The Impeachment Thread

#24,026
#24,026
Orange_Crush said:
Yes. Proving my point.

You can't debate. You snipe, insult and name-call. Sprinkle in a healthy dose of victim-claiming after having sniped, insulted and called names, and that's pretty much all you have.

So, after I recapped our ineteraction after you misinterpreted it to the point of intellectual dishonesty, you immediately fell back to personal insult name-calling. When called out on the personal insult name-calling, you...

Doubled down on the personal insult name-calling.

lol
Click to expand...
It’s like deja vu.
 
#24,030
#24,030
PointGuard said:
Too many people seeing farce because their dear leader tells them to see farce. Sondland recanted his lyingand told the truth in his testimony correcting his lie in his deposition

But Trump creates a second call which he proclaims is the first call and states to no one because there was no call that “ I want nothing”. No quid pro quo

That imaginary call is the farce. Look how many posters here believe Trumps created alternate facts. It is amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people do not realize that their hatred has permitted a Trump to worm his brainwashing to settle into their conscienceness

Regarding a Trump re-election ? If Re elected you will not believe how his exploded sense of empowerment will wreak havoc worldwide. This manus seriously mental ill. 35 esteemed physichiatrists testified early on to a deaf congress
Click to expand...

The reason why people are tuning out is the lefts outlandish accusations 24/7 . You can only cry wolf so long before people just look at you and shake their heads . We are in that phase now . Look to your forecast at the bottom of your post for examples ... nobody knows what anybody will do in the next 4 years , you can’t say you know what you will do , but you are positive what Trump will do ? About those 35 “ esteemed “ physicshiatrists... Did you leave anything out about their testimony, you know like the fact that without actually having a session with someone , their opinion about someone’s mental state carries no more weight than your or my opinion ? All it takes to shut all of them down is one question ... have any of you had a session with the president in order to evaluate his mental status ? Just like that , all 35 nullified .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and tennvols77
#24,032
#24,032
0nelilreb said:
The reason why people are tuning out is the lefts outlandish accusations 24/7 . You can only cry wolf so long before people just look at you and shake their heads . We are in that phase now . Look to your forecast at the bottom of your post for examples ... nobody knows what anybody will do in the next 4 years , you can’t say you know what you will do , but you are positive what Trump will do ? About those 35 “ esteemed “ physicshiatrists... Did you leave anything out about their testimony, you know like the fact that without actually having a session with someone , their opinion about someone’s mental state carries no more weight than your or my opinion ? All it takes to shut all of them down is one question ... have any of you had a session with the president in order to evaluate his mental status ? Just like that , all 35 nullified .
Click to expand...

You skipped right over Sondland’s testimony. Does that mean you have finally accepted his testimony?

The 35 not seeing a patient face-to-face. I think the psychiatrist at Yale explained that adequately.

I get it it shuts it down in your book. In this case I think they, not you, are qualified to render an opinion
 
#24,033
#24,033
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
GOP will be calling Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff to be "first and foremost witness" for Impeachment Hearing.

Collins: Schiff will be GOP's 'first and foremost witness' for impeachment hearing

This will be another must see TV moment to remember.....It keeps getting better and better......
Click to expand...


Question 1: isn't it true that since the moment he was inaugurated you have been searching for a way to impeach him?

Answer: Yes. I recognized from the very beginning his putrid character, his inherently criminal soul, and that he represents every abhorrent trait possible in a President. I did not commit his crimes for him -- he did that on his own, and predictably. But I am proud to play a role in bringing him to justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol, Hunerwadel and PointGuard
#24,034
#24,034
PointGuard said:
You skipped right over Sondland’s testimony. Does that mean you have finally accepted his testimony?

The 35 not seeing a patient face-to-face. I think the psychiatrist at Yale explained that adequately.

I get it it shuts it down in your book. In this case I think they, not you, are qualified to render an opinion
Click to expand...

Do psychiatrists diagnose someone without physically seeing them , having a session with them to evaluate their state of mind ? ... just like that all 35 was not speaking as a Dr. but just giving a personal opinion that carries as much weight as little billy in high school psychology class . I see you skipped right over the part where you can’t tell us what you’ll be doing in 4 years but you know how Trump will do and act . I don’t believe any of them , not one politician or witness is credible and can be taken for the truth without a slant or political leaning . Not one .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#24,035
#24,035
lawgator1 said:
Question 1: isn't it true that since the moment he was inaugurated you have been searching for a way to impeach him?

Answer: Yes. I recognized from the very beginning his putrid character, his inherently criminal soul, and that he represents every abhorrent trait possible in a President. I did not commit his crimes for him -- he did that on his own, and predictably. But I am proud to play a role in bringing him to justice.
Click to expand...
Question 2: So I assume you can produce evidence of these crimes which rise to the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors and warrant his removal?

Answer: of course we have a multitude of hearsay examples showing via third and forth hand how these crimes were committed. And as we established during the inquiry hearsay is even better than first hand evidence! 😃
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#24,036
#24,036
0nelilreb said:
Do psychiatrists diagnose someone without physically seeing them , having a session with them to evaluate their state of mind ? ... just like that all 35 was not speaking as a Dr. but just giving a personal opinion that carries as much weight as little billy in high school psychology class . I see you skipped right over the part where you can’t tell us what you’ll be doing in 4 years but you know how Trump will do and act . I don’t believe any of them , not one politician or witness is credible and can be taken for the truth without a slant or political leaning . Not one .
Click to expand...

