The Impeachment Thread

#31,257
#31,257
NCFisher said:
Well, no. The star witness was Sondland who eventually had to admit that he voicing nothing but his impression and that indeed the president told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, specifically no quid-pro-quo. Further, we see the president discussing investigations in to 2016 Ukrainian interference and potential Biden corruption (in Ukraine) as a favor to *us*, the "our country that's been through a lot".

That alone should have rationally dispelled the notion. But he further defers to have U.S. AG Barr discuss the matter with him. Now, we have a reciprocal agreement wth Ukraine for corruption investigations. Further, if I were demanding you do something to benefit me electorally, I damn sure wouldn't involve the Attorney General! This is Trump-Russia 2.0. Every "witness" was either a bureaucrat who didn't like Trump shaking their tree - a tree that he owns, BTW - or an academic trying to make a legal case of it. All of them giving us nothing more than THEIR opinions.

Tell me, how is the Obama administration publicly acknowledging they threatened to withhold congressionally-approved aid not a problem, but Trump NEVER doing that is a huge problem?
Click to expand...
LOL....Not this again.
He said that to Sonland AFTER he knew of the whistle blower. It was more an admission of guilt than anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#31,261
#31,261
Where is that kid that was going around saying Trump will go down as the greatest president in history ever? Lol
 
#31,264
#31,264
NCFisher said:
Well, no, it isn't debatable at all. Are you proposing that FBI and our intelligence apparatus - with "six ways to Sunday to get back at you" - can't nail Trump if the evidence exists? The IG report: that every single FBI procedural, legal, and ethical abuse of power, exculpatory omission, 'mistake' and 'error' - just coincidentally went against Trump and team? That is some biblical, pre-ordained bad fooking luck, eh?

Talk about low-hanging laziness.

You can stop doing what you admonish others for; collating. Such as collating the existence of Russian meddling with Trump or anyone associated with the campaign. Even thought "media reported it and government reported it" until they no longer could because it didn't happen. And because their agenda and bias did not allow them them to take a breath anytime in the three years prior to spring of 2019 and the release of the Let's Put Mueller's Name on This Report, the left never considered that the meme was a complete fabrication. Or simply didn't care that it was.

Yeah, we'll not be taking scolding from you today.
Click to expand...

Slow down champ, you're rambling about stuff I have not commented on.

If you want to address what I've stated, then by all means do so. Best practice here is to address the point I made, not the argument you want me to have. Strawman arguments are a dime a dozen around here, you aren't clever enough to sneak one in on me without it being noticed.

Now back to my point, if you can cite a single U.S. intelligence agency, just one, not named the White House that doesn't agree that Russia interfered in the election (and continues to do so) - I'd welcome the correction. But spare us your bellyaching of the FBI. They weren't the only one, the ODNI, CIA, NSA ,DOJ (trumps DOJ), the Senate intelligence committee and the House intelligence committee have capitulated it to be the case. Further, steer clear of trying to smuggle in the results of an unrelated IG report on FISA abuse as a crutch to shore up a bad argument - it's not relevant.

If you're going to continue to conflate every inference of the term "Russia" with the media's cries of "collusion," you're barking up the wrong tree. I've never believed there was collusion, but there was and still is interference - as I stated, it's not debatable.

Lastly, the word is conflate not collate, ya goof.
 
#31,266
#31,266
AM64 said:
Big deal - foreign interference has been going on for decades. Ever hear Radio Moscow back in the 60s or perhaps earlier. We had our own version called VOA (Voice of America). Countries have been attempting to influence elections ever since monarchies were pounded into the ground. Are you saying that people are more susceptible to "interference" today because they are dumber than we were 50 years ago? If that's the case, it's one of those rare times I think I could agree with you.
Click to expand...

Ironic post, your ilk loves to talk about how there wasn't any interference and here you are admitting russia's interference was no big deal.

Sounds like you need to get your stories straight.
 
#31,267
#31,267
GVF said:
Such careless commentary. You are all assuming she actually stopped last night.

{Fella up at community gas station last week toting a case of beer at 7AM out the door. I nodded and said "You startin early today?" "Nope, ain't stopped."}
Click to expand...
That’s dedication!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top