The Impeachment Thread

#25,701
#25,701
0nelilreb said:
The fact that you will make an exception for one having to resign over another is making my whole point . There’s no yeah buts , there’s no well at least it’s not ... , you are more than happy to accept one is less than the other as an excuse for what , having an ounce more character ? If you fill two buckets up with horse sh!t and one bucket has an ounce less in it ... you are still left with two buckets full of sh!t .
Click to expand...
Still you overlook that she did the right thing and resigned and not going to jail, compared to fighting like heck for a year, throwing his wife under the bus, and pleading guilty . Then he resigned.

Put it this way lilreb, If they were both balls, one would be a basketball and the other a baseball.
 
#25,702
#25,702
McDad said:
Which is a return to my point with rockytop earlier today. They work for us but there hasn't been much accountability...unless it is by the opportunistic opposition looking to coalesce power.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with the ideal, I’m just surprised to see somebody who holds that ideal using a broken status quo to justify acceptance of an even more broken status quo, and then selling that package as if it is somehow more high minded and above the fray than any other partisan side-picking.

It just looks like like Taco Bell marketing. You can call it super bell grande delux anti-impeachment, but so far it looks like you took the same stuff that was already on the menu and melted some cheese on it.
 
#25,704
#25,704
NurseGoodVol said:
Probably the prosecutor that took over after shokin, who had handfuls of evidence to hand over to the US concerning the investigation into burisma. You know, the investigation that didn't exist.
Click to expand...
A few posts down from that is his identity.
 
#25,705
#25,705
NurseGoodVol said:
Probably the prosecutor that took over after shokin, who had handfuls of evidence to hand over to the US concerning the investigation into burisma. You know, the investigation that didn't exist.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t he since admitted that the investigation didn’t exist and he was just saying that because he thought Trump/Rudy would lobby Zelensky to keep him in power?
 
#25,706
#25,706
Mick said:
"Marry"? I'm sure you don't have the info to say he was forced. You act like he didn't know what was going on or why he was there.
Click to expand...
Either I missed your implication or I do not know what you seem to know.

Are you saying the Ambassador was stationed there by choice because he knew (and wanted to be involved in) about the Black Ops occurring at the site?
 
#25,708
#25,708
golfballs said:
Anything that conflicts with your FEELINGS is a deflection. Cry more
Click to expand...

That literally makes no sense. You brought up what you considered a problem with "sensibilities", sounds a lot like you are the one who has the problem with the "feelz."

Back to the drawing board gb, or just post pictures - reasoned debate has never been your strong suit.
 
#25,709
#25,709
37L1 said:
So once again you provide the opportunity for me to point out: You got nothing to back up your BS. You dodge all you want but you still get hit by the wrench.



iu
Click to expand...

So tell me

Do you accept the Mueller Report that Trump committed 10 acts of OOJ ? Yes or No?

That while there was evidence that Trump conspired with the Russians it did not meet the threshold for indictment? Yes or No?

In any event Mueller didn’t think the 2 separate DOJ memo’s ( one written after the Nixon Impeachment and the second after Clinton’s impeachment especially in his capacity as a DOJemployee at that moment prevented him from indicting the President?Yes or No?

That all federally elected officials take an oath to defend, protect s uphold the constitution. Yes or No?

That a primary job of the House is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. Yes or No ?

That the Democrat controlled Housr is fulfilling it’s obligations of opening an Impeachmeent Inquiry. Yes or No?
 
#25,710
#25,710
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t disagree with the ideal, I’m just surprised to see somebody who holds that ideal using a broken status quo to justify acceptance of an even more broken status quo, and then selling that package as if it is somehow more high minded and above the fray than any other partisan side-picking.

It just looks like like Taco Bell marketing. You can call it super bell grande delux anti-impeachment, but so far it looks like you took the same stuff that was already on the menu and melted some cheese on it.
Click to expand...

Where did you get acceptance?
 
#25,713
#25,713
Septic said:
You didn't address his point about him being the president and her being a private citizen. How can you, with any intellectual honesty - believe what she did was criminal, while giving him a pass?
Click to expand...

Let's try again. HC and The Foundation took millions in Russian donations. that's a very documented money trail. Intellectually, we all know what it was for. AND, private citizen or not, she was bidding for the office of POTUS at the time she was taking money to bank for future foreign interests and favors. Not the same as "withholding" money for same said gain of political and personal interest?

In all fairness, I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm calling a wagon load of contradictory evidence what it is. Spend some time going through my posts the last month or so. I have never really defended him personally, or put him on a pedestal. But, I have questioned the burden of proof, and defended the process. Because I have seen nothing that even the witnesses themselves have been other than self-contradicting. And, I have said before, if he is truly deserving of impeachment, Schiff was not up to the job. They chose the wrong hitman. A dem of true integrity could have buried this quickly if it held water.
 