Address the Sondland testimony. That was point 1. Then we’ll move on to point 2 the 35
 
#24,038
#24,038
PointGuard said:
Address the Sondland testimony. That was point 1. Then we’ll move on to point 2 the 35
Click to expand...
You would be referring to the Sondland testimony where he admitted he inferred Trumps intent and stated on the record that was his own inference and that Trump said he didn’t want anything and just wanted Ukraine to do the right thing? That Sondland testimony?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Obsessed, volfanjustin and 2 others
#24,039
#24,039
NorthDallas40 said:
Question 2: So I assume you can produce evidence of these crimes which rise to the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors and warrant his removal?

Answer: of course we have a multitude of hearsay examples showing via third and forth hand how these crimes were committed. And as we established during the inquiry hearsay is even better than first hand evidence! 😃
Click to expand...

Exhibit 1 is the call. Direct evidence from Trump himself.

He should be removed but the GOP Senators are too weak to do what's right.
 
#24,040
#24,040
lawgator1 said:
Exhibit 1 is the call. Direct evidence from Trump himself.

He should be removed but the GOP Senators are too weak to do what's right.
Click to expand...
Here lemme give you a summary of your star witness to refresh your mind. And as for the call we have the transcript which you can go fetch yourself

 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#24,041
#24,041
NorthDallas40 said:
You would be referring to the Sondland testimony where he admitted he inferred Trumps intent and stated on the record that was his own inference and that Trump said he didn’t want anything and just wanted Ukraine to do the right thing? That Sondland testimony?
Click to expand...

That portion of his testimony on Trump’s second call that Trump called call 1. That call never existed And Sondland acknowledged he was aware of Trump’s testimony about his own call no one was on including Sondland. Yes that testimony
 
#24,042
#24,042
PointGuard said:
That portion of his testimony on Trump’s second call that Trump called call 1. That call never existed And Sondland acknowledged he was aware of Trump’s testimony about his own call no one was on including Sondland. Yes that testimony
Click to expand...
Here I’ll give you the video record of the testimony instead of parsing words. Might want to grab some tissue before watching and prepare for bad news.

 
#24,045
#24,045
Isn't Sondland the guy that initially testified that there was no quid pro quo, then amended his testimony to indicate that there was a quid pro quo because he inferred really thought about it after the initial testimony, and has since inferred QPQ.

Then there were a bunch of accusations of sexual assault?

That guy?

I wonder if it went anything like this:

(1) "There was no QPQ."
(2) "You testify that there was a QPQ, or we'll sick these sexual assault accusations on you."
(3) "Hey! I was wrong. He never asked for a QPQ, but we all suspect there was one anyway."
(4) "Not good enough. Have some sexual assault accusations."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#24,046
#24,046
Orange_Crush said:
Isn't Sondland the guy that initially testified that there was no quid pro quo, then amended his testimony to indicate that there was a quid pro quo because he inferred really thought about it after the initial testimony, and has since inferred QPQ.

Then there were a bunch of accusations of sexual assault?

That guy?

I wonder if it went anything like this:

(1) "There was no QPQ."
(2) "You testify that there was a QPQ, or we'll sick these sexual assault accusations on you."
(3) "Hey! I was wrong. He never asked for a QPQ, but we all suspect there was one anyway."
(4) "Not good enough. Have some sexual assault accusations."
Click to expand...


No, too complicated.

He lied the first time because like Trump he's an arrogant son of a....

And also like Trump he's a coward. And when he was staring a perjury rap in the face he backstabbed Trump to save himself. As Trump has done to so many others, and as he is about to do to RG.
 
#24,048
#24,048
Orange_Crush said:
Isn't Sondland the guy that initially testified that there was no quid pro quo, then amended his testimony to indicate that there was a quid pro quo because he inferred really thought about it after the initial testimony, and has since inferred QPQ.

Then there were a bunch of accusations of sexual assault?

That guy?

I wonder if it went anything like this:

(1) "There was no QPQ."
(2) "You testify that there was a QPQ, or we'll sick these sexual assault accusations on you."
(3) "Hey! I was wrong. He never asked for a QPQ, but we all suspect there was one anyway."
(4) "Not good enough. Have some sexual assault accusations."
Click to expand...

Well there’s some hard and fast evidence that you guys demand
 
#24,049
#24,049
Orange_Crush said:
Isn't Sondland the guy that initially testified that there was no quid pro quo, then amended his testimony to indicate that there was a quid pro quo because he inferred really thought about it after the initial testimony, and has since inferred QPQ.

Then there were a bunch of accusations of sexual assault?

That guy?

I wonder if it went anything like this:

(1) "There was no QPQ."
(2) "You testify that there was a QPQ, or we'll sick these sexual assault accusations on you."
(3) "Hey! I was wrong. He never asked for a QPQ, but we all suspect there was one anyway."
(4) "Not good enough. Have some sexual assault accusations."
Click to expand...
A fourth accuser has come forward. EB22FFF0-A9B9-410B-B085-CE403A09E7A3.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol and Orange_Crush
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top