The Impeachment Thread

#19,726
#19,726
evillawyer said:
Like I said, you do not read well.

Here's exactly what I said:

"At least two -- Vindman and the woman who had "burisma" in her notes from the call."
Click to expand...
Neither contested the accuracy of the transcript content girl. Keep selling your word parsing. After all you’re losing the narrative and word parsing is all you’ve got 😂
 
#19,727
#19,727
NorthDallas40 said:
Neither contested the accuracy of the transcript content girl. Keep selling your word parsing. After all you’re losing the narrative and word parsing is all you’ve got 😂
Click to expand...
The content of Trump's memo, thought damaging as it was, was not complete word for word recount of the call. Things were left out of that "perfect" phone call because it wasn't so perfect. This phone call was the culmination of Rudy's work pushing for the investigation behind the scenes and Trump asking for that "favor". The favor Zelensky already understood.
 
#19,728
#19,728
Mick said:
The content of Trump's memo, thought damaging as it was, was not complete word for word recount of the call. Things were left out of that "perfect" phone call because it wasn't so perfect. This phone call was the culmination of Rudy's work pushing for the investigation behind the scenes and Trump asking for that "favor". The favor Zelensky already understood.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂 guess you got the Sunday midday sales shift. Sucks to be you I guess.
 
#19,732
#19,732
NorthDallas40 said:
True. You ran like hell away from the transcript dropping comment last night which is why I asked about 5 times on it. So you got a more accurate transcript or an official whom has contested its accuracy? I think that’s number six now.

I was merely commenting on your usual pissy attitude in reply which you in fact provided an example of above while still avoiding the question relating to your transcript droppings

😂
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about?

Looks like you’re still salty over the headlines thing and you’re trying too hard to crown yourself champion of an argument that nobody even started.

If you need a win that bad, maybe you should find a church softball league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#19,734
#19,734
luthervol said:
So you think it is legitimate to consider Hillary guilty based on your understanding of the facts despite the fact that she has yet to be proven guilty?

Is it equally legitimate for one to consider Trump guilty based on his/her understanding of the facts despite the fact that he has yet to be proven guilty?
Click to expand...
Wow it's official. Lutherium is the densest material known to man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad, RavinDave, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#19,738
#19,738
RockyTop85 said:
What are you even talking about?

Looks like you’re still salty over the headlines thing and you’re trying too hard to crown yourself champion of an argument that nobody even started.

If you need a win that bad, maybe you should find a church softball league.
Click to expand...
LMAO. Still ignoring your comments on the WH transcript 😂

The argument has never changed. Nobody with direct knowledge has ever contested the accuracy of the content of the WH transcript. You’ve definitely participated in the sales job to try and down play that fact. And you’re flailing like all the rest on that front.

Thus... Salty? Yes you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#19,740
#19,740
Mick said:
Screeching is your only purpose in this thread. I'm sure you're aware of this as well.
Click to expand...
look at you screech!

I’m screeching?

Yes! Screeeech! 😂

I’ve made no screeching comments but I have directly ridiculed your attempt to label it as such and pointed out its your usual way you carry water for this narrative

Haha! Screeeeech!

Do you actually have a point?

Screeeeeeeeeech! 😂

...

I think that about sums it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#19,742
#19,742
NorthDallas40 said:
LMAO. Still ignoring your comments on the WH transcript 😂

The argument has never changed. Nobody with direct knowledge has ever contested the accuracy of the content of the WH transcript. You’ve definitely participated in the sales job to try and down play that fact. And you’re flailing like all the rest on that front.

Thus... Salty? Yes you are.
Click to expand...
🤦🏻‍♂️
 
#19,746
#19,746
NorthDallas40 said:
look at you screech!

I’m screeching?

Yes! Screeeech! 😂

I’ve made no screeching comments but I have directly ridiculed your attempt to label it as such and pointed out its your usual way you carry water for this narrative

Haha! Screeeeech!

Do you actually have a point?

Screeeeeeeeeech! 😂

...

I think that about sums it up.
Click to expand...
This is my comment:
The content of Trump's memo, thought damaging as it was, was not complete word for word recount of the call. Things were left out of that "perfect" phone call because it wasn't so perfect. This phone call was the culmination of Rudy's work pushing for the investigation behind the scenes and Trump asking for that "favor". The favor Zelensky already understood.
Click to expand...

Your reply was what it was.
 
#19,747
#19,747
luthervol said:
So you think it is legitimate to consider Hillary guilty based on your understanding of the facts despite the fact that she has yet to be proven guilty?

Is it equally legitimate for one to consider Trump guilty based on his/her understanding of the facts despite the fact that he has yet to be proven guilty?
Click to expand...

How legitimate do you find cankles’s foundation that is/was supported by foreign entities?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top