The Impeachment Thread

#32,252
#32,252
Mick said:
You know your argument is crap when your foundation is nothing more than a right wing talking point. All because you can't admit Trump's "memo" is not a "transcript". Keep licking
Click to expand...

Then that's a "Yeah, so?", not denying any of the crap argument.

Slowly, for you - I don't care what you call it. I referred to it by the same term everyone else has. If you want to stay hung up on that while EVERYONE else has moved on, then Godspeed, Mick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#32,260
#32,260
1972 Grad said:
Where did I say that Hill was a liberal? He hates Trump, and has said so many times. Are you just staggering in drunk, and can't comprehend English? Excessive alcohol makes you look ignorant, presumptuous, and stupid.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot that the cult sees two factions in the country: Trump or Never Trump.

I've been slacking on keeping up with how your herd thinks.
 
#32,261
#32,261
NCFisher said:
If I'm WH counsel, I tell Trump you don't want to be contacting Barr about this, at this time. Let him work on the treacherous people who robbed you of your term.

Possible Biden corruption is in the public domain. When scalps are hanging on DOJ's wall, no one will be left standing to oppose looking into Ukraine meddling and conspiracy with the DNC and Clinton, or Biden corruption. You don't have to lift a finger.

I think it likely that conversation happened.
Click to expand...

“No, Mr. President, don’t do this through the preferable, legal, transparent channels. Instead, have your personal attorney back channel it, using whatever state department employees he can recruit, and exert leverage to get them to do it, so that the NSC lawyers ultimately have to hide your conversations about it on a classified server and give conflicting stories about how that happened. You should do it this way because the entire federal investigative apparatus doesn’t have time for it right now and/or doesn’t have enough investigators who are sufficiently loyal to you that they will disregard the consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence services and the sworn testimony of multiple state department holdovers who all said that Biden’s actions with respect to Victor Shokin were not only the policy of the United States but with multiple foreign allies...”

That would be your advice as White House counsel?
 
#32,262
#32,262
DinkinFlicka said:
Sorry, I forgot that the cult sees two factions in the country: Trump or Never Trump.

I've been slacking on keeping up with how your herd thinks.
Click to expand...
Just curious, but I didn't see him say that either. Can you point out where he defined the excluded middle you're referencing?
 
#32,263
#32,263
1972 Grad said:
Where did I say that Hill was a liberal? He hates Trump, and has said so many times. Are you just staggering in drunk, and can't comprehend English? Excessive alcohol makes you look ignorant, presumptuous, and stupid.
Click to expand...
I gave him a shot. When he ended the shut down I washed my hands of him. And I will be honest and say I was highly skeptical of him until that point.
 
#32,264
#32,264
volfanhill said:
I gave him a shot. When he ended the shut down I washed my hands of him. And I will be honest and say I was highly skeptical of him until that point.
Click to expand...

Are you pro wall or was there some other justification for the shutdown that you thought was compelling?

It seems like it’s been four years worth of news cycles since then, but I just remember the shut down as Trump wanting border funding and congress saying no.
 
#32,269
#32,269
RockyTop85 said:
“No, Mr. President, don’t do this through the preferable, legal, transparent channels. Instead, have your personal attorney back channel it, using whatever state department employees he can recruit, and exert leverage to get them to do it, so that the NSC lawyers ultimately have to hide your conversations about it on a classified server and give conflicting stories about how that happened. You should do it this way because the entire federal investigative apparatus doesn’t have time for it right now and/or doesn’t have enough investigators who are sufficiently loyal to you that they will disregard the consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence services and the sworn testimony of multiple state department holdovers who all said that Biden’s actions with respect to Victor Shokin were not only the policy of the United States but with multiple foreign allies...”

That would be your advice as White House counsel?
Click to expand...

Chortle! - that's a damned quantum leap to conclusion. Must I qualify every comment?

No, I'm advising him that his plan to bring it to Barr is not a good idea, which is likely why Barr wasn't subsequently approached.

So, you aren't aware presidents have used non-governmental persons they trust to do exactly what Giuliani is doing - and more - since Washington.

There were no "17 agencies" involved, just three - CIA, FBI, and NSA. That was a wild extrapolation by NYT (who retracted) and others, but like every lie propagated by press, many - perhaps most - do not retract and continue with fascist zeal propagating the lie. You're the evidence.
The good news; that indicates maybe, just maybe, all 17 agencies won't have to be sanitized, just the Big Three and purge DOJ of Rosenstein's ghost.

And what if it had been all 17 if they got the headline "Trump-Russia Conspiracy" so wrong as the three did? Consensus doesn't turn a crap premise into chocolate souffle.

"so that the NSC lawyers ultimately have to hide your conversations about it on a classified server..." - Yeah, that must be it.
I mean, surely having prior conversations with foreign leaders criminally leaked by Resistance! azzhats has nothing to do with it....good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols, Orangeburst, hog88 and 2 others
#32,271
#32,271
NurseGoodVol said:
View attachment 248554
Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Not a very persuasive argument. First, the effort to get those records goes back 2 + years. Its not like the appearance of impeachment caused by an action (or series of actions) in June and onward could have even been known then.

Second, the article seems like a distraction: suggest the motivation for impeachment is to support arguments to get the other items and you undermine the objective correctness of the impeachment.

Third, I just don't think they are clever enough to conjure up impeachment just to support an unknown appellate issue at the time in some other venue. Its a real reach.

It may well be the case that it does -- i.e. that the act of impeachment generally supports the seeking of the other information, but its too much I think to say that's why it was done. Just too tenuous a connection.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top