#25,715
#25,715
GVF said:
She was running for president at the time. They took in a lot of money for future favors as POTUS. Except she lost. twice. Once within her own party. Once to Trump. You think the Foundation gets as much foreign donations now?
Click to expand...

Indict her. Convict her. It would please me. Since 1964 I have only ever voted for the lesser of two evils. There has never been a candidate who I thought was for the people. I think Hillary is a scumbag POS as a politician and likely as a human being

But under the heading of voting for the lessor of two evils I voted for Hillary in 2016. Trump is that bad and makes Hillary look like a virgin on Prom Queen night
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#25,718
#25,718
PointGuard said:
So tell me

Do you accept the Mueller Report that Trump committed 10 acts of OOJ ? Yes or No?

That while there was evidence that Trump conspired with the Russians it did not meet the threshold for indictment? Yes or No?

In any event Mueller didn’t think the 2 separate DOJ memo’s ( one written after the Nixon Impeachment and the second after Clinton’s impeachment especially in his capacity as a DOJemployee at that moment prevented him from indicting the President?Yes or No?

That all federally elected officials take an oath to defend, protect s uphold the constitution. Yes or No?

That a primary job of the House is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. Yes or No ?

That the Democrat controlled Housr is fulfilling it’s obligations of opening an Impeachmeent Inquiry. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Put up your facts/proof that backs up what you posted quoted below. Quit deflecting and just do it. Or you can't because you got nothing? How's that "Truth" working out for you, now? Like a wrench to the face?

PointGuard said:
yes you and all the Russian sympathizers should GTFO. Go over now. Trump will be along shortly.

The problem is after Putin no longer needs him and he defaults in his loans Putin will foreclose on him

So palace eunuch
Click to expand...
 
#25,719
#25,719
McDad said:
Either I missed your implication or I do not know what you seem to know.

Are you saying the Ambassador was stationed there by choice because he knew (and wanted to be involved in) about the Black Ops occurring at the site?
Click to expand...
Did you read the NPR article? That seems to be the case and it sounded like he picked the location.
 
#25,720
#25,720
evillawyer said:
She could have just stopped after the word coward. No qualification was needed.

Click to expand...


We have all kinds of laws to protect people from law abiding people wishing to do harm to others using any inanimate object . Nancy Pelosi as a practicing catholic is a coward for not protecting babies from women wishing to do them harm . But that , just like hers is an opinion and neither really matter .
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol and NorthDallas40
#25,721
#25,721
GVF said:
Let's try again. HC and The Foundation took millions in Russian donations. that's a very documented money trail. Intellectually, we all know what it was for. AND, private citizen or not, she was bidding for the office of POTUS at the time she was taking money to bank for future foreign interests and favors. Not the same as "withholding" money for same said gain of political and personal interest?

In all fairness, I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm calling a wagon load of contradictory evidence what it is. Spend some time going through my posts the last month or so. I have never really defended him personally, or put him on a pedestal. But, I have questioned the burden of proof, and defended the process. Because I have seen nothing that even the witnesses themselves have been other than self-contradicting. And, I have said before, if he is truly deserving of impeachment, Schiff was not up to the job. They chose the wrong hitman. A dem of true integrity could have buried this quickly if it held water.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what more proof is needed, exclusive of everything else - Mulvaney admitted it. And conveniently, the other people with direct first hand knowledge that can speak to it - are hiding out in the White House.

So to recap, first hand accounts and an admission = not meeting an arbitrary "burden" of proof? OK... That's simply not a rational conclusion. Instead, a far more reasoned statement is to acknowledge that trump did it, because of the mountain of evidence, first hand accounts and the admission and simply make the argument it doesn't meet your level of impeachment worthy. One of these these things is debatable while one of them makes you look detached from the reality of the facts..
 
#25,723
#25,723
PointGuard said:
Indict her. Convict her. It would please me. Since 1964 I have only ever voted for the lesser of two evils. There has never been a candidate who I thought was for the people. I think Hillary is a scumbag POS as a politician and likely as a human being

But under the heading of voting for the lessor of two evils I voted for Hillary in 2016. Trump is that bad and makes Hillary look like a virgin on Prom Queen night
Click to expand...

And likewise, my opinion was that voting for Trump was the lesser of 2 evils and feel very fortunate she is not in office now. She is that bad, and makes Trump look like a 13 year old in steamed up glasses on his first panty raid.
 
#25,724
#25,724
0nelilreb said:
We have all kinds of laws to protect people from law abiding people wishing to do harm to others using any inanimate object . Nancy Pelosi as a practicing catholic is a coward for not protecting babies from women wishing to do them harm . But that , just like hers is an opinion and neither really matter .
Click to expand...
Solid burn. She’s clearly a lousy ass Catholic as measured by their faith tenants in her abortion views.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top