The Impeachment Thread

#14,001
#14,001
Stew Cook said:
Be kind a post the relevant facts, once they have laid it all out.
Click to expand...
Do you think it’s a tacit admission of Trump’s inadequacy that working in the Obama White House for any period of time causes someone to become totally indoctrinated but Trump has 3 years with him and couldn’t reverse that indoctrination?

I think this whole “they worked with Obama” narrative is a tell of some deep rooted, perhaps subconscious insecurities. Apparently even the Trumpkins know in their heart of hearts that Obama was better than Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evillawyer
#14,005
#14,005
RockyTop85 said:
Do you think it’s a tacit admission of Trump’s inadequacy that working in the Obama White House for any period of time causes someone to become totally indoctrinated but Trump has 3 years with him and couldn’t reverse that indoctrination?

I think this whole “they worked with Obama” narrative is a tell of some deep rooted, perhaps subconscious insecurities. Apparently even the Trumpkins know in their heart of hearts that Obama was better than Trump.
Click to expand...

Wrong again as usual.............Trump is 100% a lot better over the do-nothing wire tapping Obama.
 
#14,006
#14,006
RockyTop85 said:
Do you think it’s a tacit admission of Trump’s inadequacy that working in the Obama White House for any period of time causes someone to become totally indoctrinated but Trump has 3 years with him and couldn’t reverse that indoctrination?

I think this whole “they worked with Obama” narrative is a tell of some deep rooted, perhaps subconscious insecurities. Apparently even the Trumpkins know in their heart of hearts that Obama was better than Trump.
Click to expand...
I think the narrative is that he's a registered democrat CIA analyst. The same CIA that is being investigated for allegedly illegally spying on Trump and trying to sway the 2016 election. Your comparison is roughly equivalent to saying Obama was a failure for not turning birthers into voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols
#14,007
#14,007
Orange_Crush said:
This is what's funny to me. The left's proof on what Trump "actually" did keeps falling out from under them, so they keep standing up more and more people who testify about their impressions of what happened. And the supposed lawyers on here keep lapping it up and strutting like it's daggers in the heart.
Click to expand...

These people are standing up on their own, going to extreme if resigning to do so. Do you not think that these people have anything relevant to say? Like the leaving out very specific requests made to the Ukranian president, when creating the "word for word, comma for comma" transcript.

You know, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. In this case it appears to be both.
 
#14,008
#14,008
RockyTop85 said:
Remember all we’ve heard from Trumpkins for 6 weeks is that he only has second hand information. It’s all hearsay. Now they’re starting to call witnesses who had actual first hand knowledge.

Why do we even need to hear from a guy who just had second hand information? Why even call that guy as a witness?
Click to expand...
Transparency.
 
#14,011
#14,011
RockyTop85 said:
Remember all we’ve heard from Trumpkins for 6 weeks is that he only has second hand information. It’s all hearsay. Now they’re starting to call witnesses who had actual first hand knowledge.

Why do we even need to hear from a guy who just had second hand information? Why even call that guy as a witness?
Click to expand...
Because he filed a whistleblower complaint as a political attack to support impeachment.

Are you really this dense?
 
#14,012
#14,012
RockyTop85 said:
Do you think it’s a tacit admission of Trump’s inadequacy that working in the Obama White House for any period of time causes someone to become totally indoctrinated but Trump has 3 years with him and couldn’t reverse that indoctrination?

I think this whole “they worked with Obama” narrative is a tell of some deep rooted, perhaps subconscious insecurities. Apparently even the Trumpkins know in their heart of hearts that Obama was better than Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in some misguided way, they must believe that they, with Trump, are "beating Obama" at every turn.
 
#14,014
#14,014
Stew Cook said:
These people are standing up on their own, going to extreme if resigning to do so. Do you not think that these people have anything relevant to say? Like the leaving out very specific requests made to the Ukranian president, when creating the "word for word, comma for comma" transcript.

You know, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. In this case it appears to be both.
Click to expand...
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the motives of the people who are testifying about their assumptions about Trump's motives.

Can you point me to the testimony that the transcript isn't correct, and that there was a blatant Quid Pro Quo in it? That's a serious request, because for all the posturing on here, all I've seen is whistleblowers telling third hand accounts, and listeners giving personal opinions about personal perspectives about what they're sure he meant...

I've admitted to not hanging on these stories, so I'm sure I've missed something. I'll genuinely appreciate you quoting the damning evidence that what we read in the transcript isn't what actually happened. (And, as my earlier posts indicates, I'll admit up front that the sketchy way the Dems have handled this makes me distrust every last piece of what they bring to the table, so my standard of evidence in this is pretty high.)

Scratch that... My standard of evidence to eff with the republic and undo an election--that standard will be pretty high on its own.
 
#14,017
#14,017
Sandman 423 said:
Are you not doing the exact same thing? You are Parroting the Democrats with the whole" The whistleblower is no longer important". How do you know that it isn't.?
Click to expand...
If the police get an anonymous 911 call and they show up and find evidence of the crime and witnesses who confirm what the caller said, do you think they should care who called 911?
 
#14,023
#14,023
Orange_Crush said:
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the motives of the people who are testifying about their assumptions about Trump's motives.

Can you point me to the testimony that the transcript isn't correct, and that there was a blatant Quid Pro Quo in it? That's a serious request, because for all the posturing on here, all I've seen is whistleblowers telling third hand accounts, and listeners giving personal opinions about personal perspectives about what they're sure he meant...

I've admitted to not hanging on these stories, so I'm sure I've missed something. I'll genuinely appreciate you quoting the damning evidence that what we read in the transcript isn't what actually happened. (And, as my earlier posts indicates, I'll admit up front that the sketchy way the Dems have handled this makes me distrust every last piece of what they bring to the table, so my standard of evidence in this is pretty high.)

Scratch that... My standard of evidence to eff with the republic and undo an election--that standard will be pretty high on its own.
Click to expand...

For the most part we have opening statements, that include some relevant points. Such as Vindman raising concerns over the omissions of particular requests made to the Ukranian president. I don't see that the WH has denied the omissions occured.

For anyone to say that these accounts aren't relevant to establishing a Quid Pro Quo, they already have their minds made up, and will only dismiss further details as irrelevant, because Trump says he didn't do it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85 and Mick
#14,024
#14,024
tvolsfan said:
If the police get an anonymous 911 call and they show up and find evidence of the crime and witnesses who confirm what the caller said, do you think they should care who called 911?
Click to expand...
If the police find no proof of the crime, only half-assed accusations, and the police, prosecutor and city have been promising to throw the accused in prison for three years while being shown to have colluded with witnesses...

How much trust do you think the "authorities" will get in this?

If you're going to make comparisons, they need to be a little closer to reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#14,025
#14,025
Stew Cook said:
For the most part we have opening statements, that include some relevant points. Such as Vindman raising concerns over the omissions of particular requests made to the Ukranian president. I don't see that the WH has denied the omissions occured. For anyone to say they aren't relevant to establishing a Quid Pro Quo, they already have their minds made up, and will only dismiss further details as irrelevant, because Trump says he didn't do it.
Click to expand...
So, nothing really. Thanks.

And as to your "will only dismiss further details" escape hatch, you may want to look into the mirror. In my opinion, anyone that ignores how the democrats have conducted themselves in this will swallow anything and everything because "orange man bad". And in my opinion, anyone who would agree with overturning an election on such flimsy evidence, after seeing their party act so underhanded, loves their party more than our republic.

I would say the same if columns were swapped and the republicans were the ones showing their partisan scummery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and VolnJC
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top