Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

This is the heart of the matter really. There has been no testimony from anyone who actually spoke to Trump that the aid was held up for his personnel gain. But since he’s seen as a lawless person his intent must be seen as lawless in the absence of proof. 

Mulvaney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Quit lying to yourself, this was not Trump's personal gain, our entire country benefits when truth is exposed. As executive, I am pretty sure it is ok to hold up funds at his discretion.

Oh I see the seven level chess now, he wanted to be caught to help the country! That was an amazing grift :banhammer:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rocket said:

Oh I see the seven level chess now, he wanted to be caught to help the country! That was an amazing grift :banhammer:

Caught at what?  He didn't do anything wrong.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toonkee said:

Mulvaney.

Said nothing about holding up money with the purpose of investigating the Biden’s, which is the alleged abuse of power.

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

KARL: That was a factor in withholding the money? 

MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ... We knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it — and that was the legality of the issue.

KARL: Let's be clear. What you just described is a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy. ... I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy. Elections have consequences.

Now I think the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory line of thinking is ludicrous. But there is certainly a national interest to look into what efforts a corrupt nation had made to meddle in our elections. There is no mention of the Biden’s or even Burisma in this statement. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Said nothing about holding up money with the purpose of investigating the Biden’s, which is the alleged abuse of power.

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

KARL: That was a factor in withholding the money? 

MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ... We knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it — and that was the legality of the issue.

KARL: Let's be clear. What you just described is a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy. ... I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy. Elections have consequences.

Now I think the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory line of thinking is ludicrous. But there is certainly a national interest to look into what efforts a corrupt nation had made to meddle in our elections. There is no mention of the Biden’s or even Burisma in this statement. 

However Volker and Sondland both said the investigations meant Burisma and Biden, and this is reinforced by the texts where the Ukranians drafted some generic anti-corruption statement and they basically said "close but we really need you to reference Burisma and 2016". 

I just don't see how one can look at the totality of the testimony and evidence and conclude there is no there, there. We don't need Trump admitting to someone what his intentions are to understand them. Multiple state Dept people testified they were operating under those conditions. So either they are all liars, gravely mistaken or Guiliani went rogue and the president knew nothing of this.  I find the possibility of those scenarios to be near 0. 

Also the call. Vindman testifies the read out memo referenced Burisma and Biden. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

There has been no testimony from anyone who actually spoke to Trump that the aid was held up for his personnel gain

 Trump himself has corroborated this with this by asking not only Ukraine but China as well for an investigation into Biden.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rudolro said:

First it's not Trump's money. Second Trump withheld money for his own gain.   I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt with Lebanon. But knowing him I'm sure there's something else holding up the funds because he doesn't give a shit about corruption.

Trump has been corrupt his whole life. Character doesn't change.

So when Obama asks for a political favor from Russians its okay.  At worst Trump asked for a political favor from the ukrainians and that isn't.

You are just a hypocrite.

Diplomacy for the U.S. since WWII has ment holding our aid over the heads of different countries leaders to get our way.   Nothing Trump did is anything different than what Truman, Eisenhower all the way through Obama did.  It is the most common thing the U.S. does with its money in foreign affairs.   It isn't a +++++ing crime moron it is his duty.

Now if you don't like it vote against him.  That's what i will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bluerules009 said:

So when Obama asks for a political favor from Russians its okay.  At worst Trump asked for a political favor from the ukrainians and that isn't.

Show me. You've been called on this bullshit before and have shown no proof.  Time to put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I have shown proof every time.  It is on video moron.

 

 

Moron? You're the biggest +++++tard on this board. I thought you would be tired of people teabagging you at this point

 

Edit:. That is most inaudible pice of crap ever.  What what was said? Do you have a transcript?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rudolro said:

Moron? You're the biggest +++++tard on this board. I thought you would be tired of people teabagging you at this point

 

Edit:. That is most inaudible pice of crap ever.  What what was said? Do you have a transcript?

Video proof of Obama asking for a political favor from a leader of another country.   If that won't convince you what will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rudolro said:

  If you can't see what he did was wrong nobody can convince you.  Sadly your in that 29% that would be ok if Trump shot someone on 5th Street.

He said quit lying to youself. So all those people testifying and all those people in prison, people convicted and/or indicted and we're lying to ourselves. There's not a debate, they're just mouthpieces. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rudolro said:

  If you can't see what he did was wrong nobody can convince you.  Sadly your in that 29% that would be ok if Trump shot someone on 5th Street.

Obama actually did assassinate an American citizen and his teenage son.

You didn't care.

 

So while what you say about Trump voters might be true.  We know without a doubt that Obama voters Like you and @Rocket, don't care about murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rocket said:

A mouthpieces job is to sow doubt and deflect from the facts. Obama is not being impeached, Trump is and rightly so.

You deflect really well.

I have never seen even a single fact or anything else change your mind on any subject.  You are rock solid in your stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 1:01 PM, tspoke said:

I'm confused by this, what eggs are all in the impeachment basket? Are you claiming they are putting everything into impeachment to get get trump removed from office? That the dems don't know that the senate will never remove him from office?

 

I really doubt there is one Democrat in Washington that is counting on impeachment removing trump from office. If we know it won't happen they certainly know it won't. 

But maybe just maybe they are moving ahead with impeachment because they believe it's the right thing to do even if the outcome is predetermined. 

They are ALL counting on impeachment to do in Trump.  Not to remove Trump from office by impeachment.  Buy a clue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You deflect really well.

I have never seen even a single fact or anything else change your mind on any subject.  You are rock solid in your stupidity.

Hey dipshit If Trump is so innocent then show us the facts. If he was innocent why did he not testify? Why did he block others from testifying? Why didn't he talk to Mueller? You're just a little bitchboy mouthpiece.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rocket said:

Hey dipshit If Trump is so innocent then show us the facts. If he was innocent why did he not testify? Why did he block others from testifying? Why didn't he talk to Mueller? You're just a little bitchboy mouthpiece.

 

When do we get to see the pee tape?  In all fairness, Trump deserves another first term.

 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...