The Impeachment Thread

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
65,224
Likes
35,982
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

VolNation Dalai Lama
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
34,749
Likes
42,965
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?
 
Likes: AM64

SpaceCoastVol

Can't spell comrade without Democrat
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
29,937
Likes
26,044
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

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
22,689
Likes
22,381
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.
 
Likes: AM64

DinkinFlicka

Erect Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
22,487
Likes
16,658
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.
 
Likes: tvolsfan

NorthDallas40

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
22,689
Likes
22,381
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.
 
Likes: AM64
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
20,936
Likes
22,551
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

VolNation Dalai Lama
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
34,749
Likes
42,965
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.
 
Likes: newarkvol

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
65,224
Likes
35,982
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.
 

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
65,224
Likes
35,982
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.
 

1972 Grad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
41,084
Likes
46,210
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

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
20,839
Likes
20,195
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.
 
Likes: AM64

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top