The Impeachment Thread

[Weezer]

The RNC’s strategy: "The only strategy is a washed-out version of ’16: call the Democrats crooked up, down, and sideways. Beat the drum for the base and suppress turnout just enough to squeak through."

Seems to me the strategy of both sides is calling the other side crooked.

 

[hog88]

This word "transcript." I don't think it means what you think it means.

Let's hear the tape.

There is no tape.

 

[n_huffhines]

I read the transcript and the footnote. I have no reason to believe that the transcription was not taken in real time or near real time. The implication that this was just created recently is ludicrous and not supported by any evidence produced.

You have plenty of reason to, you're just not wanting to. It doesn't have to be created recently. They could have modified it recently based on their "recollections" because the notes were not right. Why on earth would "recollections" be mentioned if recent changes were not made?

 

[Weezer]

Question, all of the new call for impeachment, does the left now think the GOP controlled Senate will convict him? Or is it just close enough to election time that the Dem controlled House thinks they can use this to help the left beat Trump?

 

[evillawyer]

Question, all of the new call for impeachment, does the left now think the GOP controlled Senate will convict him? Or is it just close enough to election time that the Dem controlled House thinks they can use this to help the left beat Trump?

Methinks I see a false dichotomy

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I read the transcript and the footnote. I have no reason to believe that the transcription was not taken in real time or near real time. The implication that this was just created recently is ludicrous and not supported by any evidence produced.

You seriously didn't expect the left to react any differently did you? Yesterday, our very own were already trying to make excuses and a plan B.

This won't end until 2024.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You have plenty of reason to, you're just not wanting to. It doesn't have to be created recently. They could have modified it recently based on their "recollections" because the notes were not right. Why on earth would "recollections" be mentioned if recent changes were not made?

Got any actual proof of your implications? Thus far we’ve got the transcript and what reads to me as a standard footnote on I’ll bet is all of the transcribed calls.

 

[lawgator1]

I read the transcript and the footnote. I have no reason to believe that the transcription was not taken in real time or near real time. The implication that this was just created recently is ludicrous and not supported by any evidence produced.

Sol you admit that, while it might be contemporaneous, it is not complete.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Question, all of the new call for impeachment, does the left now think the GOP controlled Senate will convict him? Or is it just close enough to election time that the Dem controlled House thinks they can use this to help the left beat Trump?

100% timing. 2020 was Trump's to lose until about a month ago. It's fascinating watching the manchild torpedo his odds at re-election against such a weak field of competition.

Dan Quayle could win this in a landslide. It's that bad.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sol you admit that, while it might be contemporaneous, it is not complete.

Nope. I take it at face value as presented with what reads to me as the standard qualifying footnote at the bottom. It’s the best written log they could provide based on what they heard. If you have any actual information, real data, stating otherwise let’s see it.

 

[ajvol01]

The IG made a criminal referral to the Justice Department because the AG, Trump, Giuliani, and the State Department were engaged in a scheme to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival and American Citizen. Barr decided not to proceed.

He must recuse and another special council will have to be appointed.

The hilarious part is you’re serious

 

[Weezer]

Methinks I see a false dichotomy

Of course you do. You only see one side as corrupt. I know better. Both sides are corrupt.

 

[Mick]

There is no tape.

What's Ukraine's policy on that?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

There is no tape.

Exactly. Now let's find the next manufactured crisis.

 

[Weezer]

100% timing. 2020 was Trump's to lose until about a month ago. It's fascinating watching the manchild torpedo his odds at re-election against such a weak field of competition.

Dan Quayle could win this in a landslide. It's that bad.

I've reached a point I'm not sure I care. I've come to the conclusion we're probably ****ed no matter what.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

What's Ukraine's policy on that?

LOL.. So now you are OK with asking a foreign government for help taking down a political rival.

You are awesome.

 

[n_huffhines]

Got any actual proof of your implications? Thus far we’ve got the transcript and what reads to me as a standard footnote on I’ll bet is all of the transcribed calls.

What do you mean "proof of implications"? We're just guessing. What I'm saying is the use of "recollections" gives them a lot of wiggle room. IDK what the reality is. IDK if their "transcript" is a 99% match or a 70% match with the real convo. What I do know is that you cannot be certain at all that there were no recent amendments, and you seem to be very certain.

 

[volfanjustin]

I want a full vote in the House for impeachment, let's get these dems who won in red districts on the record.

 

[Mick]

LOL.. So now you are OK with asking a foreign government for help taking down a political rival.

You are awesome.

Has anyone asked if they had a tape? Or do you believe they don't.

 

[volfanjustin]

LOL.. So now you are OK with asking a foreign government for help taking down a political rival.

You are awesome.

They just want Trump gone, they don't care how. They are fine if it's violent or illegal

 

[n_huffhines]

Nope. I take it at face value as presented with what reads to me as the standard qualifying footnote at the bottom. It’s the best written log they could provide based on what they heard. If you have any actual information, real data, stating otherwise let’s see it.

You are guessing at what the reality is and saying "prove me otherwise or I'm right" when you literally have no good reason to draw a conclusion.

 

[volfanhill]

Has anyone asked if they had a tape? Or do you believe they don't.

There would be no reason to. We can not trust it hasn’t been altered.

 

[n_huffhines]

They just want Trump gone, they don't care how. They are fine if it's violent or illegal

There is nothing illegal or violent about impeachment. They can impeach for ANY reason. They could impeach him because he's orange, if they wanted to.

 

[1972 Grad]

You mean my crazy liberal sources like Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano? You bested me again, '72! I'll add another beer to the tally I owe you when Tennessee football is good and politics is boring again.

There are plenty of anti-Trump Fox News contributors. There just aren't any anti-dem contributors on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC.

 

[volfanjustin]

There is nothing illegal or violent about impeachment. They can impeach for ANY reason. They could impeach him because he's orange, if they wanted to.

My point was all you all want is him gone and by any means necessary is fine. If he was removed violently you libs would be good with it, if libs removed him illegally you all would be good with it.