The Impeachment Thread

[hog88]

I dont understand the layers of this debate. It is simply beyond question that Trump held up the aid to get a political favor. Any argument otherwise has been soundly disproved.

The only debate is the consequence. Removal or not. That's it.

There is no debate on either question. On both you lose.

 

[hog88]

Against the President's personal agenda. They're true patriots unlike Trump and his proud supporters

And again, in your opinion What defines a patriot?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You support politically weaponized bureaucracies over the country.

See two can play the stupid game.

One can usually spot when someone is out of bullets. All that guys has is passive-aggressive generalized insults as a camouflaged retreat. It's pretty pitiable, actually.

 

[DC_Vol]

I dont understand the layers of this debate. It is simply beyond question that Trump held up the aid to get a political favor. Any argument otherwise has been soundly disproved.

The only debate is the consequence. Removal or not. That's it.

Well see what happens in the Senate. That is where guilt or innocence is decided.

If there are ever actual articles of impeachment sent over.

 

[hog88]

Yeah, you're right. 22 years of active military service and then 10 years of governmental service will do that to you. You probably have a better idea as to what it means to love this country than me. Sorry for questioning you

Cool what branch and MOS?

 

[Boston Vol]

And again, in your opinion What defines a patriot?

Apparently anyone that despises Trump.

 

[37L1]

Cool what branch and MOS?

I'm betting USAF

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Out of all the candidates running for President, who, in particular, would you like to see get elected?

Probably Mayor Pete, but I don't really like any of the candidates. An all too funny highlight of a Trump meltdown calling Pete a queer will be priceless

 

[37L1]

Probably Mayor Pete, but I don't really like any of the candidates. An all too funny highlight of a Trump meltdown calling Pete a queer will be priceless

There you go, Zep! He likes Obama's brother from another mother.

 

[hog88]

I'm betting USAF

Good call, I missed that in his nickname.

I wonder if this is really @Grand Vol coming back to be a Christmas troll?

 

[NCFisher]

Lutsenko did recant. He now says that Marie Yovanovitch did not give him a "do not prosecute" list.

Separately, Lutsenko is also under investigation now for his own corruption. Per USA Today: Authorities in the Ukraine opened an investigation into Lutsenko in October for providing cover to illegal gambling businesses in Ukraine.

That's him saying, on Dec. 9, that she did approach him with names not to prosecute. You going to believe CNN or your lying eyes?

Frankly, who in Ukraine isn't under investigation? I'm saying "we" do not know who is telling the truth, cannot trust the left on anything re: Russian conspiracy, Ukraine, or "Trump said neo-Nazis were good people" or - well - anything.

Yovanovitch testified Nov. 15th and agreed he recanted.
That's Lutsenko on Dec. 9th, definitely not recanted just as Solomon reported

 

[37L1]

Good call, I missed that in his nickname.

I wonder if this is really @Grand Vol coming back to be a Christmas troll?

That would be a bodacious troll job if there ever was one.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So what you are saying is Solomon was truthful/accurate when he said Lutsenko did say that there was a list and that Lutsenko then laater changed his story. Your problem would appear to be with Lutsenko and not Solomon.

What else you got, because that ain't it.

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the credibility and integrity of Kurt Volker, whose testimony in the House was mostly favorable to Trump. Volker did testify that he didn't believe that withholding the military aid from the Ukraine was part of a quid-pro-quo scheme. However, Volker also testified to this regarding the John Solomon articles from The Hill:

"The allegations themselves, including those against Ambassador Yovanovitch, did not appear to me to be credible at all." - Kurt Volker, former United States Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations, while under oath during House testimony

 

[BigOrangeD]

That's him saying, on Dec. 9, that she did approach him with names not to prosecute. You going to believe CNN or your lying eyes?

Frankly, who in Ukraine isn't under investigation? I'm saying "we" do not know who is telling the truth, cannot trust the left on anything re: Russian conspiracy, Ukraine, or "Trump said neo-Nazis were good people" or - well - anything.

Yovanovitch testified Nov. 15th and agreed he recanted.
That's Lutsenko on Dec. 9th, definitely not recanted just as Solomon reported

Another Hit. A few more BowlBrother85 and your Battleship will be sunk brotha.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's him saying, on Dec. 9, that she did approach him with names not to prosecute. You going to believe CNN or your lying eyes?

Frankly, who in Ukraine isn't under investigation? I'm saying "we" do not know who is telling the truth, cannot trust the left on anything re: Russian conspiracy, Ukraine, or "Trump said neo-Nazis were good people" or - well - anything.

Yovanovitch testified Nov. 15th and agreed he recanted.
That's Lutsenko on Dec. 9th, definitely not recanted just as Solomon reported

Lutsenko did recant... Now, if he has once again reversed himself? Then he wouldn't appear to be very credible, would he?

 

[BigOrangeD]

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the credibility and integrity of Kurt Volker, whose testimony in the House was mostly favorable to Trump. Volker did testify that he didn't believe that withholding the military aid from the Ukraine was part of a quid-pro-quo scheme. However, Volker also testified to this regarding the John Solomon articles from The Hill:

"The allegations themselves, including those against Ambassador Yovanovitch, did not appear to me to be credible at all." - Kurt Volker, former United States Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations

That's just his opinion and may be a politically motivated one as well.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

That's a non-response.
You said policy that benefits Russia is treason. Now, glancing off my power shield of objectivity, you don't think so. Ain't that funny....

Was Obama tougher on Russia? I've thought it through and detailed it, so choose wisely.

Policy that benefits Russia AND compromises our national security

 

[BigOrangeD]

Lutsenko did recant... Now, if he has once again reversed himself? Then he wouldn't appear to be very credible, would he?

Do you have a video showing that he recanted or just the words of some reporter saying so?

 

[hog88]

That would be a bodacious troll job if there ever was one.

He’s had plenty of time to put the act together.

 

[hog88]

Policy that benefits Russia AND compromises our national security

What specifically were those policies?

 

[37L1]

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the credibility and integrity of Kurt Volker, whose testimony in the House was mostly favorable to Trump. Volker did testify that he didn't believe that withholding the military aid from the Ukraine was part of a quid-pro-quo scheme. However, Volker also testified to this regarding the John Solomon articles from The Hill:

"The allegations themselves, including those against Ambassador Yovanovitch, did not appear to me to be credible at all." - Kurt Volker, former United States Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations

You're twiddling your thumbs here, trying to discredit Solomon rather than refuting the "facts" NCFisher posted several times for you.

You ever going to get around to it?

My guess is "No." You'll just keep up with, "Oh, look! A squirrel!"

 

[USAFgolferVol]

And again, in your opinion What defines a patriot?

Unconditional love for your country

 

[NCFisher]

Lutsenko did recant... Now, if he has once again reversed himself? Then he wouldn't appear to be very credible, would he?

Post evidence he recanted and maybe we'll agree. Evidence, not some pundit saying he did.

 

[hog88]

Unconditional love for your country

Does that include the government?

 

[BigOrangeD]

Unconditional love for your country

We got that. Don't want to see some Liberal try to reinvent what the Founding Fathers built either.