aid being low) was correct, and was the real reason for the delay, why did you and Trump abandon it?

As I say, the fact that he (and you) have offered two alternative worthy reasons is a strong indication that neither is the real reason. That plus Trump blocking testimony from key witnesses on the issue.

Look, you can dance around the facts all you want and conjure up excuses and dubious explanations until the cows come home. You know, though, at the end of the day the facts are going to be that Trump held up the aid so as to pressure the Ukraine into helping him with Biden. That's the truth.

You and Trump are just better off admitting it and buckling in for the ride because the more he denies that was the reason, the greater the pounding he is going to take when it turns out it was.
Click to expand...
Who says I abandoned or supported anything? I'm just bringing forward things that you stated didn't exist.

Until the facts come out in the form of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law and comitted a crime, you are just looking at circumstances in a way that gives you the "feels" you've been hoping for since November, 2016. It's OK to look at circumstances and be suspect but, by themselves, they are not proof to convict by trial. You should be just a little less partisan and get a little (a lot) more objectivity. The fact is, there needs to be a lot more than circumstances like this to successfully remove Trump from office by impeaching him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and VolnJC
#8,154
#8,154
37L1 said:
Who says I abandoned or supported anything? I'm just bringing forward things that you stated didn't exist.

Until the facts come out in the form of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law and comitted a crime, you are just looking at circumstances in a way that gives you the "feels" you've been hoping for since November, 2016. It's OK to look at circumstances and be suspect but, by themselves, they are not proof to convict by trial. You should be just a little less partisan and get a little (a lot) more objectivity. The fact is, there needs to be a lot more than circumstances like this to successfully remove Trump from office by impeaching him.
Click to expand...
That's funny. What's that bodycount up to?
 
#8,155
#8,155
Mick said:
That's funny. What's that bodycount up to?
Click to expand...
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#8,159
#8,159
UT_VOLS13 said:
WOW, you complaining unnamed sources! CLASSIC!
Click to expand...
They didn't even answer the question who so basically there is nowhere to go with further inquire. It's just a dog whistle for redhats. You're screeching like a dog hearing a fire truck.
 
#8,160
#8,160
Mick said:
Now who is the whistleblower? Fine reporting to make a connection between an unknown whistleblower and an unknown democrat.
Click to expand...
Who, it just so happens, is currently running for the Democrat nomination for POTUS. Not evidence of anything other than circumstance pointing to, maybe, a motive. Just like LG likes to do.

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,161
#8,161
lawgator1 said:
Well, for one thing you are now offering worthy reason B (to make sure it was spent wisely).

If worthy reason A (out of protest at European aid being low) was correct, and was the real reason for the delay, why did you and Trump abandon it?

As I say, the fact that he (and you) have offered two alternative worthy reasons is a strong indication that neither is the real reason. That plus Trump blocking testimony from key witnesses on the issue.

Look, you can dance around the facts all you want and conjure up excuses and dubious explanations until the cows come home. You know, though, at the end of the day the facts are going to be that Trump held up the aid so as to pressure the Ukraine into helping him with Biden. That's the truth.

You and Trump are just better off admitting it and buckling in for the ride because the more he denies that was the reason, the greater the pounding he is going to take when it turns out it was.
Click to expand...

It's concerning that a lawyer is so divorced from the actual definition of "facts". All you have done is offer your personal credulity as the arbiter of "facts". You'll need to fall back and regroup.

And I suspect Trump blocked the testimony to call the Democrat bluff. They don't have the constitutional grounds (a full house vote) to demand testimony, so impeachment based on obstruction of an unofficial inquiry is ridiculous. Further, the Dems probably don't have the votes for an impeachment in the first place. So, the blustering threat, "If you block witnesses, we'll consider that obstruction and vote to impeach you on that alone..." was incredibly stupid. The Ds don't want an impeachment vote. That's the last thing they want.

Trump poked his finger in their eyeand called their bluff.Now, they either vote on impeachment and weaken the Democrats who represent red districts, or they don't vote, continue stringing this along as nothing more than a political hatchet job narrative, and add more evidence to the optics that they're politically weak, and stalling long enough to somehow get favor enough to win this coup attempt.

Every parent learns not to make threats that you're not willing to follow through on. The Ds stepped on their privates with this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, AM64 and VolnJC
#8,162
#8,162
37L1 said:
Who, it just so happens, is currently running for the Democrat nomination for POTUS. Not evidence of anything other than circumstance pointing to, maybe, a motive. Just like LG likes to do.

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.
Click to expand...
You might find out that the whistleblower's lawyer donated to a democrat presidential candidate.
 
#8,163
#8,163
Mick said:
They didn't even answer the question who so basically there is nowhere to go with further inquire. It's just a dog whistle for redhats. You're screeching like a dog hearing a fire truck.
Click to expand...

LOL! Time will tell on this inquiry! We shall see!
 
#8,166
#8,166
Game on. WH sends a “pound sand” letter to Pelosi and the Three Stooges so they’ll have to take it to the courts now if they feel they can force the WH to comply. And if they don’t do that and instead just continuing this public flailing we’ll have our answer as they will even be showing they know they’re FOS

🍿
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hjeagle1vol
#8,167
#8,167
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and hjeagle1vol
#8,169
#8,169
Whelp I guess that answers where they intend to plea their case! I guess the libs will always have the Spring of 2019 to look back on before the Mueller report 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top