The Impeachment Thread

[BigOrangeD]

It's childish and stupid. Especially in Sondland's case. The guy donated $1 million to Trump's campaign. That is how he got his ambassadorship. But he is a Never Trumper? Yeah, okay.

Wonder where the actual 1 Million came from. A Soros slush fund? Also isn't there a limit on personal campaign donations. Like $2500.00.

 

[hog88]

If you truly believe this is her plan, I don’t know what to tell you. I’ll admit I was wrong if it plays out like you said, but I don’t think there is any chance she launches this inquiry if she didn’t know with certainty that they were going to impeach him in the end. Anything less would be de facto vindication from the democrats. Zero chance they were, or are, going to give that to him.

She knows he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate so impeaching him now only gives him more ammunition to use during the campaign. Not to mention as I stated earlier a trial in the Senate opens up a mountain of possible witnesses teh Rs can call. Way to risky for teh Dems to let this go to the Senate for an actual trial.

 

[tvolsfan]

She knows he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate so impeaching him now only gives him more ammunition to use during the campaign. Not to mention as I stated earlier a trial in the Senate opens up a mountain of possible witnesses teh Rs can call. Way to risky for teh Dems to let this go to the Senate for an actual trial.

We will see who’s right shortly. I think she’s more than happy to let Republicans tie their reputation to Trump.

 

[hog88]

That doesn't make any sense. Trump will be impeached. That testimony went better than could have been imagined. The Hill testimony was especially compelling.

take your blue glasses off. She would be a disaster of a witness without Shift there to protect her.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Wonder where the actual 1 Million came from. A Soros slush fund? Also isn't there a limit on personal campaign donations. Like $2500.00.

You are just a nut.

 

[luthervol]

I placed no judgement on that example or your question about Giuliani. That was your doing. That's what happens when you assume to presume. For all you know, I could have easily thought they both were a brilliant political maneuver aimed at achieving their goals but then again . . . was anyone naked?

If my assumption was wrong, I apologize.
But we both know it wasn't.
I heard Trump and Giuliani were naked when they hatched the bribery scheme.

 

[tvolsfan]

You are just a nut.

It does seem like a mental disorder.

 

[BigOrangeD]

She knows he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate so impeaching him now only gives him more ammunition to use during the campaign. Not to mention as I stated earlier a trial in the Senate opens up a mountain of possible witnesses teh Rs can call. Way to risky for teh Dems to let this go to the Senate for an actual trial.

Trump has been trying to goad her on for months now.

 

[hog88]

We will see who’s right shortly. I think she’s more than happy to let Republicans tie their reputation to Trump.

You're right, we will see. That is why I asked last week how you guys will react if she doesn't hold an impeachment vote.

 

[37L1]

If my assumption was wrong, I apologize.
But we both know it wasn't.
I heard Trump and Giuliani were naked when they hatched the bribery scheme.

You need to get your hearing checked, among other things.

 

[BigOrangeD]

You are just a nut.

That did not answer the question. You guys are the Fruits, Flakes and Nuts of America.

 

[tvolsfan]

That did not answer the question. You guys are the Fruits, Flakes and Nuts of America.

You expected an answer to a conspiratorial question you pretty clearly made up on the spot?

 

[luthervol]

You need to get your hearing checked, among other things.

That's actually true, at least according to my wife.

 

[evillawyer]

Donny, the liberator of hidden servers!

Even if, against all odds, the server is vacationing in Ukraine with a company owned by a Ukrainian man, how is this corruption by the Ukrainian government?

He's basically admitting he's not that into rooting out government corruption; rather he wants dirt on his opponent that he thinks a foreign government can uncover.

 

[BigOrangeD]

You expected an answer to a conspiratorial question you pretty clearly made up on the spot?

I asked where the actual million came from. One cannot give a 1 million dollar personal donation to a campaign. That is a violation.

 

[tvolsfan]

I asked where the actual million came from. One cannot give a 1 million dollar personal donation to a campaign. That is a violation.

The money is his own and the donation was to his inauguration.

 

[37L1]

That's actually true, at least according to my wife.

Your wife must be the smart one of your family then. Hope your kids take after her.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That doesn't make any sense. Trump will be impeached. That testimony went better than could have been imagined. The Hill testimony was especially compelling.

lol

 

[BigOrangeD]

The money is his own and the donation was to his inauguration.

OK. So not his campaign. You know how these things work. Pay to Play. Why did he want the Ambassadorship so badly? Is he corrupt? These are the questions to ask.

 

[RockyTop85]

How are you doing it? Your opinion, my opinion, or just by legally measurable bullet lists?

I’m asking you what is your definition of moral relativism? Your arguments don’t make sense to me, it seems like we’re using different definitions.

 

[tvolsfan]

OK. So not his campaign. You know how these things work. Pay to Play. Why did he want the Ambassadorship so badly? Is he corrupt? These are the questions to ask.

 

[evillawyer]

 

[BigOrangeD]

Way to deflect.

 

[ajvol01]

Question: Does the NSA, CIA and/or FBI have recordings of Trump's unsecure cell phone conversations like the one he had with Sondland on August 26th? If yes, is this something that could be subpoenaed?

Seems like it would settle what, exactly, is material fact.

Are you effing serious?

 

[Girth Brooks]

If you truly believe this is her plan, I don’t know what to tell you. I’ll admit I was wrong if it plays out like you said, but I don’t think there is any chance she launches this inquiry if she didn’t know with certainty that they were going to impeach him in the end. Anything less would be de facto vindication from the democrats. Zero chance they were, or are, going to give that to him.

If she knew she had the votes before testimonies were delivered, what does this say about her (and your) understanding of the legal system and presumed innocence? Now, don’t backtrack to this portion of the process being a procedural formality, because you still have to get past the first part to land at the second. Remember, you said, “I don’t think there is any chance she launches this inquiry if she didn’t know with certainty that they were going to impeach him in the end.” How can you ascertain guilt on account of your dislike for someone?

The left is handing 2020 to Trump, and they’re too stupid to see it.