The Impeachment Thread

#25,776
#25,776
Mick said:
I forgot to give you the link to benghazi. And I will continue to disparage the Q stuff until proven wrong.

2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

Within months of the start of the Libyan revolution in February 2011, the CIA began building a covert presence in Benghazi.[30] During the war, elite counterterrorist operators from U.S. Delta Force were deployed to Libya as analysts, instructing the rebels on specifics about weapons and tactics.[31]:16 Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was named the first liaison with the Libyan opposition in March 2011.[32] After the end of the war, both the CIA and the U.S. State Department were tasked with continuing to identify and collect arms that had flooded the country during the war, particularly shoulder-fired missiles taken from the arsenal of the Gaddafi regime,[33][34] as well as securing Libyan chemical weapons stockpiles, and helping to train Libya's new intelligence service.[30]

Eastern Libya and Benghazi were key intelligence-gathering hubs for intelligence operatives. Before the attack, the CIA was monitoring Ansar al-Sharia and suspected members of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well as attempting to define the leadership and loyalty of the various militias present and their interaction with the Salafi elements of Libyan society.[30] By the time of the attack, dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi.[35] In addition, it has been reported that in the summer of 2012, American Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) missions had begun to target Libyan militias linked to the Al-Qaeda network of Yasin al-Suri.[31]:58 By the time of the attack, a composite U.S. Special Operations team with two JSOC members was already in Libya working on their mission profile independently of the CIA and State Department operations.

After 10 investigation (I was wrong when I said 7) this is public knowledge now and we all should take a step back and observe an accurate account of events.
Click to expand...
I didn't think Wiki was held as a reliable source. Seems like that changes depending on the politics involved.

I'll look for it verified in other outlets. Stay tuned.
 
#25,778
#25,778
37L1 said:
Let me know when and if you find one, for real. I'll be right here to give you one of these:

iu
Click to expand...

i don’t need to find a link i remember the discovery at the time

As I said you wouldn’t acknowledge another fact if I provide it as you proved you wouldn’t acknowledged the earlier ones.

It’s ok you can relent. I already said the guaranteeing of Trump’s Deutsch loans by Russians is not illegal. It should be but apparently it is not
 
#25,779
#25,779
TN Ribs said:
Yet you trust the same media that lied to you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't watch Fox News.[/QUOTE]
Did Fox push the Russian collusion hoax? No but the other networks sure’s he’ll did. Congrats Ribs, you’ve been lied to and you still falling for the the Dims narrative. The Dim party loves people that believe every word that comes out of their mouths because they know there’s enough stoopid people that will believe anything they spew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin, volinsd and FallCreekVols
#25,780
#25,780
McDad said:
I didn't think Wiki was held as a reliable source. Seems like that changes depending on the politics involved.

I'll look for it verified in other outlets. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Just read all 10 of the damn reports or keep your head buried. What you have offered this conversation is nothing but the same ole right wing crap we've heard through all the investigations. Your talking points are lame.
 
#25,782
#25,782
AirVol said:
Sorry, I don't watch Fox News.
Click to expand...
Did Fox push the Russian collusion hoax? No but the other networks sure’s he’ll did. Congrats Ribs, you’ve been lied to and you still falling for the the Dims narrative. The Dim party loves people that believe every word that comes out of their mouths because they know there’s enough stoopid people that will believe anything they spew.[/QUOTE]

are you implying because Fox News did not push “the Russian Collusion Hoax” because there was no there there? The Fox/Trump fake news network ?
 
#25,783
#25,783
PointGuard said:
i don’t need to find a link i remember the discovery at the time

As I said you wouldn’t acknowledge another fact if I provide it as you proved you wouldn’t acknowledged the earlier ones.

It’s ok you can relent. I already said the guaranteeing of Trump’s Deutsch loans by Russians is not illegal. It should be but apparently it is not
Click to expand...
You still haven't "proved" anything. You've based your conclusions on conjecture and unnamed sources. That isn't "proof". Proof is an audit that discloses fact, names names and documents amounts from whom and to whom and for what purpose. You got "any more of them facts?"
Now about that part about Putin foreclosing on the loans. What you got for that, Einstein? Then next we'll tackle that whole Russian sympathizer thing.

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, Orange_Vol1321 and AirVol
#25,785
#25,785
AirVol said:
Sorry, I don't watch Fox News.
Click to expand...
Did Fox push the Russian collusion hoax? No but the other networks sure’s he’ll did. Congrats Ribs, you’ve been lied to and you still falling for the the Dims narrative. The Dim party loves people that believe every word that comes out of their mouths because they know there’s enough stoopid people that will believe anything they spew.[/QUOTE]

How would I know? I already told you I don't watch Fox News.

