The Impeachment Thread

#14,501
#14,501
Stew Cook said:
Two things we can conclude.

1. He didn't think anything was illegal at the time of the call.

2. The "transcript" which was actually a "partial readout", was accurate, minus the ommissions. (I guess the notion it was a "word for word" transcript died a quick death)
Click to expand...

So, would you not agree this whole process is shaky ground and a far reach over a "not word for word account?" What we basically have is a he said/ she said farcuss.

He said/she said
He said/she said
He shed/she shed
She shed burnt down. Struck by lightening.
 
#14,502
#14,502
Stew Cook said:
Two things we can conclude.

1. He didn't think anything was illegal at the time of the call.

2. The "transcript" which was actually a "partial readout", was accurate, minus the ommissions. (I guess the notion it was a "word for word" transcript died a quick death)
Click to expand...
Can we just agree to refer to it as “the confession?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and Stew Cook
#14,503
#14,503
Stew Cook said:
Two things we can conclude.

1. He didn't think anything was illegal at the time of the call.

2. The "transcript" which was actually a "partial readout", was accurate, minus the ommissions. (I guess the notion it was a "word for word" transcript died a quick death)
Click to expand...

Give me a transcript of every post you made 2 weeks ago. Wait you can't remember, but an idiot career government employee can? See the fallacy in your argument?
 
#14,504
#14,504
VolStrom said:
I'm sick of this crap. I'll just cast my vote and hope that if Trump loses that the republicans win the house so we can do this sh!t over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I am absolutely sick over it. After wasting $25-40 milliuon dollars on Mueller's dog and pony show, and not getting the conclusion they wanted, they are right back at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, davethevol and SpaceCoastVol
#14,505
#14,505
GVF said:
True in general. Except that his recollection of the phone call as sworn testimony says nothing illegal. So, in a nutshell, since we don't have an actual recording, only differing note taking accounts, are people that expressed "concerns", and people that said nothing to see here. And that isn't really anything to base an impeachment procedure on, unless have stated from day 1 that you will do whatever it takes to get rid of Trump. So, here we are.

In a Criminal or Civil court, this would have already been thrown out. Even on Law & Order. In a monkey court.....
Click to expand...

We don't know what his opinion is after the fact. At the time he didn't think so, but knowing the other efforts by Giuliani and crew to have the Ukraine make a declaration that they were investigating the Bidens, along with knowledge that the aid had been held up, could have changed his opinion.

This is where his opinion would stop mattering again, for some here.
 
Last edited:
#14,507
#14,507
Does the document that Mark Jordan called the "Articles of Impeachment" really say that "if we don't impeach Trump, he will win another election??????
 
#14,508
#14,508
VolStrom said:
Give me a transcript of every post you made 2 weeks ago. Wait you can't remember, but an idiot career government employee can? See the fallacy in your argument?
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you what I posted earlier today...

But, I believe these people take notes and have electronic transcription which is appended by the notes.

When there is a "transcript" that has a few '....'s" in just the wrong places, it might stay fresher in the mind.
 
#14,510
#14,510
RockyTop85 said:
Because now you’ve read it and there’s one less person here that will spend the next few months continuously making erroneous statements about what it says.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? I can still make plenty of erroneous statements about what anything says, let alone this House Resolution.

Back to the point I was intending to make but apparently did not do a satisfactory job of it.

If the chairs of the various committees are not fair and even handed in their pursuit of proof of impeachable offense(s) of the President, it doesn't really matter what the House Resolution says regarding the process for the "Impeachment Inquiry" that was voted on today. So far, what we have been allowed to see appears to me to be anything but fair and even handed. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, to name 2, have shown by their actions that they can't be trusted, and Mad Maxine has been calling to "Impeach 45" since the day he was elected.

However, since we are now well down this divisive road (not one Republican voted for this Resolution), it is my hope, that as "the process" is conducted in public (save those things that by definition must be kept secret "national security, grand jury testimony, etc), that the truth will come forth despite all the political posturing and BS that accompanies it. I'm not sure I can stomach all the grandstanding that will take place when the cameras are on, no matter who wins or loses the day.

Let the chips fall where they may.
 
#14,511
#14,511
VolStrom said:
Give me a transcript of every post you made 2 weeks ago. Wait you can't remember, but an idiot career government employee can? See the fallacy in your argument?
Click to expand...
What if I told you there is a word for word transcript of every post made as far back as Freak's server capabilities will allow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#14,514
#14,514
Mick said:
What if I told you there is a word for word transcript of every post made as far back as Freak's server capabilities will allow?
Click to expand...

Naw... You know that PJ doesn't allow all the evidence. He's trying to rewrite history by removing the most profound thoughts on VNPF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#14,517
#14,517
Trump held up the aid pending the Ukraine publicly announcing it was going to investigate Biden or his son.

He should be impeached and removed. Everything else is just noise.
 
#14,521
#14,521
GVF said:
So, would you not agree this whole process is shaky ground and a far reach over a "not word for word account?" What we basically have is a he said/ she said farcuss.

He said/she said
He said/she said
He shed/she shed
She shed burnt down. Struck by lightening.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's why there are hearings.

but, damn I hate that commercial
 
#14,522
#14,522
Stew Cook said:
We don't know what his opinion is after the fact. At the time he didn't think so, but knowing the other efforts by Giuliani and crew to have the Ukraine make a declaration that they were investigating the Bidens, along with knowledge that the aid had been held up, could have changed his opinion.

This is where his opinion would stop mattering again, for some here.
Click to expand...

But, his opinion hasn't changed. It was in his testimony, today, he said Trump said nothing illegal on phone call. Nothing in his testimony gave Schiff any ammo against Trump, at all.
 
#14,525
#14,525
Stew Cook said:
Sure, but that's why there are hearings.

but, damn I hate that commercial
Click to expand...

Except that the only thing these hearings will conclude, to anyone not named Schiff, is that there is a whole lot of nothing that doesn't jive within its own self. Pelosi will need to be prepared to distance herself from that nut job. When she sobers up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top