The Impeachment Thread

#22,626
#22,626
C-south said:
Hillary is a criminal. There is mountains of evidence to support it yet the dims washed away all her sins. Conversely dims have had to try and fabricate crimes against Trump without evidence hoping to later find evidence.....they have not. One s*** show after another.
Click to expand...
That mountain of evidence has led to zero convictions.
That mountain of evidence looks like a molehill compared to the evidence against Trump.
Truth is, both have been investigated and neither have been found guilty......yet.
 
#22,627
#22,627
C-south said:
She wasn’t the president. What physical evidence do you have that Trump committed anything? It’s all hearsay. How may times did the dim witness prognosticators coin the term “I believe....”? It’s all about feelz.
Click to expand...

Are you asking Trump to allow testimony "evidence" or for the White House to release the documents "physical evidence"?

Or are you content with asking me for evidence?
 
#22,628
#22,628
VolStrom said:
Are you trying to compare the lock her up chants vs the impeachment hearings ram rodded by the democrats? The huge difference is when Trump took over his party held both chambers of congress and he didn't do squat to Hillary. The gloves are off now luther, your party has tried to bring down the republic for their own need for power.
Click to expand...
That should tell you something, Trump did nothing because he knew he had nothing.
 
#22,629
#22,629
C-south said:
I never said they were. When they investigate and find wrongdoing it usually goes to a court of law but in a certain case they found wrongdoing and said that it wouldn’t. Why did they have that authority then?
Click to expand...
You said she was guilty. How do you know this for fact without the beloved due process you cherish?
Hypocrisy just oozes from you guys so easily. It's either pure genius comedy you're spewing and I'm laughing with you or a lack of self awareness in which I'm laughing at you.
 
#22,630
#22,630
luthervol said:
That mountain of evidence has led to zero convictions.
That mountain of evidence looks like a molehill compared to the evidence against Trump.
Truth is, both have been investigated and neither have been found guilty......yet.
Click to expand...

Did Trump have a private server to conduct his pay for play business? Did the FBI find evidence to warrant guilt yet say na we’re gonna let it slide. All you have is hearsay of him trying to sway another country to investigate another corrupt dim and you think that’s wrong. Lol.
 
#22,631
#22,631
luthervol said:
That mountain of evidence has led to zero convictions.
That mountain of evidence looks like a molehill compared to the evidence against Trump.
Truth is, both have been investigated and neither have been found guilty......yet.
Click to expand...
Maybe Trump is buying time so he can delete emails, hammer a bunch of cell phones and bleach bit a server. you know, the acts of an innocent person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, volinsd and SpaceCoastVol
#22,632
#22,632
Ty4Vols said:
You said she was guilty. How do you know this for fact without the beloved due process you cherish?
Hypocrisy just oozes from you guys so easily. It's either pure genius comedy you're spewing and I'm laughing with you or a lack of self awareness in which I'm laughing at you.
Click to expand...

You’re right. When it was found she deliberately tried to wipe her server it was just with rag like she suggested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty4Vols
#22,633
#22,633
37L1 said:
Maybe Trump is buying time so he can delete emails, hammer a bunch of cell phones and bleach bit a server.
Click to expand...
He thinks a cloud server is in Ukraine. I highly doubt he knows what a server is based on this and please don't tell him they can be bleached because that will confuse the hell out of him!
 
#22,637
#22,637
RockyTop85 said:
You’re changing the question. Do you want to talk about an absolute right to confrontation or do you want to talk about absolute anonymity? They’re not overlapping ideas and neither applies to this situation or whistleblowers generically.
Click to expand...
Not trying to change the question. Just trying to understand the process. Who determines a WB's credibility if their identity is anonymous? I'm not trying to argue. Not looking to catch you in a twist. But in this instance, who determined the credibility of the WB?
 
#22,638
#22,638
Weezer said:
Not trying to change the question. Just trying to understand the process. Who determines a WB's credibility if their identity is anonymous? I'm not trying to argue. Not looking to catch you in a twist. But in this instance, who determined the credibility of the WB?
Click to expand...
The ICIG said his complaint was credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#22,639
#22,639
ajvol01 said:
Didn’t stop the left from dragging General Flynn’s name and family through the mud for supporting Trump.

Such hypocrisy. It’s stunning.
Click to expand...
I didn't say a word about Flynn. However, Flynn pleaded guilty to a felony. Vindman has not. There is a clear distinction between the two.
 
#22,640
#22,640
hog88 said:
There is nothing stopping a WB from being called to testify.
Click to expand...

So how does that work? Is it a behind closed doors thing with anonymity protected? Do both sides get to question? Are we not allowed to see that testimony with the WB's name redacted?
 
#22,641
#22,641
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say a word about Flynn. However, Flynn pleaded guilty to a felony. Vindman has not. There is a clear distinction between the two.
Click to expand...
They're the exact same.

One was an unregistered foreign agent that Trump calls a good man and the other is a honest man that Trump bashes on twitter.

See the exact same!
 
#22,642
#22,642
37L1 said:
The ICIG said his complaint was credible.
Click to expand...

So if the complaint is credible, does that translate to the WB being credible? Do they investigate whether the WB might have a reason to fabricate? Again, not being specific to this case. I'm just curious if someone steps forward like this, how does it progress?
 
#22,644
#22,644
Weezer said:
Not trying to change the question. Just trying to understand the process. Who determines a WB's credibility if their identity is anonymous? I'm not trying to argue. Not looking to catch you in a twist. But in this instance, who determined the credibility of the WB?
Click to expand...
In this situation? His credibility is irrelevant.

In a situation where the whistleblower’s credibility wasn’t irrelevant, then they could be called on to testify.

The claim was examined by the inspector general and then forwarded to the director of national intelligence. What’s going on now is a form of vetting.
 
#22,645
#22,645
Weezer said:
So how does that work? Is it a behind closed doors thing with anonymity protected? Do both sides get to question? Are we not allowed to see that testimony with the WB's name redacted?
Click to expand...

I can't find any guarantee of anonymity for WBs so I don't think it would have to be in a closed door session. Now if this person is an intelligence officer another statute may apply that will require his identity not be disclosed but I don't think there is any law saying he can't be called to testify.
 
#22,646
#22,646
Who didn't see this one coming...Schiff's Aide is besties with the WB and started working for Schiff in August 2019.
Interesting timing...2+2=4 after all being the standard set by Vindictiveman and Sondland.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and ajvol01
#22,647
#22,647
Weezer said:
So if the complaint is credible, does that translate to the WB being credible? Do they investigate whether the WB might have a reason to fabricate? Again, not being specific to this case. I'm just curious if someone steps forward like this, how does it progress?
Click to expand...
You got the Schiff show, an Impeachment Inquiry based upon the WB complaint, who Schiff now says is unnecessary.
 
#22,648
#22,648
RockyTop85 said:
Those limits on government power exist when the accused faces jail time at the hands of the government. This isn’t that. This isn’t a criminal trial. The president is immune from criminal trial. That was a big deal a few months ago.

Even if it were, you guys are misunderstanding the confrontation clause. There’s no rule saying the whistleblower would have to be called in a criminal trial either.
Click to expand...
Nope. But I'll bet he will.
 
#22,649
#22,649
luthervol said:
That mountain of evidence has led to zero convictions.
That mountain of evidence looks like a molehill compared to the evidence against Trump.
Truth is, both have been investigated and neither have been found guilty......yet.
Click to expand...
She was never taken to trial so there was no chance of conviction. The paramount question should be why wasn't she taken to trial? I don't believe it was lack of evidence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top