Let me know when you find that DNC Server in Ukraine. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
 
#25,786
#25,786
Mick said:
You might be better off watching fox news. Based on your posts, it would be an improvement over your current source.
Click to expand...

And my current source is what? Please point me to where I have cited a news Source on VN. Waiting.........
 
#25,787
#25,787
Coug said:
Ahhh hahahahaha! This man speaks the truth! Only an idiot with very little brain power could have brought themselves to vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
Yet that level of intelligence far surpasses any moron stupid enough to vote for Hillary.
 
#25,791
#25,791
golfballs said:
Yes I have a problem w libs who are governed by their FEELINGS instead of facts. The dog any pony show we’re witnessing is testament to that. We have “witnesses” who didn’t actually witness anything. We have law school professors lecturing congress on foreign policy, and bureaucrats who are sad they aren’t the ones to dictate policy to the President instead of it being the other way around. Impeachment is about high crimes and misdemeanors and back to my original point, it appears Libs think it’s a high crime to offend their FEELINGS
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot to me like you're guilty of what you're accusing others of - aka, projecting.

It might be time to look in the mirror mon frère.
 
#25,792
#25,792
Mick said:
Just read all 10 of the damn reports or keep your head buried. What you have offered this conversation is nothing but the same ole right wing crap we've heard through all the investigations. Your talking points are lame.
Click to expand...
What right wing crap have I offered?
 
#25,794
#25,794
McDad said:
What do you want me to do about it? Storm the Capitol? Support the opposition? Organize a coup? Elect same shart different name? The people in our system are broken except for a small number of exceptions. Why anyone here would trust Pelosi/Trump is beyond me.

Calling it as it is doesn't mean I like it or accept it. I was roasted for calling our first two games this year as they were. I didn't like it or accept it. But I am going to try to be objective about what I see.
Click to expand...
How is it “calling it as it is” to present it as a false binary choice between the two parties?

In what way do I (or anybody) have to choose to trust either Nancy Pelosi Or Donald Trump in order to make a value judgment about facts I can see and hear for myself?

Why can’t I just look at Ukraine or Cuba for examples of what happens when the investigations process is politicized? Can’t I decide for myself that that is an undesirable and inconsistent with my values? Can’t you?

Same questions with regard to the president unilaterally determining what is or isn’t a valid basis for impeachment and that he does not have to comply with the impeachment process if he deems it invalid.

Would you ever see justice in a criminal prosecution system that required a defendant to testify before he can be found guilty, but allowed him to decline to testify? Wouldn’t they just all decline?

And if they’re supposed to work for us, should he really be able to say “no I don’t have to tell you what happened, neither do any of my subordinates, and you can’t fire me if I don’t.” Would that fly in ANY workplace?

Why can’t I retain all of my prior disagreements with Nancy Pelosi and still agree that she’s right on this one issue?
 
#25,796
#25,796
PointGuard said:
Well by golly she needs to be condemned for sure. A woman willing to take extra measures to demonstrate/back up her beliefs and convictions

I admire her for that Let’s get her to run for President
Click to expand...
Probably should just push in front of an oncoming Bullet Train and save the world some misery.:)
 
#25,797
#25,797
GVF said:
To recap, how many witnesses the first two weeks, when ask directly if there was anything done wrong, said no, it was only their opinion? Or they assumed? All of them. I watched. I saw and heard that answer multiple times. I saw, live, every single witness contradict themselves under cross examination. Intellectually, I cannot view that and say with certainty Trump should be removed. Is he guilty in reality. Quite possibly. Is he innocent. possibly. Do you want to convince me he is? Don't bring contradictory witnesses that can't keep their story together. It's not about Trump at this point. It's about the process. It's our process, and should be preserved. When witnesses give different answers and accounts depending on whose asking, I cry BS.
Click to expand...

These were fact witnesses, not opinion witnesses and yet the trumpers (Nunes and presumptively you) kept asking them to make unqualified presumptions of guilt and jumping on the fact they wouldn't comment. Each witness plays a role in the totality of the fact finding process - none of the pieces of the testimony are more important or qualifying than the sum of each of those parts.

Also... MULVANEY ADMITTED IT - come to terms with that.

His guilt is undeniable and uncontested by testimony therefore the only thing you should be debating is whether it is an impeachable offense. If Trump wanted to be exonerated or defend himself through his surrogates or in person, he choose not to take that opportunity. That's a him problem, and stop blaming the dems for the process when they are simply following the process that the GOP made the rules for.
 
#25,800
#25,800
Mick said:
I'll wait until you find whatever alternative source you want to refute Wiki before I answer.
Click to expand...
I have found 2 sources. Neither of which refute Wiki. Reading through those now.

Wiki as a source here is denounced. That's why I am looking at other outlets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top